4390 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 47, 48, 89, 91, and 

107 

[Docket No.: FAA–2019–1100; Amdt. Nos. 

1–75, 11–63, 47–31, 48–3, 89–1, 91–361, and 

107–7] 

RIN 2120–AL31 

Remote Identification of Unmanned 

Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action requires the 

remote identification of unmanned 

aircraft. The remote identification of 

unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the 

United States will address safety, 

national security, and law enforcement 

concerns regarding the further 

integration of these aircraft into the 

airspace of the United States, laying a 

foundation for enabling greater 

operational capabilities. 

DATES: 

Effective dates: This rule is effective 

March 16, 2021, except for amendatory 

instruction 19, adding subpart C to part 

89, which is effective September 16, 

2022. 

Incorporation by reference: The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of March 16, 2021. 

Compliance dates: Compliance with 

§§ 89.510 and 89.515 is required 

September 16, 2022. Compliance with 

§§ 89.105, 89.110, and 89.115, and 

subpart C of part 89 is required 

September 16, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Walsh, Flight Technologies and 

Procedures Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 470 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Suite 4102, Washington, DC, 20024; 

telephone 1–844–FLY–MY–UA (1–844– 

359–6981); email: UAShelp@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Remote Identification Requirements 

B. Registration Requirements 

C. Elimination of the Network-Based 

Remote Identification Requirement 

D. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

III. Background 

IV. Remote Identification of Unmanned 

Aircraft 

A. Clarification of Use of the Term 

Unmanned Aircraft in This Rule 

B. Purpose for the Remote Identification of 

Unmanned Aircraft 

C. Public Comments and FAA Response 

V. Terms Used in This Rule 

A. Definition of Unmanned Aircraft System 

B. Definition of Visual Line of Sight 

C. Definition of Broadcast 

D. Definition of Home-Built Unmanned 

Aircraft 

E. Definition of Declaration of Compliance 

F. Requests for Other Definitions 

VI. Applicability of Operating Requirements 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

B. Public Comments and FAA Response 

VII. Operating Requirements for Remote 

Identification 

A. Elimination of Network-Based Remote 

Identification Requirement 

B. Limited Remote Identification UAS 

C. Standard Remote Identification 

Unmanned Aircraft 

D. Remote Identification Broadcast 

Modules 

E. Other Broadcast Requirements 

Applicable to Standard Remote 

Identification Unmanned Aircraft and 

Unmanned Aircraft With Remote 

Identification Broadcast Modules 

F. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote 

Identification 

VIII. Message Elements and Minimum 

Performance Requirements: Standard 

Remote Identification Unmanned 

Aircraft 

A. Message Elements for Standard Remote 

Identification Unmanned Aircraft 

B. Minimum Performance Requirements 

for Standard Remote Identification 

Unmanned Aircraft 

C. Message Elements Performance 

Requirements for Standard Remote 

Identification Unmanned Aircraft 

IX. Message Elements and Minimum 

Performance Requirements: Remote 

Identification Broadcast Modules 

X. Privacy Concerns on the Broadcast of 

Remote Identification Information 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

B. Public Comments and FAA Response 

XI. Government and Law Enforcement 

Access to Remote Identification 

Information 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

B. Public Comments and FAA Response 

XII. FAA-Recognized Identification Areas 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

B. Eligibility 

C. Time Limit for Submitting an 

Application To Request an FAARecognized 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 FAARecognized Identification Area 

I. Termination by FAA and Petitions To 

Reconsider the FAA’s Decision To 

Terminate an FAA-Recognized 

Identification Area 

XIII. Means of Compliance 

A. Performance-Based Regulation 

B. Applicability and General Comments 

C. Submission of a Means of Compliance 

D. Acceptance of a Means of Compliance 

E. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a 

Means of Compliance 

F. Record Retention Requirements 

XIV. Remote Identification Design and 

Production 

A. Applicability of Design and Production 

Requirements 

B. Exceptions to the Applicability of 

Design and Production Requirements 

C. Requirement To Issue Serial Numbers 

D. Labeling Requirements 

E. Production Requirements 

F. Accountability 

G. Filing a Declaration of Compliance 

H. Acceptance of a Declaration of 

Compliance 

I. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a 

Declaration of Compliance 

J. Record Retention 

XV. Registration 

A. Aircraft Registration Requirements 

B. Registration Fees for the Registration of 

Individual Aircraft 

C. Information Included in the Application 

for Registration 

D. Proposed Changes to the Registration 

Requirements To Require a Serial 

Number as Part of the Registration 

Process 

E. Serial Number Marking 

F. Compliance Dates 

XVI. Foreign Registered Civil Unmanned 

Aircraft Operated in the United States 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

B. Public Comments and FAA Response 

XVII. ADS–B Out and Transponders for 

Remote Identification 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

B. Public Comments and FAA Response 

XVIII. Environmental Analysis 

A. Public Comments and FAA Response 

XIX. Effective and Compliance Dates 

A. Effective Date of This Rule 

B. Production Requirements Compliance 

Date 

C. Operational Requirements Compliance 

Date 

D. Incentives for Early Compliance 

XX. Comments on the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis—Benefits and Costs 

A. General Comments about Cost Impacts 

of the Rule 

B. Comments on Benefits and Cost Savings 

C. Comments on Data and Assumptions 

D. Comments on Regulatory Alternatives 

E. Miscellaneous Comments 

XXI. Guidance Documents 

XXII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

G. Environmental Analysis 

XXIII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4391 

1The 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 radioline-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. 

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 SurveillanceBroadcast 

AGL—above ground level 

ARC—Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

ATC—Air traffic control 

BVLOS—Beyond visual line of sight 

DOT—U.S. Department of Transportation 

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration 

GPS—Global Positioning System 

ICAO—International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

LAANC—Low Altitude Authorization and 

Notification Capability 

LOS—line-of-sight 

MOA—Memorandum of Agreement 

NPRM—notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

UAS—Unmanned aircraft system 

UAS–ID ARC—UAS Identification and 

Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

USS—UAS service supplier 

UTM—Unmanned aircraft systems traffic 

management 

VLOS—visual line of sight 

I. Executive Summary 

This rule establishes requirements for 

the remote identification of unmanned 

aircraft 1 operated in the airspace of the 

United States. Remote identification 

(commonly known as Remote ID) is the 

capability of an unmanned aircraft in 

flight to provide certain identification, 

location, and performance information 

that people on the ground and other 

airspace users can receive. The remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft is 

necessary to ensure public safety and 

the safety and efficiency of the airspace 

of the United States. Remote 

identification provides airspace 

awareness to the FAA, national security 

agencies, law enforcement entities, and 

other government officials. The 

information can be used to distinguish 

compliant airspace users from those 

potentially posing a safety or security 

risk. Remote identification will become 

increasingly important as the number of 

unmanned aircraft operations increases 

in all classes of airspace in the United 

States. While remote identification 

capability alone will not enable routine 

expanded operations, such as operations 

over people or beyond visual line of 

sight, it is the next incremental step 

toward enabling those operations. 

Unmanned aircraft operating in the 

airspace of the United States are subject 

to the operating requirements of this 

rule, irrespective of whether they are 

operating for recreational or commercial 

purposes. The rule requires operators to 

seek special authorization to operate 

unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification for aeronautical research 

and other limited purposes. 

Unmanned aircraft produced for 

operation in the airspace of the United 

States are subject to the production 

requirements of this rule. There are 

limited exceptions allowing the 

production of unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification, which 

include home-built unmanned aircraft 

and unmanned aircraft of the United 

States Government, amongst others. 

A. Remote Identification Requirements 

There are three ways to comply with 

the operational requirements for remote 

identification. The first way is to 

operate a standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft that broadcasts 

identification, location, and 

performance information of the 

unmanned aircraft and control station. 

The second way to comply is by 

operating an unmanned aircraft with a 

remote identification broadcast module. 

The broadcast module, which 

broadcasts identification, location, and 

take-off information, may be a separate 

device that is attached to an unmanned 

aircraft, or a feature built into the 

aircraft. The third way to comply allows 

for the operation of unmanned aircraft 

without any remote identification 

equipment, where the UAS is operated 

at specific FAA-recognized 

identification areas. The requirements 

for all three of these paths to 

compliance are specified in this rule. 

Except in accordance with the 

requirements of this rule, no unmanned 

aircraft can be produced for operation in 

the airspace of the United States after 

September 16, 2022, and no unmanned 

aircraft can be operated in the airspace 

of the United States after September 16, 

2023. 

1. Standard Remote Identification 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft broadcast the remote 

identification message elements directly 

from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff 

to shutdown. The required message 

elements include: (1) A unique 

identifier to establish the identity of the 

unmanned aircraft; (2) an indication of 

the unmanned aircraft latitude, 

longitude, geometric altitude, and 

velocity; (3) an indication of the control 

station latitude, longitude, and 

geometric altitude; (4) a time mark; and 

(5) an emergency status indication. 

Operators may choose whether to use 

the serial number of the unmanned 

aircraft or a session ID (e.g., an 

alternative form of identification that 

provides additional privacy to the 

operator) as the unique identifier. The 

required message elements for standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

are discussed in section VIII.A of this 

preamble. 

A person can operate a standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

only if: (1) It has a serial number that 

is listed on an FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance; (2) its remote 

identification equipment is functional 

and complies with the requirements of 

the rule from takeoff to shutdown; (3) its 

remote identification equipment and 

functionality have not been disabled; 

and (4) the Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration of the unmanned aircraft 

used in the operation must include the 

serial number of the unmanned aircraft, 

as per applicable requirements of parts 

47 and 48, or the serial number of the 

unmanned aircraft must be provided to 

the FAA in a notice of identification 

pursuant to § 89.130 prior to the 

operation. 

Persons operating a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft in the 

airspace of the United States must 

comply with the operational rules in 

subpart B of part 89 by September 16, 

2023. 

Operating requirements for standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

are discussed in greater detail in section 

VII.C of this preamble. 

4392 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

2Part 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. 

2. Remote Identification Broadcast 

Modules 

An unmanned aircraft can be 

equipped with a remote identification 

broadcast module that broadcasts 

message elements from takeoff to 

shutdown. The required message 

elements include: (1) The serial number 

of the broadcast module assigned by the 

producer; (2) an indication of the 

latitude, longitude, geometric altitude, 

and velocity of the unmanned aircraft; 

(3) an indication of the latitude, 

longitude, and geometric altitude of the 

unmanned aircraft takeoff location; and 

(4) a time mark. The required message 

elements for remote identification 

broadcast modules are discussed in 

section IX of this preamble. 

Persons can operate an unmanned 

aircraft equipped with a remote 

identification broadcast module only if: 

(1) The remote identification broadcast 

module meets the requirements of this 

rule; (2) the serial number of the remote 

identification broadcast module is listed 

on an FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance; (3) the Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration of the unmanned 

aircraft used in the operation includes 

the serial number of the remote 

identification broadcast module, or the 

serial number of the unmanned aircraft 

must be provided to the FAA in a notice 

of identification pursuant to § 89.130 

prior to the operation; (4) from takeoff 

to shutdown the remote identification 

broadcast module broadcasts the remote 

identification message elements from 

the unmanned aircraft; and (5) the 

person manipulating the flight controls 

of the unmanned aircraft system must 

be able to see the unmanned aircraft at 

all times throughout the operation. 

A person operating an unmanned 

aircraft equipped with a remote 

identification broadcast module in the 

airspace of the United States must 

comply with the operational rules in 

subpart B of part 89 by September 16, 

2023. 

The operating requirements for 

remote identification broadcast modules 

are discussed in greater detail in section 

VII.D of this preamble. 

3. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote 

Identification Equipment 

This rule requires all unmanned 

aircraft operating in the airspace of the 

United States to have remote 

identification capabilities, except as 

described below. 

Upon full implementation of this rule, 

most unmanned aircraft will have to be 

produced as standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. 

However, there will be some unmanned 

aircraft (e.g., home-built unmanned 

aircraft and existing unmanned aircraft 

produced prior to the date of 

compliance of the production 

requirements of this rule) that might not 

meet the requirements for standard 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft. 

Persons operating an unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification in 

the airspace of the United States must 

comply with the operational rules in 

subpart B of part 89 by September 16, 

2023. Unless operating under an 

exception to the remote identification 

operating requirements, a person 

operating an unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification must always 

operate within visual line of sight 2 and 

within an FAA-recognized 

identification area. 

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 FAArecognized identification areas on 

September 16, 2022. The FAA will 

maintain a list of FAA-recognized 

identification areas at https://

www.faa.gov. FAA-recognized 

identification areas are discussed 

further in section XII of this preamble. 

4. Prohibition Against the Use of ADS– 

B Out and Transponders 

This rule prohibits use of ADS–B Out 

and transponders for UAS operations 

under 14 CFR part 107 unless otherwise 

authorized by the FAA, and defines 

when ADS–B Out is appropriate for 

UAS operating under part 91. The FAA 

is concerned the potential proliferation 

of ADS–B Out transmitters on 

unmanned aircraft may negatively affect 

the safe operation of manned aircraft in 

the airspace of the United States. The 

projected numbers of unmanned aircraft 

operations have the potential to saturate 

available ADS–B frequencies, affecting 

ADS–B capabilities for manned aircraft 

and potentially blinding ADS–B ground 

receivers. Therefore, unmanned aircraft 

operators, with limited exceptions, are 

prohibited from using ADS–B Out or 

transponders. The prohibition against 

the use of ADS–B Out and transponders 

is discussed in section XVII of this 

preamble. 

Persons must comply with the ADS– 

B Out and transponder prohibition as of 

March 16, 2021. 

5. Design and Production 

Standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules must 

be designed and produced to meet the 

requirements of this rule. The FAA 

recognizes that UAS technology is 

continually evolving, making it 

necessary to harmonize new regulatory 

action with technological 

advancements. To promote that 

harmonization, the FAA is 

implementing performance-based 

requirements to describe the desired 

outcomes, goals, and results for remote 

identification without establishing a 

specific means or process for regulated 

entities to follow. 

A person designing or producing a 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or broadcast module 

for operation in the United States must 

show that the unmanned aircraft or 

broadcast module meets the 

requirements of an FAA-accepted means 

of compliance. A means of compliance 

describes the methods by which the 

person complies with the performancebased 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4393 

3A 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. 

4The 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. 

6As 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. 

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 

information from the means of 

compliance that has been marked as 

such. The FAA may disclose the nonproprietary broadcast specification and 

radio frequency spectrum so that 

sufficient information is available to 

develop receiving and processing 

equipment and software for the FAA, 

law enforcement, and members of the 

public. 

See section XIII of this preamble for 

more information on means of 

compliance and FAA acceptance. 

In addition, a person responsible for 

the production of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft (with 

limited exceptions) or remote 

identification broadcast modules is 

required to: 

• Issue each unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

a serial number that complies with the 

ANSI/CTA–2063–A serial number 

standard. 

• Label the unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

to indicate that it is remote 

identification compliant. 

• Submit a declaration of compliance 

for acceptance by the FAA, declaring 

that the standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast module 

complies with the requirements of the 

rule. 

A person producing a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft for 

operation in the airspace of the United 

States must comply with the 

requirements of subpart F of part 89 by 

September 16, 2022. 

A person producing a remote 

identification broadcast module must 

comply with the requirements of 

subpart F of part 89 by March 16, 2021. 

See the design and production 

requirements in section XIV of this 

preamble for more information about 

the production requirements for 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules, and 

the process for declarations of 

compliance. 

B. Registration Requirements 

The FAA proposed requiring all 

unmanned aircraft, including those used 

for limited recreational operations, to 

obtain a unique registration number. 

After reviewing comments and further 

consideration, the FAA decided not to 

adopt this requirement. Owners of small 

unmanned aircraft used in civil 

operations (including commercial 

operations), limited recreational 

operations,4 or public aircraft 

operations, among others, continue to be 

eligible to register the unmanned 

aircraft under part 48 in one of two 

ways: (1) Under an individual 

registration number issued to each 

unmanned aircraft; or (2) under a single 

registration number issued to an owner 

of multiple unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively for limited recreational 

operations. 

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 registrationrelated proposals made in the Remote 

Identification of Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems NPRM (‘‘the NPRM’’) (84 FR 

72438, Dec. 31, 2019). See section XV of 

this preamble for more information 

about registration requirements. 

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 

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 UASspecific 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 

4394 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

7This 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. 

8FAA 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. 

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

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)

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 FAArecognized identification areas. These 

changes also eliminate the requirement 

for a person to connect the unmanned 

aircraft to the internet. This shift allows 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

operate in areas where the internet is 

unavailable. As a result, the final rule 

reduces compliance costs compared to 

the proposed rule. 

The net costs of the final rule have 

decreased by about 60 percent as 

compared to the proposed rule. The 

NPRM stated that the primary estimate 

over a 10-year period of analysis for the 

proposed rule would have resulted in 

net present value costs of about $582 

million at a three percent discount rate 

with annualized net costs of about $68 

million. At a seven percent discount 

rate, the net present value costs for the 

proposed rule were about $474 million 

with annualized net costs of $67 

million. 

The FAA expects this rule will result 

in several important benefits and 

enhancements to support safety and 

security in the airspace of the United 

States. Remote identification provides 

information that helps address existing 

challenges faced by the FAA, law 

enforcement entities, and national 

security agencies responsible for the 

safety and security of the airspace of the 

United States. As unmanned aircraft 

operations increase, so does the risk of 

unmanned aircraft being operated in 

close proximity to manned aircraft, or 

people and property on the ground, or 

in airspace unsuitable for these 

operations. Remote identification 

provides a means to identify these 

aircraft and locate the person who 

controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in 

command). It allows the FAA, law 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4395 

9 49 CFR 5.5(e). 

10 80 FR 78594. 11 81 FR 42064. 

enforcement, and national security 

agencies to distinguish compliant 

airspace users from those potentially 

posing a safety or security risk. It 

permits the FAA and law enforcement 

to conduct oversight of persons 

operating UAS and to determine 

whether compliance actions, 

enforcement, educational, training, or 

other types of actions are needed to 

mitigate safety or security risks and 

foster increased compliance with 

regulations. Remote identification data 

also informs the public and users of the 

airspace of the United States of the local 

operations that are being conducted at 

any given moment. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle 

I, section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes the scope 

of the Agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and 

(2), which direct the FAA to issue 

regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of 

aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; 

and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for 

purposes of navigating, protecting and 

identifying aircraft, and protecting 

individuals and property on the ground. 

In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) 

charges the FAA with promoting safe 

flight of civil aircraft by prescribing 

regulations the FAA finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce and national 

security. 

Section 2202 of Public Law 114–190 

requires the Administrator to convene 

industry stakeholders to facilitate the 

development of consensus standards for 

remotely identifying operators and 

owners of UAS and associated 

unmanned aircraft and to issue 

regulations or guidance based on any 

standards developed. 

The Administrator has authority 

under 49 U.S.C. 44805 to establish a 

process for, among other things, 

accepting risk-based consensus safety 

standards related to the design and 

production of small UAS. Under 49 

U.S.C. 44805(b)(7), one of the 

considerations the Administrator must 

take into account prior to accepting 

such standards is any consensus 

identification standard regarding remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft 

developed pursuant to section 2202 of 

Public Law 114–190. 

In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44809(f) 

provides that the Administrator is not 

prohibited from promulgating rules 

generally applicable to unmanned 

aircraft, including those UAS eligible for 

the exception for limited recreational 

operations of unmanned aircraft. Among 

other things, this authority extends to 

rules relating to the registration and 

marking of unmanned aircraft and the 

standards for remotely identifying 

owners and operators of UAS and 

associated unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA has authority to regulate 

registration of aircraft under 49 U.S.C. 

44101–44106 and 44110–44113, which 

require aircraft to be registered as a 

condition of operation, and to establish 

the registration requirements and 

registration processes. 

This rulemaking is also promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the 

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules, and 

49 U.S.C. 40101(d), which authorizes 

the FAA to consider in the public 

interest, among other things, the 

enhancement of safety and security as 

the highest priorities in air commerce, 

the regulation of civil and military 

operations in the interest of safety and 

efficiency, and assistance to law 

enforcement agencies in the 

enforcement of laws related to 

regulation of controlled substances, to 

the extent consistent with aviation 

safety. 

Finally, this rulemaking is also being 

issued consistent with DOT’s regulatory 

policy which requires that DOT 

regulations ‘‘be technologically neutral, 

and, to the extent feasible, they should 

specify performance objectives, rather 

than prescribing specific conduct that 

regulated entities must adopt.’’ 9

III. Background 

The rapid proliferation of unmanned 

aircraft has created significant 

opportunities and challenges for their 

integration into the airspace of the 

United States. The relatively low cost of 

highly capable UAS technology has 

allowed for hundreds of thousands of 

new operators to enter the aviation 

community. 

The complexities surrounding the full 

integration of UAS into the airspace of 

the United States have led the FAA to 

engage in a phased, incremental, and 

risk-based approach to rulemaking 

based on the statutory authorities 

delegated to the Agency. On December 

16, 2015, the Administrator and 

Secretary jointly published an interim 

final rule in the Federal Register titled 

Registration and Marking Requirements 

for Small Unmanned Aircraft 

(‘‘Registration Rule’’),10 which provides 

for a web-based aircraft registration 

process for small unmanned aircraft in 

14 CFR part 48 that serves as an 

alternative to the registration 

requirements for aircraft established in 

14 CFR part 47. The Registration Rule 

imposes marking requirements on small 

unmanned aircraft registered under part 

48, according to which the small 

unmanned aircraft must display a 

unique identifier in a manner that is 

visible upon inspection. The unique 

identifier could be the registration 

number issued to an individual or to the 

small unmanned aircraft by the FAA 

Registry or the small unmanned 

aircraft’s serial number if authorized by 

the Administrator and provided with 

the application for the certificate of 

aircraft registration. 

On June 28, 2016, the FAA and DOT 

jointly published the final rule for 

Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (‘‘the 2016 

Rule’’) in the Federal Register.11 This 

was an important step towards the 

integration of civil small UAS 

operations (for aircraft weighing less 

than 55 pounds) into the airspace of the 

United States. The 2016 Rule set the 

initial operational structure and certain 

restrictions to allow routine civil 

operations of small UAS in the airspace 

of the United States in a safe manner. 

Prior to the 2016 Rule, the FAA 

authorized commercial UAS operations, 

including but not limited to real estate 

photography, precision agriculture, and 

infrastructure inspection, under section 

333 of Public Law 112–95. Over 5,500 

operators received this authorization. 

The FAA also issued over 900 

Certificates of Waiver or Authorization 

(COA), allowing Federal, State, and 

local governments, law enforcement 

agencies, and public universities to 

perform numerous tasks with UAS, 

including but not limited to search-andrescue, 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 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 

4396 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

12See, e.g., 14 CFR 107.41 (requiring prior FAA 

authorization for small unmanned aircraft operation 

in certain types of airspace). 

13See 49 U.S.C. 44809. 

14 84 FR 3669. 15 84 FR 3856. 16 84 FR 3732. 

section 333 of Public Law 112–95 

became routine operations. With some 

exceptions,12 these operations are now 

permitted without further interaction 

with the FAA if they comply with the 

requirements of part 107. Publishing 

part 107 was the first significant 

regulatory step to enable lower risk, less 

complex UAS operations in the airspace 

of the United States. 

Part 107 opened the airspace of the 

United States to the vast majority of 

routine small UAS operations, allowing 

flight within visual line of sight while 

maintaining flexibility to accommodate 

future technological innovations. Part 

107 allows individuals to request 

waivers from certain provisions, 

including those prohibiting operations 

over people and beyond visual line of 

sight. Petitions for waivers from the 

provisions of part 107 must demonstrate 

that the petitioner has provided 

sufficient mitigations to safely conduct 

the requested operation. 

On October 5, 2018, Congress enacted 

Public Law 115–254, also known as the 

FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. The 

FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 

amended part A of subtitle VII of title 

49, United States Code by inserting a 

new chapter 448 titled Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems and incorporating 

additional authorities and mandates to 

support the further integration of UAS 

into the airspace of the United States, 

including several provisions that 

specifically deal with the need for 

remote identification of UAS. Section 

376 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

2018 requires the FAA to perform 

testing of remote identification 

technology, and to assess the use of 

remote identification for the 

development of unmanned aircraft 

systems traffic management (UTM). 

Additional congressional action 

supports the implementation of remote 

identification requirements for most 

UAS. Section 349 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2018 goes so far 

as to indicate that the Administrator 

may promulgate rules requiring remote 

identification of UAS and apply those 

rules to UAS used for limited 

recreational operations.13 The provision 

denotes Congress’ acknowledgment that 

remote identification is an essential part 

of the UAS regulatory framework. 

On February 13, 2019, the FAA 

published three rulemaking documents 

in the Federal Register as part of the 

next phase of integrating small UAS into 

the airspace of the United States. The 

first of such documents was an interim 

final rule titled ‘‘External Marking 

Requirement for Small Unmanned 

Aircraft,’’ 14 in which the FAA required 

small unmanned aircraft owners to 

display the registration number assigned 

by the FAA on an external surface of the 

aircraft. The second rulemaking 

document was a notice of proposed 

rulemaking titled ‘‘Operation of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over 

People,’’ 15 in which the FAA proposed 

to allow operations of small unmanned 

aircraft over people in certain 

conditions and operations of small UAS 

at night without obtaining a waiver. The 

third rulemaking document was an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

titled ‘‘Safe and Secure Operations of 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems,’’ 16

in which the FAA sought information 

from the public on whether, and under 

which circumstances, the FAA should 

promulgate new rules to require standoff 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 

aircraft. Unmanned aircraft producers 

are responsible for ensuring that the 

unmanned aircraft comply with the 

design and production requirements of 

this rule even when the unmanned 

aircraft uses control station equipment 

(such as a smart phone) or 

communication links manufactured by a 

different person. The unmanned aircraft 

producer must address how any 

dependencies on control station 

functionality are incorporated as part of 

the remote identification design and 

production requirements. 

B. Purpose for the Remote Identification 

of Unmanned Aircraft 

UAS are fundamentally changing 

aviation and the FAA is committed to 

working to fully integrate them into the 

airspace of the United States. The next 

step in that integration is enabling 

unmanned aircraft operations over 

people and at night. Remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft is a 

critical element to enable those 

operations that addresses safety and 

security concerns. 

Remote identification is the capability 

of an unmanned aircraft in flight to 

provide identification, location, and 

performance information that people on 

the ground and other airspace users can 

receive. In its most basic form, remote 

identification can be described as an 

electronic identification or a ‘‘digital 

license plate’’ for UAS. 

Remote identification provides 

information that helps address existing 

challenges of the FAA, law enforcement 

entities, and national security agencies 

responsible for the safety and security of 

the airspace of the United States. As a 

wider variety of UAS operations such as 

operations over people are made 

available, the risk of unmanned aircraft 

being operated in an unsafe manner, 

such as in close proximity to people and 

property on the ground, is increased. 

Remote identification provides a means 

to identify these aircraft and locate the 

person who controls them (e.g., 

operators, pilots in command). It allows 

the FAA, law enforcement, and national 

security agencies to distinguish 

compliant airspace users from those 

potentially posing a safety or security 

risk. It permits the FAA and law 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4397 

17Though 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. 

18Section 2209 requires ‘‘the Secretary of 

Transportation to establish a process to allow 

applicants to petition the Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit or 

restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in 

close proximity to a fixed site facility.’’ The FAA 

Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016, Public 

Law 114–190, sec. 2209, 130 Stat. 615, 633–635 

(2016). 

enforcement to conduct oversight of 

persons operating unmanned aircraft 

and to determine whether compliance 

actions, enforcement, educational, 

training, or other types of actions are 

needed to mitigate safety or security 

risks and foster increased compliance 

with regulations. 

The requirements for the 

identification of manned and unmanned 

aircraft form an integral part of the 

FAA’s regulatory framework. Prior to 

this rule, the requirements included 

aircraft registration and marking and 

electronic identification using 

transponders and Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B). This 

rule creates a new regulation, 14 CFR 

part 89, which establishes the remote 

identification requirements for 

unmanned aircraft. These requirements 

are particularly important for unmanned 

aircraft because the person operating the 

unmanned aircraft is not onboard the 

aircraft, creating challenges for 

associating the aircraft with its operator. 

In addition, the small size of many 

unmanned aircraft means the 

registration marking is only visible upon 

close inspection, making visual 

identification of unmanned aircraft in 

flight difficult or impossible. 

As discussed in the NPRM, the remote 

identification framework is necessary to 

enable expanded UAS operations and 

further integration. This final rule scales 

that framework to support the next steps 

in that integration: Operations over 

people and operations at night. Though 

the NPRM discussed remote 

identification as a building block for 

UAS Traffic Management (UTM), the 

FAA has determined that, at this time, 

this rule will only finalize the 

broadcast-based remote identification 

requirements. See section VII.A of this 

preamble for a discussion on the FAA’s 

decision to eliminate network-based 

remote identification requirements at 

this time. The broadcast-based approach 

of this rule contains the minimum 

requirements necessary to allow for 

remote identification of unmanned 

aircraft under the current operational 

rules. 

C. Public Comments and FAA Response 

1. General Support for Remote 

Identification 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed general support for the 

NPRM, including the Helicopter 

Association International, the League of 

California Cities, and, commenting 

jointly, the Michigan Department of 

Transportation Office of Aeronautics, 

Michigan Aeronautics Commission, and 

Michigan Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Task Force. Most commenters in 

support of the rule cited improvements 

to safety and privacy. Commenters 

expressed that with UAS becoming 

increasingly widespread, the rule would 

make identification easier, increase the 

safety of airspace, particularly for 

manned aircraft operating at the same 

altitudes as unmanned aircraft, and 

protect citizens’ privacy.17

The International Association of 

Amusement Parks and Attractions 

supported the rule, stating that the rule 

would enhance situational awareness 

and foster accountability of the operator 

and improved knowledge for the FAA, 

law enforcement, and operators of 

certain facilities identified by Congress 

in section 2209 of the FAA Extension, 

Safety and Security Act of 2016.18 The 

Edison Electric Institute, American 

Public Power Association, and National 

Rural Electric Association, commenting 

jointly, expressed support for the rule 

and for FAA’s real-time access to UAS 

location information, particularly over 

energy infrastructure. Various 

institutions of higher education 

expressed support for remote 

identification and mentioned it would 

assist law enforcement agencies 

affiliated with said institutions to better 

identify UAS operators, particularly 

where the UAS poses risk or nuisance 

to bystanders, facilities, or other aircraft. 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board stated it had no technical 

objections provided the FAA can ensure 

that remote identification functions do 

not interfere with aviation safety. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges the support of 

commenters and finalizes this rule and 

related policies to implement a remote 

identification framework that provides 

near-real time information regarding 

unmanned aircraft operations and 

increases situational awareness of 

unmanned aircraft to the public, 

operators of other aircraft, law 

enforcement and security officials, and 

other related entities. 

2. General Opposition to Remote 

Identification 

The FAA received a multitude of 

comments opposing remote 

identification. Many of the commenters 

opposed the concept, as a whole, while 

others expressed opposition to specific 

aspects, concepts, or proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Comments: Among the comments 

expressing general disagreement with 

the proposed rule was one of the two 

form letters written and submitted by 

the First Person View Freedom 

Coalition (FPVFC) and 90 of its 

members. The commenters argued that 

the proposed rule would have many 

negative effects, including destroying 

the hobby of building and flying 

recreational remote controlled aircraft, 

making the sport of drone racing illegal, 

ending the ‘‘multi-million [dollar] 

cottage industry around home built 

drones,’’ outlawing ‘‘acrobatic drone 

videography,’’ imposing costs on both 

hobbyists and the drone industry by 

making current fleets obsolete, and 

making criminals of hobbyists. These 

commenters asked the FAA to rewrite 

the proposed rule with input from the 

FPVFC and Academy of Model 

Aeronautics (AMA). Similar concerns 

were common among many other 

commenters who opposed the NPRM in 

general terms. Instead of finalizing the 

rule as proposed, a member of the 

executive board for the AMA suggested 

the FAA adopt a ‘‘technology agnostic’’ 

approach to remote identification, so a 

variety of technical solutions could be 

used to meet the remote identification 

needs. 

The most common objections to the 

proposed rule were that it would 

impose burdens and costs that would 

make it difficult or impossible for 

hobbyists to fly model aircraft; that it 

would impose an unnecessary financial 

burden on UAS or model aircraft 

owners; and that it would harm or end 

the recreational UAS hobby. 

Commenters noted that it would be very 

difficult to upgrade many existing UAS 

because of the burden of carrying and 

powering new equipment such as 

navigation receivers and remote 

identification transmitters. They argued 

that this would reduce available flight 

time and could affect safety of 

operations if the additional weight is 

excessive. The FPVFC form letter and 

many other comments included similar 

objections. 

Many commenters, including 33 

persons who submitted a form letter 

addressed as the ‘‘Traditional Hobbyist 

Form Letter Campaign,’’ argued that the 

proposed rule would not achieve its 

4398 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

objectives of providing safety for the 

airspace of the United States and 

protecting national security. Many of 

these commenters questioned whether 

the FAA provided an adequate 

justification for the proposed rule, with 

many commenters stating the FAA has 

not demonstrated that UAS are 

dangerous. The commenters questioned 

the need for the rule, often stating that 

existing regulations and standards are 

sufficient for protecting public safety. 

They mentioned that historically UAS 

have not been dangerous and have not 

caused fatalities and indicated the FAA 

should concentrate on enforcing current 

rules. A related and separate statement 

repeatedly made by commenters was 

that model aircraft are not dangerous. 

These comments often distinguish 

between model aircraft and other UAS, 

stating that model aircraft are not 

dangerous because they must remain in 

the pilot’s visual line of sight to stay 

airborne due to lack of navigation 

equipment, flight planning capability, 

flight stabilization, first person view 

capability, or automation that is 

common on newer UAS. Some 

commenters saw the proposed rule as an 

attempt to privatize the airspace in 

which UAS and model aircraft operate. 

Commenters indicated remote 

identification would have negative 

effects. Many stated the proposed rule 

would harm innovation in the UAS 

industry. Others believed it would harm 

the educational and research potential 

of UAS or model aviation. Commenters 

pointed to model aviation driving young 

people’s interest in science, technology, 

engineering, and math fields and 

aviation; and providing educational 

benefits that relate to these fields. Those 

commenters believed the rule would 

contribute to exacerbating a national 

shortage of manned aircraft pilots. 

Many commenters believed the rule 

would be unenforceable. A related 

argument was that only lawful flyers 

would follow the rules and that the rule 

would do nothing to change the 

behavior of bad actors. Some expressed 

concerns for widespread noncompliance 

with the rule. 

A significant number of commenters 

opposed any regulation of UAS used for 

recreational operations. 

A number of commenters believed 

remote identification requirements for 

UAS are stricter than ADS–B Out or 

transponder requirements for manned 

aircraft. Several commenters suggested 

permitting UAS operations without 

remote identification in uncontrolled 

airspace and away from airports, similar 

to the requirements for ADS–B Out that 

only apply in certain airspace. 

Commenters also stated that manned 

aircraft should be required to broadcast 

ADS–B Out in all airspace if all UAS are 

required to transmit remote 

identification. Several commenters also 

noted that manned aircraft were offered 

grants and rebates to help cover the cost 

of ADS–B implementation and had over 

10 years to equip for ADS–B Out 

compared to the shorter implementation 

time proposed for remote identification. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges the significant number of 

comments opposing the proposed 

regulation and related policies. After 

further consideration of public 

comments, the FAA has modified some 

of the remote identification policies in 

the final rule, as further discussed 

throughout this preamble, to reduce the 

burdens on unmanned aircraft operators 

and producers while maintaining the 

necessary requirements to address the 

safety and security needs of the FAA, 

law enforcement, and national security 

agencies. The FAA does not agree with 

commenters who believed remote 

identification will harm innovation in 

the UAS industry. On the contrary, the 

Agency believes that this performancebased regulation provides opportunities 

for innovation and growth of the UAS 

industry by addressing the security 

concerns associated with unmanned 

aircraft flight at night and over people. 

In addition, the FAA does not agree that 

the remote identification requirements 

are stricter than ADS–B Out 

requirements. Remote identification has 

fewer technical requirements compared 

to ADS–B, and this rule provides 

accommodations for unmanned aircraft 

operations without remote 

identification. 

The FAA does not agree that the 

requirements of this rule are 

unenforceable. In fact, the enforcement 

mechanism for this rule will in many 

respects parallel existing regulatory 

compliance activities for manned 

aviation. The Agency intends to meet its 

statutory and regulatory compliance and 

enforcement responsibilities by 

following a documented compliance 

and enforcement program that includes 

legal enforcement action, including civil 

penalties and certificate actions, as 

appropriate, to address violations and 

help deter future violations. 

Many commenters opposed remote 

identification because they believed it 

would impact the recreational UAS 

community. The remote identification 

requirements apply to unmanned 

aircraft operating in the airspace of the 

United States irrespective of what the 

unmanned aircraft are being used for. 

However, the FAA has incorporated 

additional flexibilities into this rule to 

facilitate compliance with the remote 

identification requirements. For 

example, an operator of an unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification 

can now retrofit the unmanned aircraft 

with a remote identification broadcast 

module to identify remotely. See section 

VII.D of this preamble for further 

discussion of remote identification 

broadcast modules. 

The Agency has also eliminated the 

requirement to transmit remote 

identification message elements through 

the internet to a Remote ID USS, which 

will decrease costs to operators by 

eliminating the potential for 

subscription fees. See section VII.A of 

this preamble for further discussion on 

the elimination of the limited remote 

identification UAS concept. The revised 

rule also increases the availability of 

FAA-recognized identification areas 

where operations may occur without 

remote identification equipment. See 

section XII of this preamble for further 

discussion on FAA-recognized 

identification areas. The FAA also 

revised the definition of amateur-built 

UAS as discussed in section V.D of this 

preamble. The term is now addressed in 

this rule as home-built unmanned 

aircraft. 

3. Alternatives Proposed by 

Commenters 

Many commenters, including the 

Academy of Model Aeronautics, 

AirMap, American Farm Bureau 

Federation, the Experimental Aircraft 

Association, Flite Test, Kittyhawk, and 

the Small UAV Coalition noted that the 

best path to widespread compliance is 

a simple, affordable solution. They 

recommended an application-based 

interface that would permit a UAS 

operator to self-declare an operational 

area and time either at the beginning, or 

in advance of, operations in areas where 

internet service might not be available, 

similar to current LAANC 

implementations. Some commenters 

suggested either a smart phone 

application or phone-in option where 

UAS operators could reserve a small 

block of airspace so other nonparticipating UAS could voluntarily reroute 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 preflight registration via the internet where 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4399 

operators would indicate their 

destination, flight parameters, and time 

of operation. Streamline Designs 

suggested permitting UAS that selfreport location to operate in rural 

locations. 

Wing Aviation suggested revising 

limited remote identification UAS to 

permit recreational operations within 

VLOS for UAS that are not highly 

automated and not available for sale to 

third parties, provided that operators 

declare their operational intent to a 

Remote ID USS. The intent information 

would include the flight area, maximum 

height AGL, earliest and latest 

operations times, and the actual or 

expected location of the ground control 

station, while also requiring the 

operator to share actual control station 

location if the internet is available. 

SenseFly also supported uploading a 

flight plan and stated that this type of 

identification would give adequate 

information, especially for a short-range 

flight, such as those limited to a 400- 

foot range. The U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce Technology Engagement 

Center recommended permitting remote 

identification UAS to continue to 

operate without a persistent connection 

to a Remote ID USS if operators declare 

their identifier and flight intent to 

provide situation awareness for other 

airspace users. 

Kittyhawk stated that network-based 

solutions are the most agile, scalable, 

and information-rich, but also 

recommended providing a variety of 

options to better achieve remote 

identification compliance. They 

proposed a three-tier solution that 

would permit volume-based 

reservations without requiring network 

or broadcast remote identification 

information for UAS operations in 

VLOS below 200 feet in Class G airspace 

and 100 feet in controlled airspace, as 

well as UAS operations within VLOS 

below 400 feet with volume-based 

reservations and transmission of remote 

identification information by either 

broadcast or network. 

One commenter suggested permitting 

the installation of Broadcom chips in 

UAS so they could be tracked similar to 

cellular phones. One commenter 

suggested the FAA supply RFID tags to 

track each UAS for a fee upon 

completion of their UAS knowledge 

test. Several commenters, including the 

American Property Casualty Insurance 

Association, suggested remote 

identification data could be stored 

locally and uploaded after flight in areas 

with no internet coverage. The New 

Hampshire Department of 

Transportation assumed that many 

retrofit UAS would become limited 

remote identification UAS and 

recommended permitting those UAS to 

operate when the internet is not 

available if equipped with an anticollision beacon that is visible for at 

least 3 statute miles to increase 

conspicuity for manned aircraft. 

FAA Response: The FAA considered 

the alternative approaches proposed by 

commenters and assessed whether they 

met the needs of the FAA, law 

enforcement, and national security 

agencies to ensure the safety and 

efficiency of the airspace of the United 

States sufficient to enable unmanned 

aircraft to fly over people and at night. 

The Agency agrees with commenters 

that a retrofit option could enable 

operators to meet the remote 

identification requirements of this rule. 

Therefore, the FAA adopts the concept 

in this rule by incorporating operating 

requirements, discussed in section VII.D 

of this preamble, and production 

requirements, discussed in section 

XIV.E.3 of this preamble, to permit the 

production and use of remote 

identification broadcast modules. A 

person may now equip an unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification 

with a remote identification broadcast 

module to enable the unmanned aircraft 

to identify remotely. 

At this time, the FAA has determined 

that the other options proposed by 

commenters do not meet the needs of 

the Agency or are outside the scope of 

this rule. For example, the volumebased 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 anticollision 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. 

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 homebuilt kits and models with 

interchangeable parts. Commenters also 

cited a lack of clarity regarding when 

the communication links are considered 

part of the UAS. In addition, some 

commenters stated the definition of 

UAS was not detailed enough and 

recommended it be amended to list the 

specific components that are covered. 

FAA Response: Congress established 

the definition of unmanned aircraft 

system in 49 U.S.C. 44801(12). 

Therefore, the FAA adopts the 

definition of unmanned aircraft system 

as proposed. The FAA also considers 

that any kit containing all the parts and 

instructions necessary to assemble a 

UAS would meet this definition. As 

further explained in section XIV.B.2 of 

this preamble, producers of complete 

kits offered for sale are subject to the 

production requirements of this rule. 

B. Definition of Visual Line of Sight 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that the term 

visual line of sight means the ability of 

a person manipulating the flight 

4400 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 broadcastonly solution for the time being. 

Therefore, the FAA will not be adopting 

the definition in this rule. 

D. Definition of Home-Built Unmanned 

Aircraft 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that amateur-built 

unmanned aircraft system be defined in 

part 89 as ‘‘an unmanned aircraft 

system, the major portion of which has 

been fabricated and assembled by a 

person who undertook the construction 

project solely for their own education or 

recreation.’’ Under this proposal, the 

person building the amateur-built UAS 

would have been required to fabricate 

and assemble at least 50 percent of the 

UAS. After reviewing comments and 

further consideration, the FAA relabeled 

this definition as home-built unmanned 

aircraft and eliminated the fabrication 

and major portion requirements for the 

reasons explained in the responses to 

comments below. Accordingly, this rule 

finalizes the definition of home-built 

unmanned aircraft as an unmanned 

aircraft that an individual built solely 

for education or recreation. 

This rule adopts the term home-built 

unmanned aircraft as opposed to homebuilt UAS to reflect the changes 

discussed in section IV.A of this 

preamble. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

i. Fabrication and Assembly 

Comments: The FAA received 

numerous comments arguing that the 

proposed definition of amateur-built 

unmanned aircraft system failed to 

account for common ways that amateur 

builders of unmanned aircraft put 

together UAS. These commenters noted 

that it is not common practice for 

builders of amateur unmanned aircraft 

to fabricate UAS components and that 

UAS are often assembled by hobbyists 

from a variety of different levels of kits 

or prefabricated components. 

Commenters also pointed out that many 

typical components of home-built UAS 

are electrical and difficult for the 

average hobbyist to fabricate on his or 

her own. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 

University—Prescott Campus 

mentioned that its students assemble 

unmanned aircraft from parts purchased 

online but do not fabricate the parts that 

are necessary for the assembly of an 

unmanned aircraft. They noted that 

meeting the production requirements of 

the proposed rule would be overly 

burdensome for students. 

Many commenters also requested a 

revised definition for amateur-built UAS 

that would account for changes to 

significant parts of a design of a UAS. 

Many commenters took issue with the 

‘‘major portion’’ (fabricating and 

assembling at least 50 percent or more 

of the UAS) requirement of the 

proposed definition for amateur-built 

UAS. The Small UAV Coalition believed 

manufacturer performance requirements 

should not apply to unmanned aircraft 

built for recreational operations or 

personal use. They believed these 

unmanned aircraft should not be 

defined based on what they perceived as 

an arbitrary percentage threshold, for 

parts or ambiguous ‘‘fabrication 

assessments.’’ The Berks County Aero 

Modelers & Lehigh Valley Radio Control 

Society asserted the ‘‘51 percent rule for 

amateur build models’’ was not 

practical and agreed with the UAS 

Identification and Tracking Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee 

recommendations to exempt amateurbuilt, 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 amateurbuilt 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 FAArecognized 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4401 

remote identification broadcast modules 

in greater detail. 

Comments: A few commenters 

proposed to expand the definition of 

amateur-built UAS to all incomplete 

UAS, including ‘‘scratch built from 

plans,’’ models built from parts, or 

models built from kits of subassemblies 

and pieces that lack radio control 

receiver electronics. One commenter 

proposed focusing on intended use and 

asked the FAA to use the following 

definition: ‘‘any UAS that requires some 

final assembly before flight that requires 

continual input from the operator 

throughout the entire flight from launch 

to recovery.’’ The New Hampshire 

Department of Transportation 

mentioned that the definition of 

‘‘amateur built’’ UAS should be 

broadened to include UAS built entirely 

from pre-fabricated parts, including 

parts such as electronics that cannot be 

fabricated. They also warned of 

compliance issues when operators 

replace a part for a UAS that they 

originally assembled from a kit 

containing 100 percent of the parts 

necessary to assemble a complete and 

functional UAS. The Academy of Model 

Aeronautics recommended the 

definition of amateur-built UAS should 

include UAS with parts purchased and 

assembled by an individual. In their 

view, there is no verifiable increase in 

safety risk for aircraft with less than 50 

percent fabrication and construction by 

the builder and the rule should 

eliminate or greatly reduce the required 

percentage of self-manufactured 

components. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

commenters that unmanned aircraft are 

not built by hobbyists with the same 

degrees of fabrication as amateur-built 

manned aircraft. This rule removes the 

major portion requirement; the 

definition now includes any unmanned 

aircraft that an individual built solely 

for education or recreation. This 

definition would include any level of 

assembly of the unmanned aircraft so 

long as that assembly was done solely 

for education or recreation of the 

individual building the UAS. The FAA 

considers that the individual 

constructing the home-built unmanned 

aircraft, even if through assembly alone, 

is not responsible for meeting the 

production requirements of the final 

rule. A hobbyist assembling an 

unmanned aircraft from a complete kit 

that contains all the parts and 

instructions to assemble an unmanned 

aircraft would not be responsible for 

meeting the production requirements of 

this rule. However, the company that 

produced that complete kit would be 

required to meet the production 

requirements. As discussed in section 

VII of this preamble, persons operating 

these unmanned aircraft continue to be 

subject to the operating rules of part 89, 

so a home-built unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification can only 

be operated in an FAA-recognized 

identification area, unless it can identify 

remotely in accordance with this rule 

(e.g., by equipping the home-built 

unmanned aircraft with a remote 

identification broadcast module). 

To distinguish this type of unmanned 

aircraft from its manned aircraft 

counterpart, this rule adopts the 

definition as home-built unmanned 

aircraft rather than as amateur-built 

unmanned aircraft system. As explained 

in section IV.A of this preamble, the 

remote identification requirements 

apply to the operation, and the design 

and production of unmanned aircraft. 

Therefore, this adopted definition is 

specific to unmanned aircraft, not the 

entire UAS. 

ii. Education or Recreation 

Comments: Commenters generally 

supported the requirement that amateurbuilt 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 remotecontrolled aviation community. Some 

commenters suggested that amateurbuilt be defined as UAS restricted to 

non-commercial use or with no flights 

over people or with limited weight. 

Several commenters felt the FAA should 

define ‘‘amateur-built UAS’’ based upon 

restricted operation such as limiting to 

recreational or educational flights with 

‘‘non-autonomous’’ flight control, flights 

within line of sight, and flights 

restricted to uncontrolled airspace or 

requiring Low Altitude Authorization 

and Notification Capability (LAANC) 

approval for controlled airspace. 

FAA Response: The FAA adopts the 

requirement that the unmanned aircraft 

be built for the education or recreation 

of the builder, as proposed. The FAA 

declines to add operating restrictions on 

the use of home-built unmanned 

aircraft, finding that existing operating 

rules are sufficient to ensure safety. For 

example, when a home built aircraft is 

flown under part 107, it is restricted in 

being able to fly over people, its weight 

cannot exceed 55 pounds, and it cannot 

enter certain classes of airspace without 

authorization. Similarly, a home-built 

unmanned aircraft flown recreationally 

under 49 U.S.C. 44809 remains subject 

to the requirements of that section, such 

as remaining within visual line of sight 

and complying with the requirement to 

receive authorization for flights in 

certain classes of airspace. In addition, 

home-built unmanned aircraft remain 

subject to the remote identification 

operating requirements of this rule. 

iii. Other Comments Received 

Comments: Some commenters 

suggested the definition of amateur-built 

UAS should include any UAS with 

limited capability or any model aircraft 

operated exclusively at an FAArecognized identification area. 

FAA Response: The FAA finds that 

commenters’ definition would create far 

too wide of an exception to the remote 

identification production requirements, 

undermining the effectiveness of remote 

identification. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

changing the ‘‘amateur-built’’ definition 

to include any model aircraft produced 

without a radio receiver or flight control 

system. 

FAA Response: The FAA considers 

that such aircraft would be considered 

home-built unmanned aircraft if they 

were assembled for educational and 

recreational purposes but does not 

choose to limit home-built unmanned 

aircraft to only the model aircraft 

mentioned by the commenter. 

Comments: One commenter proposed 

the amateur-built definition should be 

based around the language used by the 

Academy of Model Aeronautics for 

radio-controlled aircraft. 

FAA Response: Though the FAA 

expects many home-built unmanned 

aircraft will be similar to the radiocontrolled 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 

4402 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

equipped with a remote identification 

broadcast module. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

the rule differentiate between three 

classes of producers: ‘‘mass 

manufacturers,’’ ‘‘small commercial,’’ 

and ‘‘experimental/hobbyist.’’ The 

proposed description of ‘‘experimental/ 

hobbyist’’ included three characteristics: 

(1) ‘‘may build or buy dozens of aircraft, 

many for purposes of education, 

experimentation, or recreation’’; (2) ‘‘life 

span of the unmanned aircraft may be 

as little as one flight or it may last 

decades’’; (3) ‘‘components are regularly 

recycled.’’ 

Wing Aviation LLC commented that 

in their view, there is no need for an 

amateur-built definition if the limited 

UAS concept is implemented with the 

changes they proposed. 

FAA Response: Though the 

requirements for unmanned aircraft 

equipped with remote identification 

broadcast modules finalized in this rule 

are an option for people constructing 

home-built unmanned aircraft, the FAA 

considers that there may always be 

home-built unmanned aircraft that 

cannot be equipped with broadcast 

modules and may be used solely for 

flights within FAA-recognized 

identification areas, and therefore a 

definition for those unmanned aircraft 

built for educational or recreational 

purposes is still necessary. 

For the foregoing reasons, the FAA 

will adopt the definition of home-built 

unmanned aircraft as an unmanned 

aircraft that an individual built solely 

for education or recreation. 

E. Definition of Declaration of 

Compliance 

The FAA did not propose to add a 

definition for declaration of compliance. 

However, to avoid potential confusion 

given the use of the term in both this 

final rule and in the part 107 rules for 

operations over people, the FAA 

determines that incorporating a new 

definition in § 89.1 is necessary to 

ensure sufficient clarity for the term as 

it is used in part 89. A declaration of 

compliance means a record submitted to 

the FAA by the producer of a standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

module to attest that all the 

requirements of subpart F of this part 

have been met. 

F. Requests for Other Definitions 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA received comments on other 

terms that were not defined in the 

NPRM, but did not include them in the 

final rule for the reasons explained 

below. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The Experimental Aircraft 

Association proposed adding the terms 

‘‘traditional model aircraft,’’ ‘‘control 

line,’’ and ‘‘free flight’’ to this rule. 

FAA Response: The FAA declines to 

add these definitions in this rulemaking 

because these terms are not used in part 

89 or any regulation modified by this 

rule. 

Comments: The International 

Association of Fire Fighters and the 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

requested the FAA define internet 

availability and ‘‘sufficient signal 

strength,’’ citing a lack of clarity when 

determining whether a UAS would be 

required to connect to the internet or 

when a UAS would be expected to lose 

connection to the internet. 

FAA Response: The FAA has decided 

not to include definitions for these 

terms because this rule does not adopt 

requirements related to internet 

connection. 

VI. Applicability of Operating 

Requirements 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The NPRM proposed to apply the 

remote identification operating 

requirements to all persons operating 

unmanned aircraft registered or required 

to be registered under part 47 or 48. The 

NPRM also proposed that the remote 

identification operating rules apply to 

all persons operating foreign civil 

unmanned aircraft in the United States. 

The proposed applicability did not 

include exceptions for specific types of 

operations (e.g., recreational operations, 

operations conducted by governmental 

entities) but the operating rules did 

include deviation authority through 

which the Administrator would be able 

to authorize persons to conduct certain 

operations without remote 

identification. In addition, the operating 

rules would allow certain unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification to 

be operated in FAA-recognized 

identification areas. 

The FAA received a significant 

number of comments recommending 

changes to the applicability of the 

operating requirements for remote 

identification. Commenters identified 

types of operations that they believed 

should be excepted from the 

requirement to identify remotely. After 

consideration of those comments, the 

FAA continues to support linking the 

remote identification rule with the 

registration rule. Because most 

unmanned aircraft are required by law 

to meet the aircraft registration 

requirements, the FAA determined that 

linking the remote identification and 

registration requirements is necessary to 

ensure that there is widespread coverage 

of the remote identification 

requirements of this rule. In § 89.101 the 

FAA adopts the requirement that all 

unmanned aircraft registered or required 

to be registered under part 47 or 48 must 

comply with the operating requirements 

of part 89. Persons operating foreign 

civil unmanned aircraft in the United 

States must also comply with the 

operating requirements. 

In response to comments received, the 

FAA is clarifying in § 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 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4403 

requirements, while others opposed 

excepting any government UAS. The 

FAA received many comments 

supporting and opposing broad 

exemptions for public safety and critical 

infrastructure operations. Many 

commenters indicated that a 

government exception is necessary 

because the transmission and broadcast 

of message elements could compromise 

the safety or security of public safety 

and emergency operations. Others 

believed that only sensitive 

governmental operations should be 

excepted from the remote identification 

requirements. The National Public 

Safety Telecommunications Council, 

AiRXOS, the Civil Air Patrol/United 

States Air Force Auxiliary, the 

International Association of Fire 

Fighters, and DRONERESPONDERS 

Public Safety Alliance, asked for a 

remote identification solution for 

‘‘trusted users’’ such as State and local 

public safety agencies instead of 

excepting certain parties (e.g., DOD) 

from having to comply with the 

operating requirements. 

Multiple commenters requested the 

FAA except certain commercial 

operations from the operating 

requirements in subpart B. For example, 

several small businesses asked for an 

exception for operations limited to a 

certain altitude or conducted for a 

specific scope or purpose. Commenters 

also requested the FAA except 

operations conducted by persons with 

remote pilot certificates issued under 

part 107 because they are trained to 

follow aviation regulations and are 

certificated. 

A significant number of commenters 

expressed opposition to requiring 

recreational unmanned aircraft to 

identify remotely. 

A number of commenters requested 

an operational exception for UAS used 

for educational purposes, aeronautical 

research activities, and non-aviation 

related research done with a UAS for 

testing and filmmaking. 

Many private UAS operators, small 

business, and governmental entities 

asked the FAA to except UAS 

operations in class G airspace from 

having to identify remotely. A number 

of commenters asked the FAA to 

consider the distance above ground 

level where the UAS are operating when 

determining the applicability of the 

rule. 

Some commenters mentioned that 

UAS operations receiving air traffic 

services should be required to use ADS– 

B Out. Other commenters such as the 

Aerospace Industries Association, 

Airbus UTM, the Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems 

International (AUVSI), General Atomics 

Aeronautical Systems, and Northeast 

UAS Airspace Integration Research 

mentioned that the proposed rule did 

not clearly state that UAS authorized by 

the FAA to use ADS–B Out or 

transponders are excepted from meeting 

the operating rules in part 89. 

A number of commenters asked the 

FAA to clarify whether the remote 

identification requirements apply to 

operations occurring indoors, 

underground, or within a contained 

space, such as a netted outdoor 

enclosure. 

FAA Response: The FAA’s rationale 

for linking the applicability of the 

operating requirements to the 

registration requirements is the need to 

identify aircraft operating in the 

airspace of the United States, regardless 

of the type or purpose of the operation. 

Parts 47 and 48 implement the 

registration requirements codified in 49 

U.S.C. 44101–44103. According to these 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

no person may operate an unmanned 

aircraft in the airspace of the United 

States unless it has been registered by 

its owner, or unless the aircraft is 

excepted from registration (e.g., aircraft 

of the national defense forces of the 

United States or unmanned aircraft 

weighing 0.55 pounds or less). Congress 

also clarified in 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(8) 

that UAS used in limited recreational 

operations must be registered and 

marked in accordance with chapter 441 

of Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Because most unmanned aircraft that 

will be operated in the airspace of the 

United States are required to meet the 

aircraft registration requirements, by 

law, the FAA determined linking remote 

identification to the registration 

requirements is in the interest of the 

safety and security of the United States 

airspace. In light of the above, as of 

September 16, 2023, all persons 

operating unmanned aircraft registered 

or required to be registered under part 

47 or 48 must follow the remote 

identification operating requirements 

unless the operation meets one of the 

following: (1) The operation is not 

subject to the operating requirement in 

accordance with § 89.101(b); (2) the 

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 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 

4404 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 appropriate mitigations are 

in place to provide a level of safety at 

least equal to that provided by this rule. 

Weight-based applicability. While 

some of the registration requirements 

are driven by the weight of an aircraft, 

the FAA does not believe it is 

appropriate to use the unmanned 

aircraft size or weight, apart from the 

weight standards already incorporated 

into the registration requirements, as a 

basis for applicability of the remote 

identification requirements. As 

discussed earlier, tying remote 

identification to registration 

requirements ensures the broad 

coverage necessary to address the safety 

and security concerns associated with 

unmanned aircraft operations being 

performed at this time. 

Unmanned aircraft operated by 

government entities. The operating 

requirements of subpart B of part 89 do 

not apply to aircraft of the Armed 

Forces of the United States because 

these aircraft are not required to be 

registered under part 47 or 48. Aircraft 

operated by other government entities 

(e.g., Federal, State, the District of 

Columbia, territories, possessions, or 

Indian Tribal governments) are subject 

to the registration requirements in part 

47 or 48 regardless of whether the 

aircraft is used in civil aircraft 

operations or public aircraft operations. 

Therefore, unmanned aircraft operations 

conducted by such government entities 

must comply with the operating 

requirements of this rule. Nevertheless, 

any covered government entity that 

wishes to use an unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification at a 

location other than FAA-recognized 

identification areas may request 

authorization from the Administrator 

under § 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 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 FAArecognized 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 

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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4405 

identification, location, and 

performance information that people on 

the ground and other airspace users can 

receive. An operator of an unmanned 

aircraft can comply with the operating 

requirements for remote identification 

in one of three ways: 

(1) Standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft. The first way to 

comply is referred to as ‘‘standard 

remote identification’’ and requires the 

operator to use an unmanned aircraft 

that broadcasts identification, location, 

and performance information for both 

the unmanned aircraft and the control 

station. See § 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. 

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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area to use 

either standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification broadcast 

modules to broadcast remote 

identification message elements. 

A. Elimination of Network-Based 

Remote Identification Requirement 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA initially proposed requiring 

both standard remote identification 

UAS and limited remote identification 

UAS to transmit the remote 

identification message elements through 

an internet connection to a Remote ID 

USS. After careful consideration of 

public comments and the 

implementation challenges associated 

with requiring UAS to transmit to 

Remote ID USS, the FAA decided to 

eliminate this proposed requirement in 

this rule. Without the requirement to 

transmit remote identification through 

the internet, limited remote 

identification UAS as proposed is no 

longer a viable concept. In its place, the 

FAA is incorporating a regulatory 

framework under which persons can 

retrofit an unmanned aircraft with a 

remote identification broadcast module 

to satisfy the remote identification 

requirements of this rule. The 

requirements for remote identification 

broadcast modules are described in 

section VII.D of this preamble. The 

effects of this change on standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

are discussed in section VII.A of this 

preamble. 

Though the FAA recognizes that there 

are potential benefits associated with 

establishing a network of Remote ID 

USS, the FAA believes that, for the time 

being and given the types of unmanned 

aircraft operations that are currently 

allowed, the broadcast remote 

identification solution fulfills agency 

and law enforcement needs to maintain 

the safety and security of the airspace of 

the United States. 

Original Concept for internet-Based 

Network. During the UAS–ID ARC, 

industry representatives proposed a 

concept for an internet-based network to 

complement the core functionality of a 

digital ‘‘license plate’’ broadcast-based 

solution. Under this concept, the 

aircraft’s control station (often a mobile 

phone) would connect to the internet 

and transmit remote identification 

information to a third-party service 

provider. The network concept was 

attractive for several reasons, but 

primarily because of the ability to 

receive remote identification 

information through existing mobile 

telephony infrastructure without having 

to deploy equipment to ‘‘listen’’ for a 

radio frequency broadcast. The primary 

challenge with this concept is its 

reliance on Wi-Fi or cellular network 

service being available where an aircraft 

is flying; the concept would not work in 

areas lacking cellular telephone 

coverage. The ARC did not reach 

consensus on a single remote 

identification concept—broadcast or 

network. 

Ultimately, the FAA proposed both 

broadcast and network requirements in 

the NPRM, in an attempt to balance the 

interests of all stakeholders. As part of 

the proposed network requirement, UAS 

would have had to transmit the remote 

identification message elements through 

the internet to a third-party service 

provider, referred to as a ‘‘Remote ID 

USS.’’ Remote ID USS would have 

collected and, as appropriate, 

disseminated the remote identification 

information through the internet. 

The Remote ID USS concept was a 

critical component to the successful 

implementation of the network 

requirement, as a commercial endeavor 

at no cost to the United States 

Government. Prospective Remote ID 

USS would have been required to meet 

technical requirements and 

contractually agree to abide by certain 

performance standards and other 

requirements on matters including, but 

not limited to, privacy protections of 

data collected pursuant to part 89, 

disclosure or dissemination of data, and 

data retention. The successful 

implementation of the network concept 

relied on prospective USS’ willingness 

to enter into no-cost contracts with the 

FAA to provide these services. The FAA 

has successfully used a similar 

construct to authorize small UAS 

operations around airports through its 

Low Altitude Authorization and 

Notification Capability (LAANC) 

program. Through this public-private 

4406 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

partnership arrangement, the 

government benefits from the speed and 

quality of industry innovation while 

industry benefits from profits derived 

from marketing other services or 

products. 

Emerging Problems with the Concept 

for internet-Based Network. The FAA 

received significant feedback about the 

network requirements in response to the 

NPRM. Commenters expressed concerns 

that the network component could 

enable nefarious actors to perform a 

coordinated Distributed Denial of 

Service (DDoS) attack on Remote ID 

USS. Industry commenters also 

highlighted concerns about 

implementing the network requirement 

in the absence of a standardized 

interface for network connection and 

raised concerns about giving potential 

business intelligence to competitors or 

third parties with access to network 

information. Many commenters also 

expressed valid concerns about privacy, 

cybersecurity, and other security-related 

issues. Others expressed concerns about 

access and protection of data 

transmitted to, and stored by, a Remote 

ID USS. Some law enforcement agencies 

mentioned they would or could rely, for 

the time being, on a broadcast solution, 

rather than a network solution, for 

threat discrimination. 

It has become apparent to the FAA 

that Remote ID USS may struggle in 

facing significant technical and 

regulatory requirements that go beyond 

existing industry consensus standards. 

Early in 2020, the FAA convened a 

Remote ID USS cohort to explore 

developing the network solution that is 

necessary to implement the proposed 

network requirements. The cohort 

identified several challenges with 

implementing the network 

requirements, which the FAA 

acknowledges it had not foreseen or 

accounted for when it proposed the 

network solution and Remote ID USS 

framework. For example, the cohort 

raised the challenge of developing and 

issuing technical specifications to 

govern remote identification 

interoperability when producers of UAS 

have not yet designed UAS with remote 

identification. 

Based on the above, the FAA decided 

to take a simplified approach at this 

time to remote identification by only 

adopting the broadcast requirements in 

this rule. As adopted, this broadcastonly rule provides an initial remote 

identification framework and sets the 

foundation for future regulatory actions. 

As the FAA builds the regulatory 

constructs that support increasingly 

advanced concepts, such as BVLOS and 

UTM, the United States Government 

will be prepared to solve safety and 

security issues related to those concepts 

based on more mature understandings. 

At this stage, however, the unknowns 

regarding UAS integration make it 

impractical to expand this rule beyond 

a broadcast-only solution. 

For these reasons, the Agency is 

revising all of part 89, including but not 

limited to the operating requirements 

and minimum performance 

requirements for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft, to 

eliminate all references to the network 

capability. 

2. Public Comments and FAA 

Responses 

Comments: Many commenters, 

including individuals, associations, and 

government organizations, expressed 

concerns with requiring UAS to connect 

to the internet and transmit to a Remote 

ID USS without a suitable alternative to 

continue operations when the internet is 

unavailable. Commenters noted that 

there are many areas in the United 

States, particularly remote and rural 

areas that do not have reliable internet 

access. Commenters mentioned that 

these are often some of the safest places 

to fly UAS due to low population 

density on the ground and less manned 

aircraft traffic. 

Many commenters asked the FAA to 

provide a better explanation for why an 

internet connection would be required 

at all, particularly because under certain 

circumstances, the proposal allowed for 

a UAS to fly when not connected to the 

internet. 

Depth from Above and others noted 

that network-based solutions provide an 

incomplete picture for the safety and 

security of standard remote 

identification UAS operations because 

standard remote identification UAS 

could operate, in certain scenarios, 

without internet access using only 

broadcast remote identification. The 

commenters suggested removing the 

network requirement to reduce cost and 

improve compliance. 

The European Union Aviation Safety 

Agency noted that unmanned aircraft 

designed and manufactured to be 

compliant with the EU regulations may 

not be able to comply with this 

proposed rule because under the EU’s 

regulations, broadcast remote 

identification is mandatory, whereas the 

network remote identification is 

optional. 

Many commenters had questions 

about the meaning of internet 

availability. Commenters noted that 

many geographic areas might have 

internet connectivity but that the signal 

in some of those areas may not have 

enough strength to adequately support 

internet connected applications. Many 

commenters expressed concerns that 

rural UAS operators who have limited 

broadband or cellular access could be 

required to purchase increasingly 

expensive data plans or multiple data 

plans to ensure adequate coverage, 

which may increase costs and lead to 

compliance issues. 

The National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association (NRECA) 

mentioned the FAA was assuming there 

would be a network of Remote ID USS 

able to provide services in rural areas 

and indicated that deficiencies exist 

when market forces are left to provide 

services to rural areas. NRECA 

recommended the FAA consider an 

FAA-provided service for at least some 

parts of the country and a longer 

implementation timetable or pilot 

program. 

Many commenters, including the 

American Civil Liberties Union, 

opposed the requirement to transmit to 

a Remote ID USS and expressed 

concerns with the security of UAS 

operations using network remote 

identification. The commenters listed a 

number of privacy and security 

concerns, including: Hacking into the 

controls of one or multiple UAS; 

deliberate interference with remote 

identification or Command and Control 

(C2) frequencies utilizing unlicensed 

spectrum; interference amongst the 

remote identification and C2 equipment; 

and cellular high speed packet access 

(HSPA) and long term evolution (LTE) 

interference with frequencies used for 

C2 or to downlink video from the 

unmanned aircraft to the control station. 

The American Civil Liberties Union 

suggested that requiring UAS to connect 

to the internet as a condition of takeoff 

is not justified because there is 

insufficient benefit relative to the 

related costs and privacy issues. Several 

commenters suggested ensuring that 

network remote identification is isolated 

from C2 frequencies to prevent the 

hijacking of UAS. 

Many commenters, including the 

Medina County Office of Emergency 

Management and Homeland Security, 

expressed concerns about the potential 

to ground hundreds or thousands of 

UAS nationwide, including UAS 

performing public safety operations, if 

there is a dedicated denial of service or 

similar cyberattack which causes an 

outage of Remote ID USS. Other 

commenters expressed concerns about 

someone hacking a Remote ID USS or 

spoofing broadcast remote identification 

to make it appear erroneously as if there 

are UAS in flight. Several commenters 

stated that some government agencies 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4407 

have discontinued their use of some 

foreign-made UAS due to security 

concerns and mentioned that it is not in 

the best interests of national security to 

require private users to transmit similar 

surveillance information through the 

internet. In some cases, operators are 

operating the types of UAS that the 

government has stopped using for 

security reasons. 

Commenters expressed concerns 

about non-State actors as well as 

adversarial nations. Various 

commenters highlighted the national 

security implications of certain remote 

identification data becoming available 

to the public. Unmanned Systems 

Canada asked for the network 

requirement to be optional until each 

Remote ID USS can demonstrate 

sufficient security and reliability and 

stated that a properly licensed and 

registered UAS operation should not be 

grounded if a connection to a Remote ID 

USS is not available. 

Commenters such as Juniper 

Unmanned mentioned that some 

commercial operations supporting 

critical infrastructure involve strict 

cybersecurity rules and prohibit internet 

connectivity during flight operations. 

Many commenters involved in 

emergency response expressed concerns 

with relying on the internet to comply 

with the requirement to transmit. 

Similarly, several state government 

agencies and universities noted that 

their UAS enforcement and research 

activities would be greatly restricted if 

the FAA were to adopt the requirement 

for the UAS to connect to the internet 

and transmit to a Remote ID USS 

without a suitable alternative means of 

compliance that would permit the UAS 

to take off and operate when internet 

access is not available. 

Zipline and the Alabama Department 

of Transportation noted that the 

requirement to connect to a Remote ID 

USS if the internet is available would 

prevent a person from using a UAS to 

support emergency response operations 

if the internet is available but the UAS 

cannot reliably interface with a Remote 

ID USS. 

Many commenters expressed 

concerns with the requirement that 

Remote ID USS retain the remote 

identification message elements for 6 

months from the date the remote 

identification message elements are 

received. Some commenters cited 

shorter FAA record retention periods for 

other information while others 

contended the 6-month term was not 

long enough. Various commenters 

expressed support for the record 

retention requirements, noting that 

access to the data is useful for law 

enforcement, regulatory compliance, 

and legitimate safety, security, 

compliance, accident, and incident 

investigation purposes. 

The Consumer Technology 

Association and Wing Aviation, LLC 

stated that the final rule should restrict 

access to historical data by government, 

limit the collection and aggregation of 

remote identification data by third 

parties, and ensure privacy. The Small 

UAV Coalition urged the FAA to 

prohibit Remote ID USS from sharing 

information with Federal, State, or local 

governments absent a law enforcement 

or national security interest or consent 

of the UAS operator. 

Many commenters noted the potential 

costs, complexity, and operational 

restrictions associated with network 

remote identification requirements and 

expressed concerns that they may foster 

a culture of non-compliance. Many 

commenters observed that the use of a 

subscription-based service would prove 

costly for some UAS operators. Many 

commenters stated that monthly 

subscription fees would be unfair to 

those who do not fly that regularly for 

a variety of reasons. 

Many commenters expressed 

concerns about the cost of depending on 

internet service via cellular phones or 

other enabled devices that would be 

required to support network remote 

identification. They also expressed 

concerns about the costs of subscribing 

to a Remote ID USS. Both recreational 

and commercial operators expressed 

concerns about the cost of the data plans 

that would be required to serve multiple 

UAS. One UAS services company 

estimated increased monthly costs of 

$360 to $500 a month for cellular 

services. Several commenters noted that 

adding an additional device, such as an 

unmanned aircraft, to a cellular data 

plan to support direct transmission to 

the internet generally costs $30 to $70 

a month, and one commenter noted this 

is likely to be the largest part of many 

users’ overall operating costs. 

The Alliance for Drone Innovation 

opposed a network requirement for 

remote identification, noting that many 

UAS in use today, including model 

aircraft, model helicopters, and racing 

aircraft, would be burdened with 

increased costs for equipment, data 

plans, and USS subscriptions because 

they do not currently have a way to 

connect to the internet. SenseFly 

expressed concerns about the cost that 

designers and producers of remote 

identification UAS will incur if they are 

required to make UAS compatible with 

different internet providers. 

A significant number of commenters 

expressed privacy concerns with the 

proposed requirement to have UAS 

transmit remote identification data to 

Remote ID USS. Many individuals 

opposed having third parties collect 

information including, but not limited 

to, their name, address, and location. 

Some commenters also mentioned that 

the requirement to transmit their 

location could cause business and 

tactical issues, particularly for 

businesses or persons that want or need 

to ensure their flight data remains 

confidential or out of reach of most 

parties. Many commenters indicated 

that the pilot and flight data should only 

be made available to law enforcement 

and Federal entities. 

Many commenters contended that the 

best way to ensure privacy is to encrypt 

certain remote identification data (e.g., 

control station or unmanned aircraft 

location) and to make it available only 

to the FAA and law enforcement. 

Amazon Prime Air commented that the 

FAA could mitigate the potential loss of 

user privacy by requiring position and 

velocity data to be encrypted or by 

requiring security protocols that can 

provide law enforcement with real time 

access while enhancing privacy. A 

significant number of commenters 

opposed making the data transmitted to 

a Remote ID USS available to the 

general public. 

Commenters expressed concerns that 

a UAS operator’s data could be sold or 

provided to third parties. Other 

commenters were concerned about 

requiring companies to provide 

sensitive information to a Remote ID 

USS. Many expressed concerns that the 

information could be hacked. Other 

commenters expressed concern over 

where the privacy data would reside 

and what regulations would be in place 

to prohibit United States citizens’ data 

from being sent and sold overseas. 

Multiple commenters expressed the 

view that unfettered access by law 

enforcement to remote identification 

data could lead to specific monitoring of 

the media by law enforcement agencies 

and impact the freedom of the press. 

Several commenters noted that 

cellular networks are optimized to work 

with ground-based equipment rather 

than airborne equipment and suggested 

that it is not practical to provide an 

internet connection to a UAS using 

terrestrial cellular networks due to 

reliability that is much lower than 

typical aviation requirements; the 

potential for numerous UAS to interfere 

with ground-based users; and the 

downward tilt and narrow vertical beam 

width of the cellular base transceiver 

station used to optimize battery life for 

ground-based user equipment. 

4408 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Several commenters noted that their 

control stations connect to their 

unmanned aircraft only through Wi-Fi 

which makes an internet connection 

impossible when away from Wi-Fi 

access and others noted that they fly 

using tablets or unique monitors which 

do not include cellular access. 

A number of commenters generally 

supported the broadcast requirement for 

remote identification. The commenters 

noted that many UAS are already 

capable of broadcasting UAS 

information or could be upgraded with 

equipment or software to meet the 

remote identification requirements, for a 

one-time cost. Commenters noted the 

various benefits of broadcast remote 

identification, such as independence; 

ease of compliance due to the 

capabilities of existing systems; tamper 

resistance; and simplicity regarding 

account management, data plans needed 

for large fleets, and cost. Commenters 

noted that broadcast remote 

identification is sufficient for law 

enforcement to determine the identity 

and location of the operator in VLOS 

operations. 

Many commenters suggested the FAA 

should view broadcast-only remote 

identification as sufficiently safe and 

secure for achieving remote 

identification. The commenters stated 

that broadcast-only should be sufficient 

because standard remote identification 

UAS operations are permitted when the 

internet is not available, or when the 

UAS loses its connection to the Remote 

ID USS, as long as the unmanned 

aircraft is broadcasting. Many 

commenters also noted that broadcast 

remote identification may provide an 

affordable and effective path to 

compliance for many existing UAS that 

currently have the ability to broadcast 

telemetry data in the proposed radio 

frequency spectrum via the commandand-control link. 

Various commenters noted that a 

broadcast solution is less expensive, 

simpler, and provides increased privacy 

when compared to network solutions; 

and that other UAS or manned aircraft 

without an internet connection will not 

be able to detect a limited remote 

identification UAS using only network 

remote identification. 

Many commenters noted that 

European Union requirements permit 

operations with only broadcast remote 

identification. The EU Aviation Safety 

Agency noted that under EU 

regulations, ‘‘broadcast’’ is mandatory, 

while the ‘‘network’’ or ‘‘limited’’ 

remote identification is optional. 

Discover Flying Club and Phirst 

Technologies suggested permitting a 

broadcast-only option for remote 

identification UAS, with governments 

or third party companies responsible for 

receiving and collecting remote 

identification data, as needed, in 

specific locations. The American Civil 

Liberties Union mentioned that 

broadcast remote identification is 

sufficient to meet security needs to 

identify hostile UAS and for public 

awareness. 

In further support of a broadcast-only 

option, many commenters, such as 

Motorola Solutions, Inc., stated that 

natural disasters and search and rescue 

operations often take place in areas of 

limited internet coverage. They 

mentioned that instead of requiring 

‘‘trusted users’’ to comply with remote 

identification, the FAA should allow 

them to operate broadcast-only. The 

Edison Electric Institute and other 

electric and power associations stressed 

the importance of broadcast remote 

identification to ensure the UAS 

continues to send out the message 

elements in the event of lost internet 

connectivity. The National Rural 

Electric Cooperative Association and the 

Northwest Electric Power Cooperative 

recommended creating a broadcast-only 

option for limited remote identification 

UAS to permit safe operation in remote 

areas. 

Other commenters opposed a 

broadcast-only remote identification 

solution, stating that it could introduce 

unnecessary risks to law enforcement 

due to the potential for frequency 

congestion on unlicensed spectrum. 

Amazon Prime Air, Verizon, Skyward, 

and others noted weaknesses of the 

broadcast solution, such as broadcast 

coverage limitations due to altitude, 

terrain, interference, and power. Most of 

these commenters also recognized that 

broadcast may still be required for 

specific operations, such as in areas 

with no internet access or areas where 

a local, independent source of remote 

identification information is required 

for safety or security purposes. Many 

industry commenters were concerned 

with the requirement to broadcast their 

data, because it could impact their 

ability to keep their customers’ flight 

information private and could 

potentially be used by their competitors. 

Some commenters expressed support 

for a network-only remote identification 

solution, noting the advantages of 

network remote identification such as 

the capability for stronger 

authentication, availability regardless of 

proximity to the UAS, ability to share 

additional message elements, 

availability of internet access, and 

importance to further development of 

UTM and traffic deconfliction. AirMap 

agreed that network remote 

identification is appropriate when the 

internet is available, to support UTM, 

and to enable a greater volume of flights. 

AirMap indicated that operations with 

only network remote identification 

would permit tighter control of 

personally identifiable information (PII), 

eliminate the possibility of data 

scraping from aircraft broadcasts, help 

with operator location security, 

maintain the privacy of UAS delivery 

service customers, and offer tiered data 

access so that law enforcement has 

access to different data than the general 

public. 

AT&T Services, CTIA—The Wireless 

Association, GSMA, and Qualcomm 

supported network remote 

identification, noting benefits such as 

greater security than broadcast on 

unlicensed frequencies, encryption, 

available cellular infrastructure already 

driven by external demand for increased 

data service, device authentication to 

support positive identification, and 

support for the development of UTM. 

Some commenters supported the role 

of Remote ID USS to receive the 

required message elements, the 

framework of using a contractual MOA 

to govern the Remote ID USS, and the 

idea that LAANC served as a model for 

the concept. 

FAA Response: The FAA has carefully 

considered the wide variety of 

perspectives received in public 

comments as well as the need for remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft. 

Throughout the process of integrating 

unmanned aircraft into the airspace of 

the United States, the FAA has taken a 

phased, incremental approach that 

fosters industry innovation while 

meeting the corresponding safety and 

security needs that are presented. The 

FAA believes this should be the case 

with remote identification of unmanned 

aircraft as well. 

The FAA continues to work toward 

full integration of UAS into the airspace 

of the United States by partnering with 

industry to develop UTM and facilitate 

advanced unmanned aircraft operations, 

like BVLOS. However, the FAA has 

determined that a broadcast-based 

remote identification system that 

provides for immediate awareness of 

unmanned aircraft in the widest variety 

of settings will be adequate to support 

the phased, incremental approach, 

while allowing the UAS industry 

additional time to continue developing 

the network-based UTM ecosystem. 

The FAA recognizes concerns related 

to an internet connectivity requirement, 

such as internet availability or 

connectivity issues; increased costs for 

UAS upgrades; internet data plans; 

Remote ID USS subscriptions; and 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4409 

reduced air and ground risk when 

operating in remote areas with less air 

traffic and lower population density. 

The FAA acknowledges the ability to 

connect to the internet is dependent on 

a variety of factors including geographic 

coverage of cellular internet networks, 

wide-scale network disruptions, or 

natural disasters. The FAA agrees with 

commenters that unmanned aircraft 

operations should not be unnecessarily 

restricted when the internet is not 

available or not sufficient to establish 

and maintain a connection to a Remote 

ID USS provided the unmanned aircraft 

is broadcasting the required message 

elements. 

There are some remote areas where an 

operator cannot connect to the internet, 

such as locations where cellular or other 

internet signals are not available or 

sufficient to establish and maintain a 

connection to a Remote ID USS. While 

loss of the broadcast capability is an 

indication of a remote identification 

equipment failure, loss of connectivity 

to the internet or a Remote ID USS 

could be attributed to a lack of internet 

availability that is outside the control of 

the unmanned aircraft operator. A 

functioning broadcast capability is 

necessary for remote identification 

information to be available in areas that 

do not have internet availability. 

The FAA is not adopting the 

requirement to transmit message 

elements through the internet to a 

Remote ID USS in this rule at this time. 

While the FAA recognizes the potential 

benefits of network remote 

identification as stated by several 

commenters, the FAA believes a 

broadcast-only solution is sufficient, for 

the time being and given the types of 

unmanned aircraft operations that are 

currently allowed, to maintain the safety 

and security of the airspace of the 

United States given the types of 

operations that are authorized in the 

operating and airspace regulations. 

Certain commenters suggested 

allowing unmanned aircraft operators to 

choose between either broadcast or 

network remote identification. These 

commenters suggested that while a 

Remote ID USS-dependent solution 

might be overly burdensome to certain 

types of recreational or small-scale 

commercial operators, some operators 

may prefer network remote 

identification. These commenters noted 

that network remote identification 

allows operators to better protect the 

privacy of their operations from the 

general public, which may have benefits 

for consumers receiving sensitive 

deliveries or to protect a company’s 

confidential business information 

regarding where they operate. 

According to these commenters, 

allowing either broadcast or network 

remote identification would permit 

operators to transmit remote 

identification information via the 

mechanism most appropriate for their 

use, while ensuring that the public still 

had the capability of rapidly identifying 

nearby unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA notes that this rule does not 

preclude industry from establishing 

Remote ID USS-like networks where 

entities can exchange remote 

identification information to facilitate a 

safer and more efficient airspace of the 

United States. The FAA encourages 

further development and maturation of 

UTM concepts, especially those that 

consider aviation safety national 

security, and law enforcement needs. 

However, as indicated in the NPRM, 

broadcasting the message elements has 

always been considered a critical aspect 

of remote identification, even in 

situations when the NPRM also allowed 

for network transmission. The FAA 

believes that broadcasting the message 

elements is fundamental to ensuring 

that remote identification information is 

always accessible to members of the 

public, and as such, the FAA does not 

agree with commenters’ suggestions to 

allow unmanned aircraft operators to 

choose between broadcast and network 

remote identification. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters 

who proposed that broadcast remote 

identification is sufficient to provide the 

required remote identification message 

elements to support typical unmanned 

aircraft operations and satisfy security 

requirements. Broadcast remote 

identification does not rely on internet 

availability, and is a secure method that 

is less susceptible to widespread failure 

caused by malicious actors or systems 

outages. Broadcast remote identification 

is also an independent, less expensive, 

and less complex method of providing 

the required remote identification 

message elements. The FAA has 

determined that a requirement for 

unmanned aircraft to broadcast remote 

identification information will provide 

the FAA, law enforcement, the general 

public, and other parts of the aviation 

community with real-time information 

about unmanned aircraft operations in 

any area in which broadcast signals can 

be received. The broadcast will permit 

detection of unmanned aircraft and will 

permit law enforcement and the general 

public that receives the broadcasted 

message elements to have information 

about the unmanned aircraft location as 

well as information about the control 

station or takeoff location. Personal 

wireless devices that are capable of 

receiving 47 CFR part 15 frequencies, 

such as smart phones, tablets, or other 

similar commercially available devices, 

will be able to receive broadcast remote 

identification information directly 

without reliance on an internet 

connection. 

After reviewing the comments and 

further consideration, the FAA decided 

to modify the proposal and, as finalized, 

this rule only requires unmanned 

aircraft to broadcast the message 

elements. Accordingly, the FAA has 

eliminated all requirements for 

unmanned aircraft to connect to the 

internet to transmit to a Remote ID USS. 

B. Limited Remote Identification UAS 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The NPRM proposed that limited 

remote identification UAS would only 

have to transmit the remote 

identification message elements through 

an internet connection to a Remote ID 

USS. As discussed in section VII.A of 

this preamble, limited remote 

identification UAS are no longer a 

viable concept for this rule. 

Accordingly, this final rule has 

eliminated all proposed requirements 

related to limited remote identification 

UAS. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Only a few commenters 

supported the proposed limited remote 

identification UAS. Commenters who 

supported the proposed requirements 

wanted the FAA to move forward with 

implementing its proposed policies. 

Many commenters were opposed to 

the concept and requirements for 

limited remote identification UAS and 

believed the FAA should not adopt 

those requirements. Commenters noted 

that many areas in the United States, 

particularly remote and rural areas, do 

not have reliable internet access due to 

cellular coverage limitations, signal 

obstructions caused by terrain and 

obstacles, poor connection quality, or 

temporary outages. Many commenters 

noted that the costs, complexity, and 

operational restrictions associated with 

network remote identification 

requirements may foster a culture of 

non-compliance. As a result, many 

commenters suggested eliminating or 

substantially altering limited remote 

identification UAS. 

Several commenters suggested there 

was no need for the limited remote 

identification concept. DJI Technology 

appreciated the attempt to create a 

concept intended to impose a lower 

burden and ease for compliance for less 

capable UAS that pose less risk but 

suggested the limited remote 

identification UAS concept is virtually 

4410 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

useless as proposed. Degenkolb 

Engineers noted that any controller 

designed to meet limited remote 

identification UAS requirements could 

be upgraded to meet the standard 

remote identification UAS requirements 

at trivial cost. 

Other commenters suggested the 

limited remote identification UAS 

concept would create unnecessary 

complexity and would not contribute to 

flight safety. They recommended 

permitting broadcast options for limited 

remote identification UAS, which could 

provide the unmanned aircraft location 

information to suitably equipped 

manned aircraft at any altitude without 

dependency on network solutions or 

command and control links. 

Many commenters weighed in on 

specific aspects of limited remote 

identification UAS, including the 

proposed 400-foot range limitation, the 

requirement to fly within visual line of 

sight, and the requirement to land the 

aircraft in the event the connection with 

the Remote ID USS was lost. 

FAA Response: A common theme in 

the public comments received regarding 

the limited remote identification UAS 

concept was a general dissatisfaction 

and disagreement with the operating 

and design requirements of the 

proposed concept. The FAA attempted 

to provide a regulatory framework to 

accommodate existing unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification so 

they could be modified or retrofitted in 

a manner to provide remote 

identification capabilities. The FAA 

agrees with the commenters who argued 

that limiting unmanned aircraft to 

operating only where internet 

connectivity is available limits the 

utility and marketability of such 

unmanned aircraft. However, the FAA 

does not agree with commenters who 

supported only a single concept for 

remote identification. The FAA believes 

that a remote identification option is 

necessary for owners of existing 

unmanned aircraft without built-in 

remote identification capability who do 

not wish to operate solely at FAArecognized 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 indepth discussion regarding the use of 

unmanned aircraft instead of UAS. The 

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 FAArecognized 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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4411 

19The FAA emphasizes that this rule does not 

relieve any existing visual-line-of-sight 

Continued 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft. The Agency intends for 

compliance with the remote 

identification requirements to be simple 

and straightforward for individuals 

operating standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft produced in 

accordance with an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance. For example, a 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft must automatically 

broadcast the remote identification 

message elements, and its design must 

prohibit it from taking off if the 

broadcast equipment is not functional. 

iv. Serial Number Requirements 

A person may operate a standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

if its serial number is listed on an FAAaccepted declaration of compliance, or 

the standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft is covered by a 

design approval or production approval 

issued under part 21. 

The serial number issued to the 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft must be included in 

the application for registration of the 

unmanned aircraft under part 47 or 48 

and may not be duplicative of a serial 

number associated with a different 

certificate of aircraft registration. For 

owners registering small unmanned 

aircraft exclusively for limited 

recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 

44809, more than one serial number 

may be included on a single Certificate 

of Aircraft Registration. The registration 

requirements that apply to standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

are discussed in more detail in section 

XV of this preamble. Alternatively, the 

serial number of the unmanned aircraft 

must be provided to the FAA in a notice 

of identification pursuant to § 89.130 

prior to the operation. The requirements 

that apply to foreign registered civil 

unmanned aircraft operating in the 

airspace of the United States are 

discussed in section XVI of this 

preamble. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The Air Line Pilots 

Association, International mentioned 

that only standard remote identification 

UAS should be permitted to access 

LAANC airspace. 

FAA Response: Considering the 

requirement for all unmanned aircraft to 

broadcast remote identification 

information, the FAA finds that access 

to controlled airspace via the LAANC 

process does not require additional 

restrictions. 

Comments: Some commenters 

strongly supported the requirement for 

standard remote identification UAS to 

transmit via a network and broadcast, 

noting that each system has strengths 

that address the other system’s 

weaknesses to support safety, security, 

and future operational capabilities. 

Others supported the standard remote 

identification UAS requirements 

provided the rule maintains the option 

to continue to operate when there is no 

connection to the internet or 

transmission to a Remote ID USS. 

FAA Response: For the reasons 

explained in section VII.A of the 

preamble, the FAA has decided to 

eliminate the network-based 

requirements from this rule at this time. 

Accordingly, in accordance with 

§ 89.110(a), standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft must 

broadcast the remote identification 

message elements directly from the 

unmanned aircraft. 

Comments: Some commenters 

suggested the FAA consider requiring 

operators to comply with either a 

broadcast or a network requirement, but 

not both, unless requiring both is 

necessary for specific operations such as 

BVLOS. Commenters suggested the 

requirement to simultaneously 

broadcast remote identification data that 

is transmitted to the network does not 

add any substantial public safety or 

security benefit. 

FAA Response: The FAA is not 

adopting the requirement to transmit 

message elements through the internet 

to a Remote ID USS in this rule. While 

the FAA recognizes the potential 

benefits of network remote 

identification, as stated by several 

commenters, the FAA believes a 

broadcast-only solution is sufficient, at 

this time, to maintain the safety and 

security of the airspace of the United 

States. The FAA agrees with the 

commenters who proposed that a 

broadcast-only solution is sufficient at 

this time to provide the required remote 

identification message elements to 

support typical unmanned aircraft 

operations and satisfy security concerns. 

D. Remote Identification Broadcast 

Modules 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

This rule finalizes the regulatory 

framework that allows persons to equip 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

enable them to identify remotely. See 

§ 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, homebuilt unmanned aircraft) to be operated 

outside of FAA-recognized 

identification areas because the 

broadcast modules enable the 

unmanned aircraft to broadcast the 

remote identification message elements 

required by this rule. Through this 

regulatory framework, the FAA is also 

allowing a pathway for existing 

unmanned aircraft that have certain 

broadcast capabilities and equipment 

already integrated to be upgraded to 

meet the requirements of a remote 

identification broadcast module. 

The FAA decided to incorporate this 

concept into this rule after reviewing 

public comments and considering the 

significant concerns raised with respect 

to the limited remote identification UAS 

framework. The FAA determined a 

remote identification broadcast module 

facilitates compliance with this rule 

and, at this time, meets the safety and 

security needs of the FAA, national 

security agencies, and law enforcement. 

The concept is broadcast-based and 

does not require a person to connect to 

the internet to identify remotely, as the 

limited remote identification UAS 

proposal did. This shift allows 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

operate in areas where the internet is 

unavailable. In addition, by making this 

a broadcast solution, the FAA has 

determined that the 400-foot range 

limitation included in the proposed 

requirements for limited remote 

identification UAS is no longer 

warranted and has removed the design 

constraint. However, the FAA has 

determined that persons manipulating 

the flight controls of UAS where the 

unmanned aircraft is equipped with 

remote identification broadcast modules 

must be able to see the unmanned 

aircraft at all times throughout the 

operation. Commenters generally 

supported a visual line of sight 

requirement for unmanned aircraft 

operations that do not meet the 

requirements for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

therefore FAA is incorporating the 

restriction into the operating 

requirements for unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification broadcast 

modules.19

4412 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(3); 14 

CFR 107.31 and 107.33. The purpose of the visualline-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. 

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 

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 FAArecognized 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 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 standalone broadcast module without any 

dependency on external systems or 

equipment. 

Further, the FAA is not requiring that 

an unmanned aircraft with a remote 

identification broadcast module 

broadcast an indication of the 

emergency status of the unmanned 

aircraft. To indicate an emergency 

status, the remote identification 

equipment would likely need to be 

integrated into the unmanned aircraft 

and designed to recognize specific 

aircraft failure modes or off-nominal 

situations. Because remote 

identification broadcast modules can be 

installed on existing unmanned aircraft 

with different characteristics, the FAA 

finds that an emergency status 

indication for remote identification 

broadcast modules presents too many 

technological challenges to require at 

this time. 

The message elements and minimum 

performance requirements for remote 

identification broadcast modules are 

discussed in more detail in section IX of 

this preamble. 

iii. Broadcast Module Installation and 

Instructions 

As previously mentioned, this rule 

allows a person to use an unmanned 

aircraft equipped with a remote 

identification broadcast module. The 

person installing the remote 

identification broadcast module must 

perform the retrofit in accordance with 

the instructions provided by the 

producer of the remote identification 

broadcast module to ensure that the 

broadcast module is compatible with 

the unmanned aircraft, that the 

installation is completed successfully, 

and that the remote identification 

functionality is compliant with all the 

requirements of this rule. 

iv. Serial Number Requirements 

The producer of remote identification 

broadcast modules must issue each 

module a serial number that complies 

with ANSI/CTA–2063–A in accordance 

with § 89.505. The serial number must 

be listed on an FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance. 

The serial number must be included 

in the application for registration of the 

unmanned aircraft under part 47 or 48 

and may not be duplicative of a serial 

number associated with a different 

certificate of aircraft registration. For 

owners registering small unmanned 

aircraft exclusively for limited 

recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 

44809, more than one serial number 

may be included on a single Certificate 

of Aircraft Registration. The registration 

requirements that apply to unmanned 

aircraft with remote identification 

broadcast modules are discussed in 

more detail in section XV.A of this 

preamble. Foreign registered civil 

unmanned aircraft must provide the 

serial number of the unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

module to the FAA in a notice of 

identification pursuant to § 89.130 prior 

to the operation in the airspace of the 

United States. The requirements that 

apply to foreign registered civil 

unmanned aircraft operating in the 

airspace of the United States are 

discussed in section XVI of this 

preamble. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4413 

v. Operations Restricted to Visual Line 

of Sight 

Operations of unmanned aircraft with 

remote identification broadcast modules 

must be conducted so that the person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

UAS is able to see the unmanned 

aircraft at all times throughout the 

operation. Commenters generally 

supported a visual line of sight 

requirement for unmanned aircraft 

operations that do not meet the 

requirements for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

therefore the FAA is incorporating the 

restriction into the operating 

requirements for unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification broadcast 

modules. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Many commenters 

recommended that the FAA permit an 

add-on component or module that 

comes from an FAA-approved 

manufacturer. These commenters 

recommended permitting stand-alone 

broadcast modules that could be 

serialized to enable off the shelf 

solutions and lower the cost for existing 

UAS and amateur-built UAS to meet the 

remote identification requirements via 

broadcast, network, or both. Some 

suggested a beacon or broadcast remote 

identification requirement with no 

network requirement. 

Many commenters suggested the FAA 

allow remote identification add-on 

equipment that can be mounted on UAS 

that were originally manufactured 

without remote identification. Many 

commenters also recommended 

permitting modules that could be 

registered to a specific user and 

swapped between multiple UAS so 

existing UAS and amateur-built UAS 

can meet remote identification 

requirements. One commenter suggested 

the FAA move forward with a simple 

and minimally burdensome solution 

such as an add-on broadcast module for 

limited remote identification UAS 

instead of the proposed requirements. 

Another commenter suggested allowing 

the use of an external broadcast module 

that could be changed as technology 

changes or additional airspace is 

available and noted that the European 

Union and France permit external 

modules. 

Many commenters supported a 

broadcast remote identification option 

that would permit operations in areas 

with no internet access or in the event 

of Remote ID USS outages. 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board noted that broadcast remote 

identification may support aircraft-toaircraft collision avoidance capability, 

but it was unclear whether a network 

remote identification could as well. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

public comments and has revised this 

rule to include the remote identification 

broadcast module concept. An 

unmanned aircraft produced, built, or 

assembled without remote identification 

can now be equipped with a remote 

identification broadcast module that 

broadcasts the message elements 

required by this rule. Since an 

unmanned aircraft with a remote 

identification broadcast module is able 

to identify remotely, the unmanned 

aircraft can be operated outside of an 

FAA-recognized identification area. 

E. Other Broadcast Requirements 

Applicable to Standard Remote 

Identification Unmanned Aircraft and 

Unmanned Aircraft With Remote 

Identification Broadcast Modules 

1. Broadcast Directly From the 

Unmanned Aircraft 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

This rule requires standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

broadcast the remote identification 

message elements directly from the 

unmanned aircraft. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested permitting the control station 

to broadcast the required message 

elements. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with commenters because of the 

likelihood of decreased reception range 

caused by terrain or ground obstacles. In 

addition, if the unmanned aircraft were 

to go outside the range of the remote 

identification broadcast from the control 

station, persons near the unmanned 

aircraft may not be able to identify it. 

Therefore, the FAA maintains the 

requirement that the remote 

identification message elements must be 

broadcast directly from the unmanned 

aircraft. 

2. Broadcast From Takeoff to Shutdown 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that a person 

would be able to operate a UAS with 

remote identification only if the UAS 

sends the remote identification message 

elements from takeoff to shutdown. The 

FAA requested comments regarding 

when automatic Remote ID USS 

connections should be required. Though 

the Remote ID USS connection is no 

longer required in this rule, the 

responses were instructive and helped 

inform the Agency’s decision to modify 

the requirement, as it applies to the 

broadcast of message elements by 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules. 

The FAA is finalizing this rule to 

require the broadcast of message 

elements directly from the unmanned 

aircraft from takeoff to shutdown. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Commenters stated the 

remote identification requirements 

should only apply for the duration of 

the flight and should not apply to 

unmanned aircraft that are active but 

not flying. Many of these commenters 

cited difficulties in performing 

maintenance on unmanned aircraft if 

the connection was required at power 

up when the UAS is not intended to be 

flown. One individual suggested the 

connection requirement should apply 

when the unmanned aircraft is in 

motion. 

Many commenters offered options to 

the proposed requirement. They 

proposed requiring UAS to broadcast 

from takeoff to landing, from start up to 

shutdown, and start up to landing. The 

responses were generally divided into 

two main considerations: When the 

UAS should start to broadcast and when 

it should cease to broadcast. 

Commenters who believed the UAS 

should transmit the message elements 

from the time the UAS is started up 

mentioned that a certain amount of time 

is needed to establish connectivity to 

the network. Some suggested there is a 

need or value for law enforcement to 

gain awareness of the operation prior to 

flight. Others mentioned a UAS should 

not be required to broadcast any 

message elements while powered on, as 

long as actual flight is not intended or 

commenced (e.g., when a person powers 

on the UAS to conduct maintenance or 

download data). 

Some commenters believed the UAS 

should continue to broadcast until the 

UAS lands while others believed it 

should broadcast until the UAS is 

shutdown. Those supporting the 

landing cutoff noted the unmanned 

aircraft is no longer in the airspace of 

the United States upon landing and 

there is no longer a safety risk because 

the unmanned aircraft is no longer in 

the air. They also mentioned a person 

may want to keep the power on (e.g., to 

conduct maintenance or download data) 

for some time prior to shutdown. Other 

commenters mentioned the broadcast 

should end upon shutdown because it 

would grant additional time for law 

enforcement and other security partners 

to locate the unmanned aircraft, after it 

4414 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

lands, which could help identify an 

operator. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

comments supporting a broadcast 

requirement that begins at takeoff rather 

than start up because different 

unmanned aircraft have different startup 

sequences and may not all be capable of 

broadcasting remote identification 

elements at the same point in their 

startup process. Takeoff is the first part 

of an unmanned aircraft operation that 

is common to all unmanned aircraft, 

which is why FAA has decided to tie 

the requirement to begin broadcasting to 

takeoff. In addition, unmanned aircraft 

are often powered on for purposes other 

than flight, such as conducting 

maintenance or configuring the 

unmanned aircraft hardware and 

software. Finally, unmanned aircraft 

that are powered on indoors, where 

maintenance typically occurs, would 

likely not be able to generate some of 

the remote identification message 

elements, making such a requirement 

ineffective. 

The FAA also agrees with comments 

supporting the extension of the 

broadcast requirement until the 

unmanned aircraft is shutdown because 

the additional data can assist the 

Agency and law enforcement to identify 

unmanned aircraft or operators engaged 

in unsafe or illegal operation. The FAA 

does not agree with commenters that 

believe once an unmanned aircraft lands 

there is no longer the potential for safety 

risk because in many cases, the safety 

risk is the result of careless or clueless 

operators that will continue the 

potentially unsafe behavior without 

FAA or law enforcement intervention. 

Requiring unmanned aircraft to 

broadcast the message elements until 

the unmanned aircraft is shutdown 

provides additional time for the FAA or 

law enforcement to locate an unmanned 

aircraft operator, even after the 

unmanned aircraft has landed. 

Therefore, after reviewing public 

comments and giving further 

consideration, the FAA decided to 

modify the proposal and adopts the 

requirement so unmanned aircraft must 

broadcast the required message 

elements from takeoff to shutdown. 

3. In-Flight Loss of Remote 

Identification Broadcast 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

A standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft must perform a selftest and provide a notification to the 

person manipulating the flight controls 

of the UAS if the remote identification 

equipment is not functioning properly. 

In addition, a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft must 

be designed to not take off if it fails the 

self-test. 

A remote identification broadcast 

module must also perform a self-test 

and provide a notification to the person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

UAS if the remote identification 

equipment is not functioning properly. 

Unmanned aircraft operators may only 

use remote identification broadcast 

modules that pass the self-test. 

Both standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules must 

continuously monitor their performance 

while in use and provide an indication 

if the remote identification equipment is 

not functioning properly. If the remote 

identification equipment provides an 

indication of failure or malfunction 

during flight, the unmanned aircraft 

operator must land the unmanned 

aircraft as soon as practicable. The FAA 

notes that it does not expect 

unavailability of GPS or other types of 

location services (as the rule does not 

require GPS specifically) to result in a 

notification to the unmanned aircraft 

operator nor require the operator to land 

the unmanned aircraft as soon as 

practicable. The FAA expects that 

means of compliance will stipulate that 

only equipment failures or malfunctions 

would trigger a notification to the 

operator that the unmanned aircraft was 

no longer broadcasting the message 

elements. 

When determining how and when to 

land the unmanned aircraft as soon as 

practicable, the FAA expects the person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

UAS to operate in a manner that 

minimizes risk to other users of the 

airspace and people and property on the 

ground, while using aeronautical 

decision making to quickly and safely 

land the unmanned aircraft at a suitable 

landing area. The FAA recommends 

including UAS remote identification 

contingency planning, including plans 

for landing as soon as practicable, as 

part of a pre-flight assessment. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Many commenters 

recommended clarification of the 

proposed requirement to ‘‘land as soon 

as practicable’’ in the event that remote 

identification information does not 

transmit or broadcast. Many other 

commenters noted it is more 

appropriate to notify the operator that 

remote identification equipment is not 

working properly than to forcibly 

ground a UAS by design. 

To reduce the need for case-by-case 

authorizations, the Association of 

American Railroads and the United 

States Rail Subsidiaries of the Canadian 

National Railway Company requested 

amending proposed § 89.110(b) to state 

that ‘‘land as soon as practicable’’ does 

not apply when remote identification 

cannot be transmitted because there is a 

potential to interfere with critical 

communication systems, when law 

enforcement is responding to an 

emergency situation, disaster response, 

critical infrastructure protection, or in 

other situations with the potential to 

jeopardize public safety. Commenters 

suggested permitting emergency 

operations with specific stipulations, 

such as operating within VLOS, 

determining there is no undue risk to 

persons or property on the ground or 

risk to UAS or manned aircraft in flight, 

and notifying local law enforcement. A 

few commenters were concerned that 

improper application of these 

requirements would result in automatic 

power shut down in flight. 

FAA Response: The requirement to 

‘‘land as soon as practicable’’ does not 

require an immediate landing upon 

notification of a failure of the broadcast 

equipment, but instead requires remote 

pilots to use aeronautical decision 

making to quickly and safely land the 

unmanned aircraft while considering 

the suitability of the landing area and 

the safety of other aircraft, as well as 

persons and property on the ground. 

While there may be some operations, 

such as emergency or disaster response, 

where continued unmanned aircraft 

operations, even in the presence of a 

broadcast equipment failure, may 

provide significant societal benefit, the 

FAA does not find that any particular 

activity warrants a specifically stated 

exception in the regulation from the 

requirement to land as soon as 

practicable. Instead, authorizations may 

be granted on a case-by-case basis if 

there is sufficient justification and an 

acceptable level of safety. 

F. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote 

Identification 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to allow 

unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification capabilities to operate in 

specific areas, referred to as FAArecognized 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4415 

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 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas would be 

the only option for certain persons to 

continue to fly UAS and stated the cost 

of upgrading a UAS to one with builtin remote identification could be cost 

prohibitive. 

Many commenters expressed 

concerns that they will be confined to 

operating their existing UAS at an FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas and 

otherwise prevent obsolescence. 

Commenters also noted specific types 

of UAS are not permitted to operate at 

many existing flying fields that are 

likely to be FAA-recognized 

identification areas. These UAS include 

quad copters, racing UAS, and UAS 

conducting first person view (FPV) 

operations. Many commenters noted 

that crowding a large number of existing 

unmanned aircraft operators into a 

limited number of FAA-recognized 

identification areas could make it 

difficult to have sufficient space to fly 

or could increase collision and crash 

risk due to radio interference and 

proximity of aircraft when numerous 

unmanned aircraft are flown at once. 

The commenters noted the likely 

number of FAA-recognized 

identification areas would not provide 

sufficient capacity to accommodate 

operations of hundreds of thousands of 

current UAS that would not be 

permitted to fly elsewhere. In addition, 

several commenters noted increased 

UAS activity and noise at flying fields 

is likely to increase tension with 

neighboring communities. Some 

commenters also noted many existing 

flying fields have limited hours. 

Dragonfly UAS and many other 

commenters noted many flying fields 

are consumed by surrounding 

development and recommended 

permitting a greater number of FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area, such as 

airports serving manned aircraft or other 

public locations that are likely to be 

ineligible. Many commenters suggested 

the FAA implement a simple 

authorization process for UAS events, 

with some commenters recommending 

an application-based request and 

approval system similar to LAANC. The 

Drone Racing League noted they would 

be unable to provide any first-person 

view racing events in the United States 

due to the VLOS and FAA-recognized 

identification area requirements. They 

also requested the final rule permit 

commercial UAS events with input and 

specific authorization by the FAA, 

similar to other aviation events such as 

air shows. 

Instead of being limited to operating 

in FAA-recognized identification areas, 

UAS Colorado recommended allowing 

community-based organizations to selfverify their fields and permit letters of 

agreement to operate on airports, and 

recommended developing a LAANCstyle system to allow self-reporting of 

location for non-compliant UAS as well 

as organized events that are not in FAArecognized identification areas. 

ii. FAA Response 

The FAA does not agree with the 

feedback from commenters who believe 

FAA-recognized identification areas are 

4416 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FAArecognized identification area and 

within visual line of sight. 

To address the commenters who 

expressed concerns with the policy that 

limited the types of entities that could 

request to establish an FAA-recognized 

identification area and the available 

time for making such requests, this rule 

expands the types of entities that can 

apply for the establishment of FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas. 

FAA-recognized identification areas 

are locations where unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification can 

operate, but these areas are not limited 

to only unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification; other unmanned 

aircraft may also be operated in these 

areas to the extent otherwise permitted 

in accordance with all applicable 

regulations. Therefore, unmanned 

aircraft with remote identification can 

also be operated within the boundaries 

of an FAA-recognized identification 

area. 

Though FAA-recognized 

identification areas would not be 

authorized for temporary use, the FAA 

expects that instances such as air shows 

or temporary drone racing events would 

be handled, where warranted, through 

authorization from the Administrator to 

deviate from the remote identification 

operating rules. 

3. Operations for Aeronautical Research 

The second way a person can operate 

an unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification is pursuant to an 

authorization from the FAA 

Administrator for the purpose of 

aeronautical research or to show 

compliance with regulations. As 

explained in the NPRM, the FAA 

considers aeronautical research to be 

limited to the research and testing of the 

unmanned aircraft, the control systems, 

equipment that is part of the unmanned 

aircraft (such as sensors), and flight 

profiles, or development of specific 

functions and capabilities for the UAS. 

Producers and other persons authorized 

by the Administrator have the ability to 

operate unmanned aircraft prototypes 

without remote identification 

exclusively for researching and testing 

the unmanned aircraft design, 

equipment, or capabilities; or to conduct 

research, development, and testing 

necessary for UAS infrastructure, 

systems, and technologies, including 

but not limited future UTM and United 

States Government counter-UAS 

capabilities. A person may also be 

authorized by the Administrator to 

conduct flight tests and other operations 

with non-compliant remote 

identification equipment to show 

compliance with an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance for remote 

identification or airworthiness 

regulations. These types of unmanned 

aircraft operations could include flights 

to show compliance for issuance of type 

certificates and supplemental type 

certificates, flights to substantiate major 

design changes, and flights to show 

compliance with the function and 

reliability requirements of the 

regulations. This deviation authority 

does not extend to any other type of 

research using an unmanned aircraft. 

As discussed in section XIV.B.5, UAS 

designed or produced exclusively for 

the purpose of aeronautical research are 

excepted from the production 

requirements of subpart F of this rule. 

The production exceptions are 

discussed in section XIV.B of this 

preamble. 

i. Public Comments Regarding 

Operations for Aeronautical Research 

Though some commenters objected to 

allowing UAS without remote 

identification to operate outside of FAArecognized identification areas for only 

aeronautical research purposes, many 

organizations, companies, and 

individual commenters generally 

supported the concept, with numerous 

suggestions to ensure research, 

development, and innovation are not 

unnecessarily restricted. Other 

commenters noted that only permitting 

aeronautical research was unnecessarily 

stifling for UAS research initiatives that 

are ongoing in multiple fields, such as 

forestry, wildlife biology, geology, 

agriculture, hydrology, and other fields 

utilizing geographic information 

systems. 

Some commenters suggested adding 

exceptions to accommodate education, 

such as training students, model 

airshows, and other educational events. 

Ax Enterprize mentioned that work 

testing UAS situation awareness 

systems should be permitted. Wing 

Aviation recommended the FAA to 

outline factors that weigh in favor of 

this authorization, such as a controlled 

access location with effective 

mitigations to ensure operation 

containment. SRP Aero asked how long 

it will take to grant an authorization to 

permit test flights of prototype UAS. A 

commenter from Evergreen State College 

asked the FAA to consider permitting 

research and emergency operations in 

remote areas. 

The Association for Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems International, the 

General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association, the University of Maryland 

UAS Test Site, and the University of 

Alabama in Huntsville requested that 

the FAA specifically clarify what kinds 

of operations qualify under the 

‘‘aeronautical research’’ exception to 

ensure it is not too restrictive, such as 

development activities, non-production 

and experimental prototypes, avionics 

interfaces, and concept of operations 

development. AiRXOS, the Commercial 

Drone Alliance, FlyGuys Inc., and 

others requested that commercial 

research be expressly listed as permitted 

under ‘‘aeronautical research,’’ and 

requested the FAA to clarify that 

research conducted in an FAArecognized 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4417 

ii. FAA Response 

In this rule, the FAA adopts the 

deviation authority to allow persons 

authorized by the Administrator to 

conduct operations without remote 

identification where the operation is 

solely for the purpose of aeronautical 

research or to show compliance with 

regulations. At this time, the FAA has 

decided that there is no need to expand 

the types of operations that qualify for 

a deviation from the operating rules and 

notes that the examples provided by 

commenters (e.g., non-aeronautical 

research, data collection, or educational 

activities) can be conducted using 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification, or using unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification at 

an FAA-recognized identification area. 

The FAA envisions that UAS operated 

for aeronautical research would 

typically be experimental, prototype, or 

testbed systems operated for specific 

purposes under special operating 

conditions and limited durations. These 

types of unmanned aircraft are not 

typically available to the general public 

for purchase or use. 

The FAA does not believe it is 

necessary to provide additional 

information regarding what types of 

operations constitute ‘‘aeronautical 

research’’ beyond what was provided in 

the NPRM and this rule. FAA notes that 

intending to conduct aeronautical 

research simply authorizes the operator 

to apply for a deviation; if requests for 

a deviation show confusion as to the 

meaning of this term in spite of the 

guidance in this rule, FAA may issue 

additional guidance at that time. 

VIII. Message Elements and Minimum 

Performance Requirements: Standard 

Remote Identification Unmanned 

Aircraft 

The FAA proposed certain 

requirements for remote identification 

message elements and minimum 

performance requirements for standard 

remote identification UAS. The FAA 

adopts those requirements with the 

changes and adjustments described 

below. 

A. Message Elements for Standard 

Remote Identification Unmanned 

Aircraft 

The FAA proposed requiring certain 

minimum message elements necessary 

to meet the objectives of this rule. The 

proposed message elements were: (1) 

The UAS Identification; (2) an 

indication of the control station’s 

latitude and longitude; (3) an indication 

of the control station’s barometric 

pressure altitude; (4) an indication of 

the unmanned aircraft’s latitude and 

longitude; (5) an indication of the 

unmanned aircraft’s barometric pressure 

altitude; (6) a time mark; and (7) an 

indication of the emergency status of the 

UAS. 

After reviewing public comments and 

further consideration, the FAA adopts 

the seven message elements proposed 

with some modifications and adds an 

eighth message element: Velocity. The 

FAA explains these requirements, 

including changes from the NPRM, in 

the following subsections. 

1. Unmanned Aircraft Unique Identifier 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The NPRM discussed that the UAS 

Identification message element 

establishes the unique identity of UAS 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. The FAA proposed that this 

message element would consist of one 

of the following: (1) A serial number 

assigned to the unmanned aircraft by 

the person responsible for the 

production of the standard remote 

identification UAS; or (2) a session 

identification number (session ID) 

assigned by a Remote ID USS. 

The FAA proposed to allow UAS 

operators to use a session ID assigned by 

a Remote ID USS as the UAS 

Identification instead of the unmanned 

aircraft serial number. The FAA 

explained that the association between 

a given session ID and the unmanned 

aircraft serial number would not be 

available to the public through the 

broadcast message. This association 

would be available to the issuing 

Remote ID USS, the FAA, and other 

authorized entities, such as law 

enforcement. Where a session ID would 

have been issued, the FAA explained 

that the Agency and authorized entities 

would have the means to correlate the 

session ID to the UAS serial number and 

would consequently be able to correlate 

the unmanned aircraft serial number to 

its registration data. The FAA also 

proposed that a UAS would be designed 

to broadcast its serial number regardless 

of whether the unmanned aircraft has 

been registered or not. 

The FAA adopts the UAS 

Identification message element concept, 

but instead uses the more general term 

‘‘unique identifier’’ in this rule and 

clarifies that the unique identifier is 

applicable to the unmanned aircraft and 

not the UAS. However, because the FAA 

has eliminated the Remote ID USSrelated requirements, the FAA plans to 

develop an alternative strategy for 

assignment of session ID to UAS 

operators. The FAA is retaining the 

concept that the session ID will be 

uniquely identifiable such that law 

enforcement and the FAA will be able 

to correlate each session ID to a specific 

unmanned aircraft serial number, but 

that this ability will not be publicly 

available. The FAA will consider 

existing policies, such as the Privacy 

ICAO Address (PIA) program for aircraft 

equipped with ADS–B Out, when 

developing the session ID policy. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed support for the session ID 

concept to protect the privacy of 

operations while deterring irresponsible 

operators. Pierce Aerospace 

recommended a unique session ID be 

created by default to protect privacy. 

Qualcomm and Streamline Designs both 

supported session IDs assigned by a 

Remote ID USS but suggested permitting 

the operator to cycle through a set of 

temporary IDs or have a session ID 

assigned with a time limit rather than 

requiring a unique session ID for each 

flight, to minimize the burden of 

assigning unique identifiers for short 

flights typical of many UAS. 

Kittyhawk supported the concept of 

assigning a session ID, and submitted 

survey data showing the importance of 

privacy for the majority of those pilots 

surveyed. Sky Eye Network 

recommended permitting the session ID 

option without an additional charge for 

operators due to the required Remote ID 

USS subscription to receive a session 

ID. The News Media Coalition 

supported the session ID concept to 

protect the privacy of journalists 

operating UAS, but was concerned 

about how to generate a unique session 

ID when operating in an area with no 

internet availability. 

Some commenters, including the New 

Hampshire Department of 

Transportation and Unifly, suggested 

permitting registration numbers to be 

broadcast or transmitted for aircraft 

identification as well as serial numbers 

or session ID while controlling access to 

the UAS and pilot registration database, 

similar to vehicle license plates and 

current manned aircraft requirements. 

Unifly also noted that this would be 

consistent with European Regulation 

2019/945 and the ASTM F3411–19 

Standard Specification for Remote ID 

and Tracking. 

One commenter was concerned about 

the requirement to broadcast or transmit 

the serial number as it may be difficult 

to keep the same serial number due to 

quality control issues in the event of 

major repairs to the UAS, such as 

repairs to the UAS or control station 

transmitters, or other parts. 

4418 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

20See 49 CFR 5.41(a). 

AiRXOS and Motorola supported the 

session ID concept for most missions, 

but further recommended developing a 

‘‘trusted user’’ process to allow law 

enforcement to flag missions for which 

Remote ID USS should not provide 

information to the general public. The 

Alabama Department of Transportation 

and the District of Columbia office of 

the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and 

Justice commented that while session ID 

offers privacy to the UAS operator, it 

could be a hindrance for identification 

that unscrupulous operators may 

exploit, which may negate the security 

benefit. 

Airlines for America (A4A) opposed 

the option for Remote ID USS to issue 

and assign session IDs. A4A thought 

session ID was not justified, stating that 

the combination of session ID and the 

UAS pilot being at a different location 

than the UAS provided additional 

privacy for UAS operators than other 

airspace users, which may be a 

disincentive to safe operating practices. 

Several other commenters suggested 

that the Session ID option could reduce 

accountability and inadvertently 

increase unsafe and irresponsible 

operations due to the added privacy. 

The American Civil Liberties Union 

noted that session ID will not shield 

individuals from tracking by the 

government but will likely shield 

corporate operators from public scrutiny 

by removing public ability to track a 

UAS across multiple flight sessions. 

They suggested permitting session ID for 

individuals but not commercial 

operators, and that government UAS be 

subject to a higher level of scrutiny and 

disclosure. The Electronic Privacy 

Information Center (EPIC) suggested the 

FAA avoid session IDs to reduce 

potential UAS identification problems 

for the public and ensure that UAS 

identity is not masked. 

FAA Response: Many commenters 

provided suggestions on how to 

implement the session ID concept, 

including cost models, how operators 

could use a session ID, or how Remote 

ID USS could issue them. The FAA 

finds that the performance-based 

requirements allow the unmanned 

aircraft community to innovate and find 

the solutions that work best but still 

meet the safety and security objectives 

of the rule. 

Some commenters suggested the 

registration number also be allowed as 

a UAS Identification message element. 

The addition of the registration number 

would likely require operator input and 

be susceptible to misuse, omission, or 

errors, and would require validation by 

an external system and require the 

external system to have access to 

registration information, which would 

create privacy and security concerns. As 

noted by a commenter, sharing of the 

registration data might lead others to 

misuse that information. Hence, the 

FAA finds that adding the registration 

number to the identification message 

element does not provide enough 

benefits to warrant the added 

complexity and potential for misuse of 

its addition. 

An individual commenter noted the 

difficulty of having the unmanned 

aircraft and control station both transmit 

the same serial number if a repair was 

needed that necessitated the remote 

identification equipment of one element 

needing replacement. The FAA expects 

that standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft will incorporate 

remote identification equipment that is 

highly integrated into the various 

unmanned aircraft components. 

Therefore, such repair actions would be 

undertaken by a specialist or someone 

trained by the manufacturer and that 

person would be capable of ensuring the 

proper functionality of the remote 

identification equipment post repair. 

The FAA agrees with many 

commenters that the session ID option 

strikes a balance between protecting the 

privacy of individual operations while 

still deterring irresponsible operators. 

The public can use remote identification 

messages with a session ID to report 

suspicious UAS operations to law 

enforcement, and law enforcement can, 

in coordination with the FAA, establish 

the identity of the responsible persons. 

The FAA agrees with commenters that 

session IDs must be traceable to enable 

the FAA and authorized entities to 

know the corresponding unmanned 

aircraft serial number or registration 

number for each individual session ID. 

The FAA does not agree, however, that 

session ID be the default option, and 

instead finds that both session ID and 

the serial number are equally 

acceptable. Thus, industry and 

individual operators are free to choose 

the option that best meets their needs. 

The FAA proposed that a session ID 

would be assigned by a Remote ID USS. 

Because this rule does not retain the 

requirement for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft to have 

an internet connection to a Remote ID 

USS, the FAA plans to develop an 

alternative strategy for assignment of 

session ID to unmanned aircraft 

operators. The FAA will consider 

existing policies, such as the Privacy 

ICAO Address (PIA) program for aircraft 

equipped with ADS–B Out, when 

developing the session ID policy. 

Pursuant to the Department of 

Transportation’s procedures regarding 

significant guidance documents,20 FAA 

will seek public comment on the session 

ID policy prior to finalizing it. 

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 colocated with the control station; 

therefore, knowing the control station 

location would also provide the location 

of the person manipulating the flight 

controls of the UAS. This message 

element would be used by the FAA and 

authorized entities to locate the UAS 

operator when necessary for the safety, 

security, or efficiency of aircraft 

operations in the airspace of the United 

States. The FAA adopts this message 

element as proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: A significant number of 

commenters, representing manned and 

unmanned aviation, manufacturers, 

users of unmanned aircraft, some State 

and local law enforcement agencies, and 

numerous individuals opposed the 

proposed requirement to provide the 

location of the control station to the 

public and cited a number of reasons 

including ensuring the safety of the 

person manipulating the flight controls 

of the UAS. Commenters expressed 

concerns about the privacy of their 

operations and that this information 

could increase the dangers for UAS 

operators and their property potentially 

resulting in assault, home invasion, and 

theft of their UAS and other equipment. 

Other commenters who opposed 

providing the ground control station 

location provided examples of 

confrontations, threats (including 

threats with firearms), and assaults that 

they or others have received during 

operations or referenced media reports 

of incidents involving confrontations, 

assaults of UAS operators, and people 

shooting at unmanned aircraft if their 

location becomes public. Many of these 

commenters supported the FAA and 

properly authorized law enforcement or 

government agencies gaining access to 

control station location information, but 

were concerned that making this 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4419 

information available to the public 

would increase the danger for UAS 

operators and their property. See section 

X of this preamble for a discussion of 

privacy issues raised by commenters, 

and section XI of this preamble for a 

discussion of law enforcement access to 

remote identification information. 

Commenters suggested that requiring 

the control station location would 

reduce the compliance rate. Others 

expressed concern for the safety of UAS 

operations if the remote pilot in 

command is distracted due to questions 

or a confrontation from a member of the 

public who has tracked the pilot using 

control station location information. 

Commenters noted that public 

availability of control station location 

information is contrary to current 

practices for manned aircraft pilots, 

such as locked cockpit doors as well as 

takeoffs and landings that occur at 

secure locations on airport property. 

Many commenters suggested that 

instead of making the control station 

location publicly available, issues 

regarding UAS operations are best 

addressed by noting the session ID or 

operator ID and contacting appropriate 

law enforcement agencies who can use 

that information to initiate an 

investigation. Many commenters 

suggested that the location of the control 

station should be encrypted and 

available only to the FAA and law 

enforcement but not to the general 

public, or location data should be 

degraded or obfuscated if the general 

public is permitted access. Several 

commenters were concerned about the 

safety of UAS operators and other 

support staff engaged in law 

enforcement or emergency management 

operations, and asked the FAA to justify 

the safety or security reason for the 

public to have access to the control 

station location. Many commenters 

referenced the UAS Identification and 

Tracking Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (UAS–ID ARC) 

recommendation that only the 

unmanned aircraft unique identifier 

should be available to the public and 

asked the FAA to explain why that 

recommendation was discarded. 

Some commenters referred to the 

ASTM F3411–19 Standard Specification 

for Remote ID and Tracking, which 

supports making control station location 

available only to authorized users and 

permits the use of takeoff location in 

lieu of control station location. Others 

referenced international standards with 

similar requirements. Ax Enterprize 

suggested that UAS operator contact 

information is generally preferable to 

control station location information. 

Several commenters expressed 

alternatives for providing the location of 

the control station. Instead of providing 

the control station location as proposed, 

Digital Aerolus recommended requiring 

the location of the control station ‘‘when 

available’’ to permit UAS operations in 

areas of poor GPS coverage, such as 

indoors, underground, or under bridges. 

Qualcomm suggested masking the 

control station location or assigning a 

separate session ID to the control 

station, so that this information is only 

available to the Remote ID USS, FAA, 

and law enforcement. The North 

Carolina Department of Transportation 

commented that control station location 

information should be available not 

only to law enforcement, but also to 

other first responders so UAS 

interference can be addressed quickly in 

emergency response situations such as 

hurricanes. 

The Association for Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems International broadly 

supported making operator location 

publicly available but suggested the 

FAA consider ways to protect this 

potentially private or confidential 

information, such as an opt-out or a 

trusted operator status that would only 

reveal the location to law enforcement 

and government agencies. 

FAA Response: While many 

commenters from a variety of 

backgrounds opposed the requirement 

to share the control station location 

publicly, the FAA finds that the 

requirement, as proposed, is necessary 

to meet the core objectives of this 

rulemaking effort to promote the safety 

and efficiency of the airspace of the 

United States. The inclusion of the 

control station location enables the 

remote identification message to create 

a direct link between an unmanned 

aircraft and its operator; promoting the 

accountability inherent in manned 

aviation. Some commenters raised the 

issue that the availability of this 

information could put remote pilots at 

greater risk of assault, theft, or other 

crimes. Though the FAA acknowledges 

the concerns expressed by commenters 

regarding personal safety, the FAA 

emphasizes that there are rules against 

interfering with an aircraft. The FAA 

finds that removal of the proposed 

requirement is not the appropriate 

solution, rather community outreach 

and other precautions are better suited 

to tackle these issues. Some commenters 

noted that sharing of the control station 

location is counter to the current 

practice of locking aircraft doors; 

however, the FAA finds that the 

analogous and appropriate practice 

would be to operate from a secure or 

restricted access location as necessary. 

Many commenters suggested the FAA 

modify the proposed regulation to allow 

for the control station location to only 

be available to specific entities such as 

the FAA and law enforcement. Though 

some commenters suggested using 

encryption techniques to accomplish 

this, the FAA finds that implementation 

of such a nuanced requirement would 

be highly complex, costly, and 

impractical. The FAA does not intend to 

limit who can receive the broadcast 

messages, and allowing encryption of 

certain message elements would limit 

who can receive the broadcast messages 

only to those with the capability to 

decrypt the messages. Allowing 

encryption is inconsistent with the 

FAA’s policy that the remote 

identification message elements should 

be publicly available information. 

Further, as some commenters suggested, 

different situations may necessitate 

certain emergency responders or other 

individuals to make contact with a 

remote pilot. In these situations, a 

privacy or encryption implementation 

may prohibit the on-scene individuals 

from having the critically needed 

information. In addition, an encryption 

requirement would present technical 

challenges leading to increased cost and 

complexity. For example, encryption 

key management could require standard 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft, broadcast modules, and 

authorized receivers to have internet 

connectivity and specialized software, 

increasing the cost of this rule and 

potentially creating cybersecurity 

vulnerabilities. Therefore, the FAA 

adopts the control station location 

requirement as proposed. 

The FAA acknowledges that location 

sensors such as GPS systems have 

physical limitations such as not being 

operational in certain urban 

environments. While some intermittent 

loss of position data is acceptable, this 

rule is being finalized in a performancebased 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 

4420 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonphysical flight controls, then that 

person’s location would be used as the 

control station location. For example, if 

the UAS utilizes a wrist device, then the 

location of the wrist device could be 

used as the control station location. For 

camera tracking technologies, the 

unmanned aircraft could use its own 

location estimate plus the same tracking 

system to calculate the location of the 

remote pilot. 

3. An Indication of the Control Station’s 

Altitude 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that standard 

remote identification UAS have an 

indication of the control station’s 

barometric pressure altitude, referenced 

to standard sea level pressure of 29.92 

inches of mercury or 1013.2 

hectopascals. This information can be 

used to approximate the control 

station’s height above ground level. 

Understanding height above ground 

level is necessary to help locate an 

operator in circumstances under which 

the person manipulating the flight 

controls of the UAS is not at ground 

level, such as a person operating a UAS 

from the roof of a building. 

In the NPRM, the FAA considered 

and rejected a requirement to indicate 

the control station’s geometric altitude, 

which is a measure of altitude provided 

by GPS that is not affected by 

atmospheric pressure. The FAA stated 

that barometric pressure altitude is a 

more precise measurement than 

geometric altitude and is the standard 

altitude reference for aviation. The FAA 

requested comments regarding whether 

both barometric pressure altitude and 

geometric altitude of the control station 

should be part of the remote 

identification message elements. 

After considering comments and 

engaging in further analysis, the FAA is 

finalizing the requirement that standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

include an indication of control station 

altitude as a required message element, 

but replaces the requirement to indicate 

barometric pressure altitude with 

geometric altitude. There are several 

reasons for this change from the 

proposal. First, barometric pressure 

sensors are not as common on 

unmanned aircraft control stations as 

GPS-based altitude sensors, and they 

also require more calibration, testing, 

and maintenance. Second, geometric 

altitude is more compatible with the 

GPS technologies integrated into smart 

devices, which are often used as the 

control station for recreational 

unmanned aircraft. Third, a 

performance-based geometric altitude 

requirement allows industry to use the 

right combination of technologies to 

produce a sufficiently accurate altitude 

estimate for the intended environment. 

The FAA expects that UAS will use GPS 

to determine geometric altitude 

measured as height above ellipsoid 

referenced to the WGS–84 datum. The 

FAA also anticipates UAS could utilize 

cellular and other signals to 

complement the GPS signal and provide 

for a robust solution. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Several commenters suggested that 

control station location provides 

sufficient detail and that identifying 

altitude is unnecessary and could 

render many devices such as tablets and 

cell phones obsolete for use as a control 

station. Other commenters supported 

the need to understand whether an 

operator is on the ground or on the roof. 

Many commenters recommended that 

control station barometric altitude not 

be a required message element because 

many control stations do not have the 

capability to report this information 

accurately and compliance will be 

difficult and costly. UAS Colorado and 

Wing Aviation also noted the lack of 

available barometric pressure settings to 

adjust a sensitive altimeter as well as 

stating that this capability does not exist 

for UAS ground stations. 

Many commenters recommended 

using geometric altitude for control 

stations, suggesting that it would be of 

greater usefulness, reliability, and less 

technically complex to integrate into 

UAS. One commenter suggested that 

barometric altitude is appropriate 

because geometric altitude may 

encounter difficulties with coverage and 

multipath errors in urban areas or areas 

with rising terrain or other obstacles. 

Some commenters suggested requiring 

geometric altitude while permitting but 

not requiring barometric pressure 

altitude. Others suggesting permitting 

one or the other, while others 

recommended requiring both. Several 

commenters recommended a 

performance-based altitude requirement 

rather than specifying either barometric 

or geometric. Others recommended 

different requirements depending on 

whether the operation was for 

recreational or commercial purposes. 

One commenter suggested permitting 

use of the barometric pressure altitude 

of the unmanned aircraft at takeoff as a 

substitute to providing real time 

barometric pressure altitude. 

FAA Response: After reviewing public 

comments and giving further 

consideration, the FAA adopts this 

message element to require geometric 

altitude for the control station instead of 

barometric pressure altitude, for the 

reasons described above. 

The FAA declines to require both 

barometric pressure and geometric 

altitude as there are no significant 

benefits associated with such a 

requirement. Geometric altitude alone is 

sufficient to meet the safety and security 

needs being addressed by this rule. 

Further, requiring both forms of altitude 

indications would necessitate additional 

equipment, testing, and maintenance 

that would increase UAS costs. Also, 

the FAA declines to use the take-off 

altitude instead of the control station 

altitude as standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft will 

already have a means to indicate the 

control station latitude and longitude. 

The FAA expects that providing an 

indication of the control station 

geometric altitude will not add 

significant cost or complexity to the 

remote identification equipment, and 

provides a substantially higher safety 

and security benefit, especially in urban 

areas. 

4. An Indication of the Unmanned 

Aircraft’s Latitude and Longitude 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that standard 

remote identification UAS provide the 

position of the unmanned aircraft using 

its latitude and longitude, which could 

be derived from a position source, such 

as a GPS receiver. The purpose of this 

message element is to associate a 

specific unmanned aircraft with its 

associated control station position. It 

would also be used to provide 

situational awareness to other aircraft, 

both manned and unmanned, operating 

nearby. 

The FAA adopts this message element 

as proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Many commenters, 

including commenters from manned 

and unmanned aviation, manufacturers, 

users of unmanned aircraft, some State 

and local law enforcement agencies, and 

numerous individuals opposed the 

proposed requirement to provide the 

location of the unmanned aircraft to the 

public. Commenters expressed concerns 

about the privacy of their operations 

and that this information could increase 

the dangers for UAS operators and their 

property potentially resulting in assault, 

home invasion, and theft of their UAS 

and other equipment. Other commenters 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4421 

who opposed providing the unmanned 

aircraft location provided examples of 

confrontations, threats (including 

threats with firearms), and assaults that 

they or others have received during 

operations or referenced media reports 

of incidents involving confrontations, 

assaults of UAS operators, and people 

shooting at unmanned aircraft if their 

location becomes public. Robotic 

Research opposed the requirement to 

share unmanned aircraft location, and 

stated they cannot publicly broadcast 

the position of their unmanned aircraft 

due to the sensitivity of their platforms 

and missions. 

Instead of making the unmanned 

aircraft location public, many 

commenters, suggested the public 

should only have access to the UAS 

session ID or other identification to 

support reporting unsafe operations to 

the appropriate authorities. Some of 

these commenters suggested, if 

unmanned aircraft location is available 

to the public, it should be an 

approximated or obfuscated location 

and only available within a limited 

distance of the public requestor. Other 

commenters suggested using technology 

to limit the information available to the 

public. The Experimental Aircraft 

Association recommended permitting 

operators to opt-out of providing remote 

identification data accessible to the 

public if that data is only needed by the 

FAA and law enforcement. 

Many commenters agreed that FAA, 

law enforcement, and other appropriate 

government agencies, including first 

responders should have access to 

unmanned aircraft location information. 

A few commenters noted that this 

proposed requirement would be similar 

to making airline information available. 

Some commenters supported sharing 

unmanned aircraft location information 

even if they are concerned about public 

access to control station location. 

Airbus UTM and the Electronic 

Privacy Information Center 

recommended standardizing message 

formats for standard and limited remote 

identification UAS by requiring 

unmanned aircraft location information, 

to support better identification and 

operational capabilities. Pierce 

Aerospace recommended requiring 

unmanned aircraft and control station 

location for standard remote 

identification UAS, though they 

suggested an exception for amateur and 

recreational operations that abide by a 

volume-based UTM capability. 

Many commenters stated transmitting 

unmanned aircraft location information 

would be burdensome because most 

model aircraft are not equipped with 

GPS or other navigation equipment and 

there are not many solutions currently 

available. 

Commenters expressed concern about 

how this would affect indoor UAS 

operations, noting that GPS is not 

available or reliable indoors, and that 

these activities are not currently 

regulated but will become regulated by 

default, because new commercially built 

unmanned aircraft would be prohibited 

from flight, even indoors, by the 

manufacturing regulations proposed. 

American Fuel and Petrochemical 

Manufacturers were concerned this 

proposed requirement would eliminate 

unmanned aircraft tank inspections, 

which is one of the best use cases for 

UAS in the oil and gas industry. 

Other commenters expressed concern 

about the effect of this requirement on 

operations that take place in locations 

with limited GPS. Digital Aerolus 

recommended requiring the location of 

the unmanned aircraft ‘‘when available’’ 

to permit UAS operations in areas of 

poor GPS coverage, such as indoors, 

underground, or under bridges. A 

commenter recommended either 

permitting transmission of the last 

known unmanned aircraft location or 

operator location, permitting operators 

to manually specify they are indoors to 

override the remote identification 

requirement when GPS is not available. 

FAA Response: Though many 

commenters opposed the inclusion of 

the unmanned aircraft location message 

element due to privacy and safety 

concerns, the FAA finds this message 

element is a foundational part of remote 

identification. By including this 

message element, the remote 

identification message allows the FAA, 

law enforcement, and the public to have 

awareness of unmanned aircraft 

operations and correlate the location of 

unmanned aircraft with the location of 

their respective operators. The 

availability of this information will 

promote accountability and trust in the 

unmanned aircraft community overall. 

Further, remote identification in 

combination with community outreach 

will foster a better public understanding 

of the important role unmanned aircraft 

play in the economy and society overall. 

Some commenters raised the issue that 

the availability of this information could 

put remote pilots at greater risk of 

assault, theft, or other crimes. As noted 

previously, though the FAA 

acknowledges the concerns expressed 

by commenters regarding personal 

safety and the marginal risk created by 

broadcasting a control station’s location, 

the FAA emphasizes that there are 

statutory prohibitions against interfering 

with an aircraft. Additionally, there are 

local, State, and Federal laws against 

assault, theft, and other crimes. 

Many commenters suggested that this 

message element should only be 

available to specific entities and not be 

publicly available, but the FAA finds 

this would adversely impact the 

intended transparency of remote 

identification information and the 

effectiveness of this rule. The public 

availability of the unmanned aircraft 

location as well as all the other message 

elements allows persons to associate 

each element of the unmanned aircraft 

and control station with a unique 

identifier. The FAA notes that the 

broadcast range of remote identification 

information will have a finite limit 

based on signal strength limitations for 

unlicensed devices. 

The FAA agrees with the comments 

that supported the inclusion of this 

message element and found the sharing 

of the unmanned aircraft location is 

similar to how airlines and other pilots 

share their aircraft locations publicly 

through ADS–B Out broadcasts. The 

FAA further agrees with these 

commenters that the accountability, 

safety, and security benefits exceed the 

suggested privacy impacts. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

commenters who suggested that 

inclusion of this message element 

would hinder their ability to fly 

unmanned aircraft indoors or in specific 

outdoor environments due to lack of 

GPS coverage. The FAA expects that 

there will be a variety of ways for 

industry to implement the requirement 

to indicate the unmanned aircraft’s 

latitude and longitude under different 

environmental conditions, including 

when a position source such as GPS, is 

unavailable. For example, when 

position information is not available, a 

means of compliance may specify that 

the remote identification equipment 

broadcast all zeros for the indication of 

latitude and longitude to show that the 

position is unknown. This would allow 

an unmanned aircraft to take off even 

when position information is 

unavailable. These design options will 

be described in each FAA-accepted 

means of compliance. Because of this 

flexibility, the FAA does not consider 

that this message element will 

negatively impact operations indoors. In 

addition, for unmanned aircraft 

intended to routinely operate in areas 

where there is no GPS coverage, 

operators may choose to use an 

unmanned aircraft that relies on a 

position source other than GPS. The 

FAA declines to include a requirement 

where the unmanned aircraft only 

broadcasts the message element of 

latitude and longitude when the 

4422 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

position source is ‘‘available.’’ The 

location of the unmanned aircraft is an 

essential element of remote 

identification, and the FAA considers 

that the addition of this language would 

add unnecessary design complexity and 

uncertainty over whether the unmanned 

aircraft was required to broadcast the 

position information. However, as noted 

previously, the FAA would consider 

means of compliance that include a 

standardized message for when that 

position source is unavailable. 

The applicability of this rule does not 

extend to unmanned aircraft 

manufactured solely for indoor use. 

Further, the FAA adopts this 

requirement using a performance-based 

approach that allows industry to use 

technologies best suited for the intended 

environment. Location estimation can 

be done using GPS in combination with 

cellular and other signals to work in a 

greater number of urban and even 

indoor environments. Smart device 

manufacturers commonly employ these 

techniques. The FAA thus finds that the 

inclusion of this message element will 

not significantly hinder the ability for 

people to conduct operations in areas 

with poor GPS coverage. 

5. An Indication of the Unmanned 

Aircraft’s Altitude 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require 

standard remote identification UAS 

indicate the unmanned aircraft’s 

barometric pressure altitude referenced 

to standard sea level pressure of 29.92 

inches of mercury or 1013.2 

hectopascals. The purpose of this 

information would be to establish a 

standard altitude reference for UAS 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. It can also be used to provide 

situational awareness to other aircraft, 

both manned and unmanned, operating 

nearby. As with control station altitude, 

the FAA requested comments on 

whether to require barometric pressure 

or geometric altitude. 

After considering comments and 

engaging in further analysis, the FAA 

adopts the requirement that standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

include an indication of the unmanned 

aircraft’s altitude as a required message 

element. As with the message element 

indicating control station altitude, the 

FAA replaces the requirement to 

indicate barometric pressure altitude 

with geometric altitude. This change is 

made for the same reasons explained in 

the discussion of control station altitude 

message elements, above. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Commenters provided 

many of the same comments for 

unmanned aircraft altitude as they did 

for control station altitude, including 

support for barometric, geometric, either 

barometric or geometric, both 

barometric and geometric, and neither. 

Airbus UTM agreed with the use of 

barometric rather than geometric 

altitude, because barometry is how 

altitude is typically defined in the 

airspace of the United States today, and 

the control station, Remote ID USS, or 

other service provider will be able to 

make adjustments based on locally 

reported barometric pressure to make 

more accurate comparisons to manned 

aircraft. One other commenter suggested 

that barometric altitude is more 

appropriate than geometric altitude, 

which may encounter difficulties with 

coverage and multipath errors in urban 

areas or areas with rising terrain or other 

obstacles. 

Several commenters, including 

AirMap, suggested that geometric or 

GPS altitude be required instead of 

barometric pressure altitude. 

Commenters suggested that barometric 

pressure altitude should not be required 

or should be optional. The Small UAV 

Coalition and Streamline Designs 

suggested that FAA should not require 

unmanned aircraft barometric pressure 

altitude because most unmanned 

aircraft use geometric altitude almost 

exclusively, and many unmanned 

aircraft do not have barometric pressure 

altitude capability so compliance will 

be difficult and costly. ANRA 

Technologies noted that many 

unmanned aircraft use geometric 

altitude as their primary reference and 

suggested that should be the 

requirement, with barometric pressure 

altitude as an optional element. Because 

remote identification is not being used 

to ensure aircraft separation, Amazon 

Prime Air commented that permitting 

geometric altitude for standard remote 

identification UAS would not negatively 

impact safety or accountability, and 

would improve compliance by 

leveraging current designs in smart 

phones and other equipment with GPS 

receivers. 

The Virginia Tech Mid-Atlantic 

Aviation Partnership recommended 

using geometric altitude instead of 

barometric pressure altitude due to 

errors in static pressure systems, 

complexity of adding those to the 

unmanned aircraft, and lack of critical 

need when remote identification is not 

intended for navigation or deconfliction. 

Another commenter asked the FAA not 

to require new sensors that would add 

more weight or require more power for 

the UAS, such as barometric sensors or 

a coordinated universal time clock, 

when similar information is already 

provided on UAS that have navigation 

and telemetry information. 

Airlines for America and AiRXOS 

recommended requiring both the 

barometric and the geometric altitude to 

provide redundancy and better ensure 

safe separation of unmanned and 

manned aircraft; one commenter noted 

that manned aircraft use both 

barometric and geometric altitude, so 

these elements should be transmitted if 

the unmanned aircraft is capable. 

Wingcopter recommended using 

barometric altitude as the main 

information source but also using 

geometric altitude for comparison and 

error detection, especially to provide a 

higher level of safety for higher risk 

operations. 

A commenter from the Johns Hopkins 

University noted that ground users, 

such as law enforcement, will need 

remote identification altitude 

information presented in a different 

format because they may not be 

experienced with barometric pressure 

altitudes. They recommended the FAA 

require transmission of both barometric 

and geometric altitude as well as a 

containment value and probability of 

exceedance, which could be met by 

fusing altitude and position data from 

multiple sources. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenters that supported using 

geometric altitude instead of barometric 

pressure altitude for the unmanned 

aircraft. The FAA believes that an 

indication of the unmanned aircraft 

geometric altitude provides sufficient 

information to meet the safety and 

accountability goals of remote 

identification. Further, the FAA agrees 

that barometric altimetry equipment is 

less prevalent than GPS-based geometric 

altimetry in UAS and could add 

unnecessary complexity both in 

integration as well as operation. To 

align with the change from barometric 

pressure altitude to geometric altitude 

for the control station altitude message 

element, the FAA adopts a requirement 

to indicate the geometric altitude of the 

unmanned aircraft rather than the 

barometric pressure altitude. 

The FAA declines to require both 

geometric and barometric altitude 

reporting because geometric altitude 

alone meets the safety and security 

needs for this rule. While both forms of 

altitude reporting would add a layer of 

redundancy, the additional cost and 

complexity is not warranted for the core 

intended functions of remote 

identification information. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4423 

The FAA agrees with a performancebased requirement that is technology 

agnostic. The FAA envisions that 

industry could meet the altitude 

requirement by using a variety of 

technologies and signals including GPS 

and cellular, and still report geometric 

altitude using a common reference 

frame. 

The FAA acknowledges that users of 

remote identification information such 

as law enforcement may not be 

experienced with different types of 

altitude reporting. The FAA envisions 

that standardized software would be 

available to these users to display the 

data in an easy to understand format 

that suits their unique needs. The FAA 

also finds that the requirements are 

sufficient to ensure standardized 

reporting by UAS in a manner that is 

processed by software to support 

display applications. 

6. Time Mark 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require a time 

mark identifying the Coordinated 

Universal Time (UTC) time of 

applicability of a position source 

output. A position source output is the 

latitude and longitude coordinates of 

the unmanned aircraft or control station, 

as applicable. The time of applicability 

is a record of the UTC time when the 

unmanned aircraft or control station 

was at a particular set of coordinates. 

The FAA adopts this requirement as 

proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: No commenters objected 

to the FAA proposal to require a time 

mark as a remote identification message 

element. The Small UAV Coalition 

agreed with the requirement for a time 

mark. Digital Aerolus noted that internal 

UAS systems will gradually lose 

synchronization when location services 

are not available, and recommended 

updating the requirements to reflect this 

possibility by adding ‘‘when location 

services are available’’ or similar 

language. Unifly recommended 

permitting external ‘‘add-on’’ equipment 

such as a remote identification module 

that provides remote identification, 

GNSS, and time information. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

synchronization may be a problem 

when location services are not available 

but finds that this situation would not 

be a limiting factor to the generation of 

remote identification messages because 

the message also includes location 

information. The FAA adopts the 

requirement as proposed. 

7. An Indication of the Emergency 

Status of the UAS 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require 

standard remote identification UAS to 

include a message element that specifies 

a code indicating the emergency status, 

which could include lost-link, downed 

aircraft, or other abnormal status of the 

UAS. The FAA adopts this requirement 

as proposed. 

The FAA anticipates that an industry 

standard for remote identification 

would specify the different emergency 

codes applicable to unmanned aircraft 

affected by this rule. This message 

element could be initiated manually by 

the person manipulating the flight 

controls of the UAS or automatically by 

the UAS, depending on the nature of the 

emergency and the UAS capabilities. 

The purpose of this message element 

would alert others that the UAS is 

experiencing an emergency condition 

and would indicate the type of 

emergency. 

The FAA expects that this message 

element may provide an indication of 

UAS that are lost-link, are in a low 

battery or low fuel state, or are in other 

off-nominal or failure modes that might 

result in unexpected behaviors that 

other airspace users or people in the 

vicinity would benefit from knowing. 

The FAA anticipates that the emergency 

status indication would be used by 

display applications available to pilots 

and the general public to indicate when 

a UAS is experiencing an off-nominal 

event, such as lost-link, that may not be 

clear by visual observation alone. 

The FAA envisions that industry, 

through consensus standards bodies, 

will develop and incorporate specific 

implementations of the message element 

into a means of compliance that 

balances utility, safety, and privacy. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: One commenter 

supported sharing the emergency status 

of the UAS as proposed. Another 

commented recommended removing 

this requirement, questioning its utility. 

Other commenters requested that the 

requirement be explained in greater 

detail and specificity. Wing Aviation 

suggested UAS not be required to 

transmit non-critical, off-nominal 

conditions that do not affect compliance 

or security, and recommended 

amending the requirement to ‘‘critical 

emergency status.’’ Theia recommended 

that the emergency status of a downed 

UAS should not be shared with the 

public because of the safety and security 

risks. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges the request for greater 

specificity regarding what types of offnominal situations should be included 

in the emergency status indication, but 

the FAA believes that the UAS industry 

is in the best position to determine this 

criteria, and any specificity provided by 

the FAA at this time may not provide 

flexibility for future changes as UAS 

technology evolves. As such, the FAA 

adopts the requirement as proposed 

without requiring any specific 

implementation. 

8. Velocity 

In the NPRM, the FAA asked for 

public comments on whether standard 

remote identification UAS should 

broadcast other message elements. A 

number of commenters recommended 

requiring speed or velocity as required 

message elements. 

After reviewing these comments and 

further consideration, the FAA decided 

to require velocity as an additional 

message element for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. By 

adding an indication of the unmanned 

aircraft’s velocity, the remote 

identification message set will better 

align with existing remote identification 

standards, such as ASTM F3411–19 and 

international implementations, as well 

as provide a complete description of an 

unmanned aircraft’s state to the FAA, 

law enforcement, and the public. The 

FAA envisions that the velocity message 

element would be a three-dimensional 

vector that conveys horizontal and 

vertical speed, as well as the direction 

of movement of the aircraft. The FAA 

notes that the velocity message element, 

when used to display unmanned aircraft 

flight information, includes both speed 

and direction information. The FAA is 

not prescribing specific requirements for 

UAS velocity, and expects this message 

element to be incorporated into a means 

of compliance which will be reviewed 

and evaluated as a part of the 

acceptance process. 

9. Other Message Elements 

As stated above, in the NPRM, the 

FAA asked for public comments on 

whether standard remote identification 

UAS should broadcast other message 

elements. As described below, the FAA 

received a number of comments on 

different message elements that could be 

included. After review and careful 

consideration, the FAA determined that, 

except for velocity (described above), 

the FAA would not adopt requirements 

for additional message elements. 

Comments: Johns Hopkins University 

Applied Physics Lab supported the 

concept of a common message structure 

4424 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and recommended this be further 

applied to Remote ID USS as well, to 

ensure that UAS are not compatible 

with only one Remote ID USS. One 

commenter agreed that message 

elements other than those proposed did 

not yield enough benefit to necessitate 

recording and transmitting. Wing 

Aviation recommended that required 

message elements be aligned to the 

ASTM F3411–19 Standard Specification 

for Remote ID and Tracking to reflect 

established industry consensus, 

specifically mentioning barometric 

altitude and emergency status. 

A few commenters suggested 

requiring message elements to note if 

the remote pilot is part 107 certified, if 

the UAS is properly registered, and to 

add the LAANC approval code or COA 

identification. UPS Flight Forward 

suggested adding the direction of flight 

and mode of flight (manual, automated, 

autonomous) to the required message 

elements. The Stadium Managers 

Association also recommended adding 

message element(s) to help future-proof 

remote identification in the event of a 

UAS operating automatically or 

autonomously miles away from the 

control station, such as mode of flight, 

flight path, and intended destination. 

The Utah Department of Transportation 

recommended requiring speed, UAS 

attitude (pitch, roll, and yaw), and 

power status as a message element. The 

Air Line Pilots Association 

International, the Consumer Technology 

Association, the Port of Long Beach, and 

the Small UAV Coalition recommended 

requiring message elements reporting 

current velocity, direction, and route, 

such as magnetic course and ground 

speed, with the Small UAV Coalition 

noting that this would be consistent 

with remote identification proposals in 

the European Union. A few commenters 

suggested adding message elements for 

horizontal and vertical uncertainty 

estimates, and another suggested aircraft 

direction, speed, and vertical speed. Ax 

Enterprize suggested a message element 

to specify which Remote ID USS the 

UAS is connected to. SeeScan 

recommended requiring a detailed flight 

plan to be submitted to the Remote ID 

USS, including flight plan, name, 

certificate number, contact number, 

flight volume polygon, maximum 

altitude, nearest airport, date, time, and 

duration of flight. 

The National Association of State 

Aviation Officials recommended the 

creation of options that provide flight 

data including airspeed, altitude, 

directional tracking, and battery or fuel 

life status information. 

The American Association of Airport 

Executives suggested a message element 

to convey if the UAS has obtained an 

FAA airspace authorization. The 

Alabama Department of Transportation 

asked why LAANC authorizations and 

COA information were not included as 

message elements, believing that this 

information would help law 

enforcement and public safety agencies 

better differentiate illegal UAS 

operations from those with specific 

authorization to conduct operations in 

certain areas. Airports Council 

International-North America asked how 

UAS remote identification information 

would be fused with other critical UAS 

operational information, notably 

LAANC data, which would enable local 

authorities to determine whether UAS 

had received FAA approval to operate 

in the airspace where it is necessary. 

The Electronic Privacy Information 

Center (EPIC) suggested several message 

elements to better convey the 

characteristics of all UAS and their 

missions, such as surveillance 

capabilities (audio, infrared, thermal 

sensors) and UAS purpose (recreational, 

commercial, government) with further 

subcategories such as commercialdelivery, media, or infrastructure 

inspection. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

a common message structure is critical 

to the successful implementation of this 

rule. The FAA is committed to utilizing 

a performance-based approach to 

rulemaking where industry can develop 

and update means of compliance as 

needed. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters 

that suggested adding unmanned 

aircraft velocity as a required message 

element, for the reasons explained 

above. The FAA finds that the other 

message elements proposed by 

commenters, while valuable in specific 

situations, are not essential to meeting 

the safety and security needs being 

addressed by this rule. Some of the 

message elements proposed by 

commenters are better aligned with 

remote pilots sharing their flight intent. 

The FAA agrees that the sharing of flight 

intent is valuable in promoting the 

safety and efficiency of the airspace of 

the United States, but finds that such a 

requirement is appropriate to consider 

once UTM has been further developed 

and implemented. Flight intent is a 

foundational concept of UTM, and the 

FAA envisions such requirements may 

be a part of a future rulemaking to 

enable wide scale use of the UTM 

ecosystem. 

Some commenters suggested that FAA 

waiver and authorization information be 

included as a message element. The 

FAA declines to include this 

information for two reasons. First, part 

89 applies to unmanned aircraft 

regardless of the operating rules that 

apply to the operation of that aircraft. 

Operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809 may 

not have any waiver or authorization 

information that would be applicable. In 

addition, requiring that this information 

be included would be technologically 

challenging because the remote 

identification capability is tied to the 

unmanned aircraft or broadcast module 

being used whereas waivers and 

authorizations are issued for a specific 

operation. An unmanned aircraft may be 

used for an operation that has been 

granted a waiver one day and then used 

under other circumstances in which the 

waiver would not apply. Similarly, 

airspace authorizations are granted for 

specific times and airspace and would 

be challenging to encode into the remote 

identification capability for either the 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or the remote 

identification broadcast module. Instead 

of requiring that this information be 

included in a remote identification 

transmission, the FAA envisions that 

authorized entities will be able to access 

this type of information through the 

FAA based on the unique identifier and 

other message elements included in the 

broadcast. 

B. Minimum Performance Requirements 

for Standard Remote Identification 

Unmanned Aircraft 

The FAA proposed to require 

standard remote identification UAS to 

meet the minimum performance 

requirements established in proposed 

§ 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, selftesting 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4425 

and encode a control station location 

that corresponds to the location of the 

person manipulating the flight controls 

of the UAS. The rationale for this 

requirement is to assist the FAA and 

law enforcement to locate the person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

UAS. The FAA intended for an FAAaccepted means of compliance to 

outline a process for UAS designers and 

producers to determine which part or 

element of the control station should be 

incorporated into the remote 

identification message due to its close 

proximity to the person manipulating 

the flight controls of the UAS. The FAA 

adopts this requirement as proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Unmanned Systems 

Canada commented the requirement to 

encode the ground control station could 

be problematic for dual-pilot operations. 

This could conceivably require the 

installation of more than one remote 

identification device. Many commenters 

stated transmitting unmanned aircraft 

location information would be 

burdensome because most model 

aircraft are not equipped with GPS or 

other navigation equipment and there 

are not many solutions currently 

available. A few commenters stated 

there are gaps in GPS coverage that 

could prevent operators from complying 

with the requirement to provide control 

station information. An individual 

commenter suggested limiting the 

remote pilot in command to 100 feet of 

the takeoff point if the UAS cannot 

transmit control station location. 

FAA Response: While a small number 

of commenters noted the confusion that 

may arise with multiple operators of the 

same unmanned aircraft or multiple 

unmanned aircraft operating in a 

relatively small area, the FAA finds that 

the inclusion of a unique identifier, 

which is part of the remote 

identification message, is sufficient to 

prevent such confusion. The FAA did 

not find a need to make changes to this 

requirement and will adopt it as 

proposed. 

With respect to concerns regarding 

gaps in GPS coverage, the FAA 

acknowledges that location sensors such 

as GPS systems have physical 

limitations such as not being 

operational in certain urban 

environments. While some intermittent 

loss of position data is acceptable, the 

FAA adopts this rule in a performancebased manner and expects that industry 

will use a variety of inputs (such as GPS 

and cellular signals) to estimate position 

such that the UAS is able to generate the 

complete remote identification message 

in its intended operating environment. 

The FAA declines to specify 

conditions, such as remaining within 

100 feet of the take-off location, when 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft cannot broadcast an 

indication of the control station 

location. If the unmanned aircraft can 

no longer broadcast the message 

elements, the person operating the 

unmanned aircraft must land as soon as 

practicable. 

2. Automatic Remote ID USS 

Connection 

The FAA proposed that from takeoff 

to landing, standard remote 

identification UAS would be required to 

maintain a connection to the internet 

automatically when available and 

would be required to transmit the 

message elements to a Remote ID USS 

through that connection. This minimum 

performance requirement is no longer 

applicable with the removal of the 

Remote ID USS connection 

requirements and has been removed. 

3. Time Mark 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that standard 

remote identification UAS would be 

required to generate and transmit 

remote identification messages with the 

time mark message element. The FAA 

proposed that the time mark message 

element be synchronized to the time 

when all other message elements are 

generated. The purpose of this 

requirement is to ensure that position 

and other data contained in remote 

identification messages would have a 

usable time reference for the purposes of 

reconstructing unmanned aircraft flight 

profiles. The FAA adopts this 

requirement as proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

The FAA did not receive any 

comments opposing this requirement. 

4. Self-Testing and Monitoring 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require UAS 

with remote identification to test the 

remote identification functionality 

automatically when the UAS is powered 

on and to notify the person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

UAS of the result of the test. Further, 

the FAA proposed to prohibit these 

UAS from taking off if the remote 

identification equipment is not fully 

functional. Because a person would 

only be allowed to operate a standard 

remote identification UAS if its remote 

identification equipment is functional, 

the FAA envisioned that UAS designers 

and producers would build a 

notification system to alert potential 

operators of any remote identification 

equipment-related malfunction. This 

notification requirement would help 

operators comply with the operating 

requirements of part 89. 

The FAA also proposed that the UAS 

be required to self-monitor the remote 

identification functionality 

continuously throughout the flight and 

provide notification of malfunction or 

failure to the person manipulating the 

flight controls of the UAS. With this 

capability, the person manipulating the 

flight controls of the UAS can make 

informed decisions about what actions 

to take to minimize risk to other users 

of the airspace and people and property 

on the ground. This requirement is 

necessary because a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft would 

be required to land as soon as 

practicable if it loses broadcast 

capability in-flight. 

The FAA adopts this requirement 

with modifications. In the NPRM, the 

FAA proposed that the automatic test 

must occur when the UAS is powered 

on. This rule modifies the proposal to 

require the automatic self-test to occur 

prior to takeoff. The FAA believes this 

change provides greater flexibility to 

developers of means of compliance as 

well as UAS producers when meeting 

this requirement. In addition, the 

requirement to monitor the remote 

identification equipment functionality 

has been expanded from takeoff to 

landing to takeoff to shutdown to reflect 

the changes to the operating rules that 

require persons operating UAS with 

remote identification to broadcast the 

message elements from takeoff to 

shutdown, as discussed in section 

VII.E.2 of this preamble. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Even though this 

requirement only specified a 

notification for equipment that fails or 

malfunctions during flight, many 

commenters emphasized that it is 

appropriate to notify the operator that 

remote identification equipment is not 

working properly rather than to forcibly 

ground an unmanned aircraft by design. 

The University of California, Irvine 

recommended restricting UAS from 

takeoff by operational regulation instead 

of hardware regulation. Unifly noted 

that in the event of loss of broadcast 

capability, the person manipulating the 

flight controls of the UAS should be 

responsible to not take off. Ax 

Enterprize agreed that the monitoring 

function should notify the remote pilot 

if remote identification fails. The FPVFC 

suggested an equipment solution for an 

indicator system, and recommended 

4426 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FAArecognized identification area. One 

individual suggested eliminating the 

requirement that UAS disable 

themselves under certain conditions, as 

it could introduce a hazardous situation 

if a UAS is performing multiple takeoffs 

and landings, as it would be required to 

detect a landing, check the internet 

connection, and prohibit takeoff if the 

connection is lost. This could cause a 

loss of power at a critical phase of flight. 

DJI Technology, Inc. commented on 

its view that the NPRM reflected a 

fundamental change in philosophy, 

specifically that Americans cannot be 

trusted to act responsibly or in 

compliance with regulations. In 

addition, they stated the requirement 

raises technical challenges regarding 

design, application, and upgrades. They 

also noted potential legal liability 

concerns with the shift of 

responsibilities from the pilot to the 

manufacturer. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree that the requirements represent a 

fundamental shift of responsibility from 

the operator to the manufacturer. 

Rather, the two requirements are 

complementary. A failed self-test at start 

up would result in the operator being 

notified that the remote identification 

equipment is not functioning properly, 

and the unmanned aircraft would not be 

able to take off. Though this may 

introduce a possible failure point if the 

self-test feature produces errors, the 

FAA does not agree that this 

requirement could introduce a loss of 

control situation. The requirement 

would inhibit take-off in the event of a 

remote identification equipment failure, 

but not prohibit an operator from having 

control of the unmanned aircraft midflight given the same failure. This 

design feature will help operators fulfill 

their responsibility to not takeoff with 

malfunctioning or failed remote 

identification equipment. Overall, the 

FAA anticipates that the manufacturing 

and operator requirements will 

significantly reduce instances of UAS 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States without properly functioning 

remote identification equipment. 

5. Tamper Resistance 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require that 

UAS with remote identification be 

designed and produced in a way that 

reduces the ability of a person to tamper 

with the remote identification 

functionality. The FAA envisioned the 

UAS would have tamper-resistant 

design features to hinder the ability to 

make unauthorized changes to the 

remote identification equipment or 

messages. The FAA adopts this 

requirement as proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Many commenters 

supported the inclusion of a tamper 

resistance requirement. Qualcomm 

Incorporated stated that a secure UAS 

should respond to a tamper event by 

noting the event and/or ceasing to 

operate. Airlines for America urged the 

FAA to include a provision to protect 

against deactivation of the remote 

identification system. Some commenters 

requested the FAA provide additional 

detail on tamper resistance 

requirements. Other commenters raised 

concerns about added weight and costs. 

Some commenters opposed including 

tamper resistance requirements. Several 

commenters raised concerns about how 

this requirement would affect repairs, 

hardware upgrades, or home-built UAS. 

Other commenters raised concerns that 

the requirement for a tamper resistance 

remote identification UAS will create a 

cybersecurity threat because many 

commercially available UAS are made 

in foreign countries such as China. They 

also suggested this requirement will 

make it difficult or impossible to assess 

any cybersecurity threat. 

FAA Response: Analysis of the 

comments regarding tamper resistance 

of the remote identification 

functionality found that while most 

commenters supported the requirement, 

a small number of commenters were 

against it. Several commenters favored 

the tamper resistance of the remote 

identification functionality, but argued 

that the requirement would result in 

UAS that could not be repaired, 

maintained, or receive hardware 

upgrades as this could constitute 

tampering with the UAS. This appears 

to be a misunderstanding, as only the 

remote identification equipment and 

functionality is covered by the tamper 

resistance requirement. Commenters 

opposed to the tamper resistance 

requirement mentioned additional 

weight or cost, while others speculated 

that tamper resistance may introduce a 

cybersecurity threat. The FAA does not 

agree with these assertions because the 

FAA considers this requirement to be 

performance-based. The FAA envisions 

industry will find ways to comply 

without increasing the weight or cost 

significantly (for example, anti-tamper 

stickers), or introducing additional 

cybersecurity or other threats. 

6. Connectivity 

For standard remote identification 

UAS, the FAA proposed that the UAS 

would be designed to not take off unless 

it is connected to the internet and 

transmitting the message elements to a 

Remote ID USS if the internet was 

available. As a part of this proposal, a 

standard remote identification UAS 

would have to continuously monitor its 

connection to the internet and the 

transmission of remote identification 

message elements to a Remote ID USS. 

If either is lost, the UAS would have to 

notify the person manipulating the 

flight controls of the UAS so he or she 

may take appropriate action, such as 

landing as soon as practicable. As 

discussed above in section VII.A of this 

preamble, the requirement for the UAS 

to be designed to connect to the internet 

is not included in this rule. 

Accordingly, the requirement to monitor 

the connection to the internet is no 

longer necessary and is not included in 

this rule. 

7. Error Correction 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require all UAS 

with remote identification equipment to 

incorporate error correction in the 

transmission and broadcast of the 

message elements. Error correction 

allows remote identification broadcast 

receivers, such as smart phones, and 

Remote ID USS to detect potential errors 

that may exist in the message and take 

the appropriate action. The FAA adopts 

this requirement as proposed, with a 

modification to remove references to 

transmitting message elements through 

the internet to a Remote ID USS. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Most commenters agreed 

with the error correction requirements 

with some requesting additional 

specificity. Some offered slight changes 

in semantics, but still supported the 

requirement. One commenter stated the 

NPRM confused two concepts from 

wireless communications engineering. 

The first is error correction, which 

encompasses techniques intended to 

increase the sensitivity of the receiver, 

and focuses on minimizing rather than 

detecting errors. The second is error 

detection, which includes techniques 

intended to detect when a message is 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4427 

21FCC regulatory requirements are enforced by 

the FCC. It is the producer’s responsibility to ensure 

that broadcast equipment meets all applicable FCC 

regulatory requirements. 

correctly received, and focuses on 

detecting rather than minimizing errors. 

FAA Response: The FAA declines to 

provide additional specificity regarding 

the error correction requirement because 

a performance-based requirement is 

appropriate to allow for flexibility in 

meeting this requirement as well as 

incorporating new techniques as 

technology evolves. Any specific error 

correction capabilities incorporated into 

a proposed means of compliance would 

be reviewed and evaluated as a part of 

the acceptance process. 

The FAA appreciates the comment 

that highlighted the differences between 

error correction and error detection 

techniques, and suggested the FAA may 

have confused the two concepts. The 

FAA confirms that ‘‘error correction’’ 

was the intended minimum 

performance requirement in the NPRM 

and adopts this requirement. 

8. Interference Considerations 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

Consistent with FCC regulations, 

which include exempted devices under 

47 CFR 15.103, the FAA proposed to 

prohibit the remote identification 

equipment used in standard remote 

identification UAS from causing 

harmful interference to other systems or 

equipment installed on the unmanned 

aircraft or control station. The FAA 

adopts this requirement as proposed. 

The design of the UAS must ensure 

that the broadcast remote identification 

equipment is independent of command 

and control interfaces. The FAA 

explained that, for example, the remote 

identification equipment could not 

cause harmful interference to the UAS 

command and control datalink and 

could not otherwise be in violation of 

FCC regulations. In addition, the remote 

identification equipment would not 

meet the requirements of this rule if its 

operation would be adversely affected 

by interference from other systems or 

equipment installed on the unmanned 

aircraft or control station, such as the 

UAS command and control datalink or 

a camera feed from the unmanned 

aircraft to a display at the control 

station. Therefore, the FAA expects that 

producers under subpart F will provide 

secure and reliable interfaces well 

protected from interference or attacks by 

malicious entities, and will validate 

minimum performance via the means of 

compliance acceptance process as well 

as through ongoing oversight, auditing, 

and monitoring of UAS producers that 

have an FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance. 

The FAA explained that a specific 

means of compliance may include 

requirements to use specific radio 

frequency emitters and receivers. The 

FAA envisioned that a proposed means 

of compliance could include an analysis 

of frequency congestion and 

interference considerations. The FAA 

did not propose a particular method by 

which interference considerations are 

identified or mitigated by designers or 

producers. Instead, the FAA would 

consider proposed methods for dealing 

with interference considerations and 

would verify that they are appropriate 

for the types of equipment and 

operations applicable to those means of 

compliance and do not run counter to 

any applicable regulations, including 

FCC regulations.21

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Commenters were 

generally supportive of this provision. 

One commenter suggested the FAA set 

the level of interference that rises to the 

level of ‘harmful.’ 

FAA Response: As used in this rule, 

interference is considered harmful if it 

adversely affects a system’s ability to 

operate safely. The FAA declines to 

specify a level of interference that 

would be considered ‘‘harmful’’ because 

different systems may be able to tolerate 

different levels of interference before 

their performance is adversely affected. 

Instead, FAA will allow developers of 

means of compliance to incorporate the 

appropriate interference requirements as 

needed. This approach is in line with 

the FAA’s continued commitment to a 

performance-based rulemaking. 

9. Message transmission 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that standard 

remote identification UAS be capable of 

transmitting message elements through 

an internet connection to a Remote ID 

USS. In addition, the FAA proposed to 

require that standard remote 

identification UAS be capable of 

broadcasting the message elements 

using a non-proprietary broadcast 

specification and radio frequency 

spectrum compatible with personal 

wireless devices in accordance with 47 

CFR part 15. The FAA envisioned that 

remote identification would be 

broadcast using spectrum similar to that 

used by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. 

The FAA did not, however, propose a 

specific frequency band. Rather, the 

FAA envisioned industry stakeholders 

would identify the appropriate 

spectrum to use for this capability and 

would propose solutions through the 

means of compliance acceptance 

process. The purpose of this 

requirement is to ensure that the public 

has the capability, using existing 

commonly available and 47 CFR part 15 

compliant devices, such as cellular 

phones, smart devices, tablet computers, 

or laptop computers, to receive these 

broadcast messages. 

The FAA considered the conditions of 

operation, the general technical 

requirements, and the performance 

limitations associated with the use of 47 

CFR part 15 devices and has determined 

that these conditions, requirements, and 

limitations would be acceptable and 

compatible with the proposed use and 

expected performance of the broadcast 

capability of standard remote 

identification UAS. The FAA 

acknowledged that, under FCC 

regulation, 47 CFR part 15 devices, 

including those used for the remote 

identification broadcast, may not cause 

harmful interference and must accept 

any interference received. 

To meet the proposed requirement of 

compatibility with personal wireless 

devices, the FAA explained that a 

means of compliance may take into 

consideration whether the remote 

identification capability would be 

compatible with current and older 

models of personal wireless devices still 

in common usage. The FAA intended 

the proposed requirement to ensure that 

the broadcast message from standard 

remote identification UAS would be 

accessible by most personal wireless 

devices in use. 

In addition, for standard remote 

identification UAS, the FAA proposed 

that the broadcast device use radio 

frequency spectrum in accordance with 

47 CFR part 15 that is compatible with 

personal wireless devices and must be 

designed to maximize the range at 

which the broadcast can be received, 

while complying with the 47 CFR part 

15 and any other laws in effect as of the 

date the declaration of compliance is 

submitted for FAA acceptance, and 

must be integrated into the unmanned 

aircraft or control station without 

modification to its authorized radio 

frequency parameters. The purpose of 

this requirement is to ensure that 

producers use a means of compliance 

that specifies a broadcast technology or 

broadcast technology characteristics that 

maximize the broadcast range while still 

meeting the other minimum 

performance requirements under this 

rule. Maximizing the broadcast range 

would ensure that remote identification 

information would be available to the 

largest number of potential receiving 

4428 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 and other systems. A number of 

commenters suggested using licensed 

instead of, or in addition to, unlicensed 

spectrum for a variety of reasons, 

including distance and reliability. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges that the use of part 15 

devices for remote identification 

broadcasts may result in reduced 

distance and reliability as compared to 

solutions leveraging licensed spectrum. 

The FAA finds that such solutions, 

however, would necessitate specialized 

equipment to receive the broadcasts that 

would be incompatible with the concept 

of remote identification data being 

widely accessible to the public using 

existing smart devices. 

Comments: The Alliance for 

Telecommunications Industry Solutions 

recommended the FAA confirm the 

broadcast identification concept is a 

local broadcast directly from the 

unmanned aircraft to receivers in 

physical proximity without a network 

requirement. CTIA—The Wireless 

Association also asked the FAA to 

consider requiring an interoperable 

encryption and authorization 

mechanism for all remote identification 

broadcasts, and to consider 

incorporating a 15 digit IMEI number as 

the ANSI standard serial number, which 

could support tracking lost or stolen 

UAS and registration within a central 

equipment identity register. 

FAA Response: The FAA reaffirms the 

remote identification broadcast 

requirement, as adopted, is a local 

broadcast that would be receivable to 

smart devices and other compatible 

receivers within a limited proximity to 

the aircraft. 

The FAA declines to include 

additional capabilities specifically to 

facilitate the tracking of lost or stolen 

UAS to the remote identification rules, 

but does acknowledge a limited 

capability might exist based on the rules 

as adopted. This use-case is not the 

focus of this rule, and any changes as 

suggested would be out of scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Comments: AERO Corporation 

supported the requirement to broadcast, 

and suggested a remote identification 

transponder similar to ADS–B Out. 

FAA Response: The FAA notes that 

broadcast equipment, while somewhat 

similar in general concept to ADS–B 

Out, is also different in many significant 

ways. Moreover, as detailed in section 

XVII of this preamble, ADS–B Out is not 

a form of remote identification. 

Comments: The Small UAV Coalition 

recommended removing the 

requirement for the broadcast device to 

be designed to maximize the range and 

replacing it with a performance-based 

requirement for minimum range for the 

intended operation. 

FAA Response: The FAA considered 

all comments regarding the use of 

licensed spectrum and determined that 

using unlicensed 47 CFR part 15 

frequencies is the most practical way to 

ensure interoperability and access to the 

greatest number of potential users. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

recommendation to remove the 

requirement that the broadcasting 

device be designed to maximize range, 

as removal of this requirement would 

allow systems to be designed that 

broadcast at short ranges that are 

incompatible with the objective of 

providing remote identification 

information to as many receivers as 

possible located nearby the unmanned 

aircraft. The method of compliance 

must address how it maximizes range 

for the applicable unmanned aircraft 

and expected operating environments. 

10. Interoperability 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

To achieve interoperability among 

standard remote identification UAS that 

may be produced using different means 

of compliance, the FAA proposed that 

for standard remote identification UAS, 

a means of compliance must require that 

the message elements be broadcast using 

a non-proprietary specification for 

remote identification. For the broadcast 

to be interoperable with personal 

wireless devices, the message elements 

for standard remote identification UAS 

would have to be broadcast using a 

message format available to the public. 

The FAA explained that a known 

message format is necessary for the 

receiving personal wireless devices to 

decode the messages and make the 

message elements available for use by 

software applications on the receiving 

devices. 

The FAA adopts this requirement as 

proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Some commenters 

suggested using existing broadcastbased systems, such as Wi-Fi Aware or 

similar systems rather than networkbased 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 nonproprietary specification for remote 

identification are necessary for the 

receiving wireless devices to decode the 

messages and make the contents of the 

remote identification messages usable to 

the public. The FAA does not require a 

specific message format because the 

current performance-based requirement 

allows the UAS industry to collaborate 

and innovate to optimize the message 

format. As broadcast technologies 

evolve, the specified message format 

may need to evolve as well, and the 

requirement adopted in this rule allows 

for that without a need to update the 

regulations. In addition, reflecting the 

removal of the network transmission 

requirement, and to provide the 

necessary interoperability to ensure 

publicly receivable remote 

identification information, the FAA 

clarifies that encryption of the required 

message elements is not permitted. 

11. Cybersecurity 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require all UAS 

with remote identification equipment to 

incorporate cybersecurity protections 

for the transmission and broadcast of 

the message elements, as appropriate. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4429 

The FAA did not propose any specific 

cybersecurity protection methods that 

would be required to be incorporated 

into an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. Instead, the cybersecurity 

protection methods incorporated into a 

proposed means of compliance would 

be reviewed and evaluated as a part of 

the acceptance process. 

The proposed minimum performance 

requirement related to cybersecurity is 

removed from this rule because of the 

deletion of the requirement for standard 

remote identification UAS to connect to 

the internet and transmit information to 

a Remote ID USS. As discussed in the 

NPRM, the cybersecurity requirement 

applied to both the transmission and 

broadcast of the remote identification 

message elements, and the requirement 

to broadcast the remote identification 

messages is retained in this rule. 

However, the FAA believes that with 

the removal of the internet connectivity 

requirement, cybersecurity requirements 

for the broadcast functionality are no 

longer warranted. 

While this rule no longer requires 

standard remote identification UAS to 

have an internet connection for the 

purpose of remote identification, the 

FAA acknowledges that many UAS 

could have internet connection 

capabilities to support other design 

features or capabilities not related to 

remote identification. The FAA 

encourages designers and producers of 

remote identification UAS that can 

connect to the internet to incorporate 

cybersecurity protections to ensure that 

those other design features or 

capabilities are protected from cyber 

threats. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The FAA received many 

comments supporting cybersecurity in 

general, but that also requested the FAA 

provide greater specificity or adopt 

specific standards. The vast majority of 

these comments related to transmission 

of message elements through the 

internet to the Remote ID USS. 

The FPVFC noted that if a radio 

frequency broadcast remote 

identification system is used, there are 

no cybersecurity concerns. 

FAA Response: As described in 

section VII.A of this preamble, this rule 

does not require transmission of 

message elements through the internet 

to a Remote ID USS. In addition, the 

FAA agrees with the FPFVC that 

broadcasting the message elements does 

not raise cybersecurity concerns. 

Accordingly, the proposed minimum 

performance requirement related to 

cybersecurity is removed from this rule, 

for the reasons described above. 

12. Other Performance Requirements 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

In the NPRM, the FAA identified 

several potential requirements that it 

considered, but ultimately decided were 

not necessary to include in the proposed 

minimum performance requirements, 

and requested comments on whether 

and why any of those should be 

required. The list included: 

• Other message elements such as 

certain UAS operator contact 

information or other aircraft or control 

station information such as velocity, 

direction, route, or altitude above 

ground level. 

• Equipment interface requirements 

such as the appropriate connections 

between GPS receivers, altimeters, and 

the remote identification message 

compiler; the communication protocol 

between the aircraft and the control 

station through which remote 

identification message data is 

exchanged; or protocols and interfaces 

between UAS, internet providers, and 

Remote ID USS. 

• Flight data recording features to 

store remote identification information 

within the UAS. 

• Requirements for connection 

indications such as a separate indication 

of whether the UAS is connected to the 

internet and its connection to a specific 

Remote ID USS, an indication of the 

transmission latency, or a notification of 

the specific Remote ID USS to which the 

UAS is connected. 

• Transmission or broadcast 

requirements during a command and 

control lost-link event. 

After reviewing comments and further 

consideration, the FAA decided to 

require velocity as an additional 

message element for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft, as 

discussed in section VIII.A.8 of this 

preamble. The FAA is not adopting in 

this rule any of the other minimum 

performance requirements described in 

this section that were identified for 

potential inclusion. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Airbus UTM suggested 

minimum performance requirements for 

the remote identification broadcast to 

include range, reliability, and 

authenticity. uAvionix suggested a 

requirement for minimum broadcast 

power. Ciconia Aviation Services 

suggested a minimum radio 

transmission range of 1.5 to 2 kilometers 

for UTM and possibly other manned 

interfaces. Wing Aviation LLC suggested 

defining loss to mean persistent (not 

temporary) loss of signal, contending 

that remote identification is not critical 

to flight safety and a brief interruption 

should not trigger an immediate 

contingency. The Aviators Code 

Initiative recommended establishing a 

maximum power output for broadcast 

equipment. Droneport Texas LLC 

requested that any additional 

performance requirements beyond those 

in the NPRM undergo a public comment 

process in accordance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

DroneBusiness Center suggested 

changing the performance standard 

requirement to a consensus standard 

approach. ANRA Technologies and 

Small UAV Coalition suggested using 

ASTM standards. Ax Enterprize noted 

that that ASTM F3411–19 Standard 

Specification for Remote ID and 

Tracking has taken the position that 

remote identification is strictly for 

security, not safety functions, thereby 

excluding detect-and-avoid. They 

suggested a prescriptive definition of 

‘‘real-time’’ and ‘‘near real-time.’’ They 

also proposed Trustworthy 

Multipurpose Remote Identification 

Protocol which is intended to satisfy 

several requirements including, but not 

limited to, verifying that messages are 

from the stated sender and the UAS 

Identification is in a registry, looking up 

public and private information, and 

structuring that information for 

readability. 

The FPVFC suggested UAS equipment 

interfaces should be determined by 

industry, and the performance 

requirements for self-testing and 

monitoring, error correction, 

interference considerations, message 

element performance requirements, and 

cybersecurity are too vague. They were 

also concerned that UAS would be 

grounded if the requirements are too 

rigid. Unmanned Systems Canada stated 

the performance standard is 

unreasonable and more restrictive than 

altitude requirements on manned 

aviation. One individual commenter 

stated that requirements on modelers is 

greater than the requirements on 

manned aircraft operations, and others 

stated the proposed rule mandates 

technology that is not yet available or 

mature. 

FAA Response: The FAA finds that 

the message elements proposed by 

commenters, while valuable in specific 

situations, are not essential to meeting 

the safety and security needs being 

addressed by this rule. In addition, the 

performance requirements as finalized 

meet the needs of remote identification 

while remaining sufficiently 

performance-based to allow for 

technological innovation. 

4430 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Message Elements Performance 

Requirements for Standard Remote 

Identification Unmanned Aircraft 

The FAA proposed to require that all 

UAS with remote identification meet 

certain minimum requirements 

regarding the transmission of the 

message elements including the 

minimum performance requirements 

related to positional accuracy, 

barometric pressure accuracy, message 

latency, and message transmission rate. 

The FAA invited comments on whether 

the proposed minimum performance 

requirements for the message elements 

are appropriate and requested that 

commenters provide feedback and 

recommendations, supported by data, to 

sustain their position. The FAA also 

proposed that standard remote 

identification UAS must transmit and 

broadcast identical message elements. 

The message element minimum 

performance requirements proposed in 

the NPRM are considered design 

requirements, not operational 

performance requirements. A standard 

remote identification UAS must 

demonstrate that it meets minimum 

performance requirements for these 

message elements under test conditions 

specified in an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. The test conditions must be 

representative of those that are likely to 

be encountered during typical UAS 

operations. The FAA acknowledges and 

accepts that the actual in-service 

performance may vary from the 

performance established under test 

conditions. The operator of a standard 

remote identification is not required to 

monitor the actual in-service 

performance of the UAS. 

After reviewing public comments and 

further consideration, the FAA is 

adopting the message element 

performance requirements that were 

proposed, with some modifications. The 

FAA explains these requirements, 

including changes from the NPRM, in 

the following subsections. 

1. Transmit and Broadcast Identical 

Message Elements 

The FAA proposed that the UAS be 

required to transmit through the internet 

to a Remote ID USS and broadcast 

identical message elements. As 

described above, the FAA eliminated 

the requirement to transmit remote 

identification message elements to a 

Remote ID USS. As a result, 

performance requirements related to the 

requirement to transmit and broadcast 

identical message elements have been 

removed from this rule. 

2. Positional Accuracy 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed positional 

accuracy requirements that are 

compatible with commercial off the 

shelf position sources, such as GPS 

receivers integrated into many existing 

UAS, smart phones, or other smart 

devices. For an unmanned aircraft, the 

position source is considered to be 

equipment onboard the aircraft that 

computes a geometric position (latitude 

and longitude). The position source can 

be a separate sensor or can be integrated 

into other systems. While the FAA 

anticipated that most unmanned aircraft 

would use a GPS receiver as the 

position source, other equipment could 

be used as long as it is capable of 

producing the required message 

elements and meets the proposed 

accuracy requirement. For a control 

station, the position source is 

considered to be equipment that is 

either integrated into the control station 

or separate from, but in close proximity 

to, the control station. 

For standard remote identification 

UAS, the FAA proposed that the 

reported position of the unmanned 

aircraft and control station would have 

to be accurate to within 100 feet of the 

true position, with 95 percent 

probability. 

The FAA is adopting this requirement 

as proposed. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Skydio commented that the proposed 

unmanned aircraft location accuracy 

and latency requirements, including the 

prohibition on takeoff and the 

requirement to land as soon as 

practicable, are unjustified in areas of 

limited or degraded GPS based on the 

known deficiencies of GPS and the 

advantages of computer vision-enabled 

UAS, and recommended increasing the 

accuracy requirement from 100 feet to 

500 feet to accommodate these UAS 

operations. Ciconia Aviation Services 

suggested that current devices are 

capable of greater than 100 feet accuracy 

for UAS position, and suggested 

requiring 30-foot accuracy as well as 0.1 

seconds latency and a 4 Hz transmission 

rate to support conflict management and 

collision avoidance. 

FAA Response: The FAA considered 

comments that suggested both increased 

and decreased positional accuracy 

compared to the proposed requirement, 

while still other comments asserted that 

the positional accuracy proposed was 

not possible under certain conditions 

where GPS was limited or degraded. 

The FAA emphasizes that GPS is one 

possible position source, but using GPS 

is not a requirement and there may be 

other types of position sources that 

perform better in different operating 

environments. As such, this rule adopts 

the proposed requirement that the 

reported position of the control station 

and unmanned aircraft be accurate to 

within 100 feet of the true location, with 

95 percent probability. 

The positional accuracy requirement 

is a design requirement and not an 

operational performance requirement, 

and the specific test method for 

ensuring that the UAS design meets this 

accuracy requirement will be reviewed 

and evaluated as a part of the means of 

compliance acceptance process. 

Depending on the unmanned aircraft 

operating environment, the actual inservice accuracy may be better or worse 

than accuracy demonstrated under the 

test conditions of an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance. 

3. Geometric Altitude Accuracy 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that for standard 

remote identification UAS, the reported 

barometric pressure altitude for the 

unmanned aircraft and the control 

station must be accurate to within 20 

feet of the true barometric pressure 

altitude for pressure altitudes ranging 

from 0 to 10,000 feet. The FAA sought 

comments from UAS designers and 

producers and other interested 

individuals on whether the proposed 

barometric pressure altitude accuracy 

requirement is consistent with current 

and anticipated future UAS 

performance capabilities. As discussed 

in section VIII.A.3 of this preamble, 

after considering comments and 

engaging in further analysis, the FAA 

decided to adopt the requirement that 

standard remote identification include 

an indication of control station altitude 

as a required message element, 

replacing the requirement to indicate 

barometric pressure altitude with 

geometric altitude. As a result, the FAA 

removed the minimum performance 

requirements for an indication of 

barometric pressure altitude and instead 

adopts minimum performance 

requirements for an indication of 

geometric altitude as follows. 

Though the barometric pressure 

altitude accuracy requirement was the 

same for both the control station and the 

unmanned aircraft, the transition to a 

geometric altitude indication warrants 

different accuracy requirements for the 

control station and the unmanned 

aircraft. For the unmanned aircraft, the 

FAA is adopting a geometric altitude 

accuracy requirement that is compatible 

with commercial off the shelf position 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4431 

sources, such as GPS receivers 

integrated into many existing unmanned 

aircraft. The reported geometric altitude 

for the unmanned aircraft must be 

accurate to within 150 feet of the true 

geometric altitude, with 95 percent 

probability. The FAA expects that future 

unmanned aircraft will take advantage 

of technological advancements in 

geometric altitude accuracy to provide 

even greater accuracies as technologies 

evolve. 

For the control station, the FAA is 

adopting a geometric altitude accuracy 

requirement that is compatible with the 

performance requirements being 

established for cellular service providers 

under the E911 mandate that allows 

emergency service providers to 

accurately locate the geographic 

position of the mobile device. The 

reported geometric altitude for the 

unmanned aircraft must be accurate to 

within 15 feet of the true geometric 

altitude, with 95 percent probability. 

The FAA anticipates that most standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

will be designed to be paired with an 

existing smart phone or smart device to 

provide the control station location 

information. If the unmanned aircraft 

design does not use a smart phone or 

smart device as the position source for 

the control station location, the FAA 

believes the geometric altitude accuracy 

requirement is compatible with the 

performance of modern GPS receivers. 

The geometric altitude accuracy 

requirement is a design requirement and 

not an operational performance 

requirement, and the specific test 

method for ensuring that the unmanned 

aircraft design meets this accuracy 

requirement will be reviewed and 

evaluated as a part of the means of 

compliance acceptance process. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Many commenters weighed in on 

various aspects of the barometric 

pressure altitude accuracy, including 

technical capabilities of currently 

available technology. These comments 

are no longer applicable because the 

FAA eliminated this requirement. The 

FAA appreciates these comments, 

however, because they helped inform 

the FAA’s analysis with respect to the 

accuracy requirement for the geometric 

altitude indication for the control 

station and unmanned aircraft. 

4. Remote Identification Message 

Latency 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed a latency of no 

more than one second for the remote 

identification message set for standard 

remote identification UAS. This is the 

time between when a position is 

measured by the unmanned aircraft or 

control station position source and 

when it is emitted by the remote 

identification equipment. The FAA 

proposed the latency requirement to 

apply to both the transmitted message 

set and the broadcast message set. The 

FAA noted that the latency requirement 

does not apply to any systems external 

to the UAS, such as broadcast receivers 

or information display devices. 

The FAA is adopting this requirement 

as proposed with respect to the 

broadcast message set. As discussed in 

section VII.A of this preamble, the FAA 

eliminated the requirement to transmit 

message elements through the internet 

to a Remote ID USS. Accordingly, the 

FAA is promulgating this rule without 

reference to latency requirements for 

internet-based transmissions. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The majority of the 

comments the FAA received regarding 

latency raised concerns about the 

technical feasibility or cost associated 

with internet-based transmission 

latency. An individual commented that 

latency in transmitting data, particularly 

regarding the location of the UA, would 

render such data immediately obsolete. 

FAA Response: With the removal of 

the requirement for a standard remote 

identification UAS to connect to the 

internet and transmit the message 

elements to a Remote ID USS, the 

majority of these comments are not 

applicable. The FAA finds that this 

requirement is appropriate for the 

broadcast of the remote identification 

message elements and is adopting the 

requirement as proposed. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

individual commenter who expressed 

concern regarding the latency issues in 

transmitting data. The FAA notes that 

remote identification messages that 

meet the requirements must be 

transmitted no more than one second 

after being generated, and a message 

must be transmitted at least every 

second. The FAA finds that these two 

requirements ensure that the data is 

sufficiently current for purposes of 

remote identification. 

5. Remote Identification Message 

Transmission Rate 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed a transmission 

rate of at least 1 message per second (1 

hertz) as the minimum transmission rate 

for the remote identification message 

elements for standard remote 

identification UAS. The proposed 

transmission rate applied to both the 

message elements transmitted to a 

Remote ID USS and broadcast, and is 

the minimum rate at which the remote 

identification message would be either 

broadcast or transmitted to a Remote ID 

USS by the remote identification 

equipment. 

The FAA is adopting this requirement 

as proposed with respect to the 

broadcast message set. As discussed in 

section VII.A of this preamble, the FAA 

eliminated the requirement to transmit 

message elements through the internet 

to a Remote ID USS. Accordingly, the 

FAA is adopting this rule without 

reference to a transmission rate 

requirement for internet-based 

transmissions. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

The FAA did not receive any 

comments with data to support a change 

from the proposal. 

IX. Message Elements and Minimum 

Performance Requirements: Remote 

Identification Broadcast Modules 

The FAA is promulgating this rule 

with a regulatory framework that allows 

persons to equip unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification broadcast 

modules to enable them to identify 

remotely. Further discussion on the 

operational requirements for remote 

identification broadcast modules is 

available in § 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 

4432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

status indication, and the Session ID. 

Remote identification broadcast 

modules must include the unmanned 

aircraft take-off location and altitude as 

a message element instead of control 

station location and altitude. In 

addition, remote identification 

broadcast modules cannot use a Session 

ID as the unique identifier. 

Otherwise, the following required 

message elements are identical to those 

required for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft: 

• A unique identifier. 

• An indication of the unmanned 

aircraft latitude, longitude, and 

geometric altitude. 

• An indication of the unmanned 

aircraft velocity. 

• A time mark. 

A discussion of the message elements 

and the need for them is in section 

VIII.A of this preamble. 

The minimum performance 

requirements and message elements 

performance requirements for remote 

identification broadcast modules are 

similar to those for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft, but 

are modified to accommodate the use of 

broadcast modules on unmanned 

aircraft produced without remote 

identification. For a discussion of the 

minimum performance requirements 

and the need for them see section VIII.B 

of this preamble. For a discussion of the 

message elements performance 

requirements and the need for them see 

section VIII.C of this preamble. 

One of the differences between the 

requirements for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast modules 

is that the latter includes takeoff 

location as a message element in lieu of 

control station location. Because the 

remote identification broadcast module 

may be a separate module secured to the 

unmanned aircraft or implemented 

through a software upgrade using 

existing equipment on the unmanned 

aircraft, a requirement to broadcast an 

indication of the control station location 

may not be feasible. However, the FAA 

maintains that knowledge of the remote 

pilot’s location is a necessary 

component of remote identification. 

Therefore, the FAA is requiring that the 

remote identification broadcast module 

provide an indication of the unmanned 

aircraft takeoff location as a proxy for 

the remote pilot’s location. 

The FAA expects this message 

element to be a static message element 

that does not change for the duration of 

the unmanned aircraft flight operation. 

The FAA declines to prescribe how the 

takeoff location is determined by the 

remote identification broadcast module, 

but anticipates the equipment will be 

designed in a manner that allows the 

latitude and longitude of the takeoff 

location to be determined and stored as 

part of the broadcast module 

initialization prior to takeoff. The FAA 

is also adopting a requirement to 

indicate the geometric altitude of the 

unmanned aircraft take-off location— 

instead of the altitude of the control 

station. This information will help to 

determine whether the takeoff location 

was from ground level or some other 

elevation. 

Under the final rule, the takeoff 

location message element broadcast by 

remote identification broadcast modules 

may not be distinguishable from the 

control station location message element 

broadcast by standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. As 

such, a smart phone app being used by 

a member of the public to display 

remote identification information may 

not be able to immediately distinguish 

between whether an indication is a 

takeoff location or control station 

location solely from FAA’s 

requirements. The FAA notes, however, 

that smart device apps that display 

remote identification information may 

be able to recognize this distinction by 

detecting the emergency status message 

element which is only broadcast by 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft. Moreover, as 

discussed elsewhere in the preamble, 

the FAA notes that industry consensus 

standards may include message element 

requirements above and beyond the 

FAA’s minimum performance 

requirements, and such a standard 

could include methods for 

differentiating these message elements. 

Other differences between the 

minimum performance requirements for 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules 

include removing the design 

requirement that the unmanned aircraft 

cannot take off if it fails the self-test or 

is not broadcasting the message 

elements. There are also changes to the 

interference considerations to 

accommodate use of broadcast modules 

on compatible types of unmanned 

aircraft, and adjustments to the accuracy 

requirement for the indication of the 

take-off location geometric altitude. 

To meet the minimum performance 

requirements established in this rule, 

the equipment must be capable of 

recording the geometric position and 

geometric altitude of the unmanned 

aircraft takeoff location for these 

indications to be broadcast by the 

remote identification equipment. The 

aircraft takeoff location must meet the 

positional accuracy requirements as 

discussed in section VIII.C.2 of this 

preamble. The takeoff location altitude 

must meet the geometric altitude 

accuracy requirements applicable to the 

unmanned aircraft as discussed in 

section VIII.C.3 of this preamble. 

X. Privacy Concerns on the Broadcast 

of Remote Identification Information 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

As explained in the proposed rule, 

remote identification message elements 

that are broadcast would be publicly 

available to any device capable of 

receiving the broadcast. The proposed 

rule explained that though the message 

elements themselves would be publicly 

accessible information, the ability to 

cross-reference that information with 

non-public registry data would not be 

publicly available. This information 

would be limited to the FAA and 

available only to government agencies 

for the purpose of security or 

enforcement of laws, unless otherwise 

required by law to be released. This 

policy remains unchanged for this rule. 

B. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Many commenters were 

confused regarding the accessibility of 

certain registration information. 

Commenters expressed concerns over 

access to registration information 

potentially being open to the general 

public and wanted to restrict access to 

law enforcement. Other individuals 

commented that the registration system 

should not divulge the name of the 

registrant, and should include only the 

unmanned aircraft serial number, FAA 

aircraft registration number, phone 

number, and location of the UAS pilot. 

A commenter was concerned that using 

a serial number issued under ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A poses a concern for 

potential Personal Identifying 

Information (PII) leakage. Commenters 

mentioned that the serial number would 

allow an unmanned aircraft to be linked 

back to prior owners after resale. They 

also argued that competitors could track 

historical information on UAS usage 

(e.g., by a delivery company). The 

Consumer Technology Association 

expressed the importance of protecting 

the privacy, confidentiality, and data of 

users through the proper storage of 

personally identifiable information. 

Many commenters felt that both the 

registration and remote identification 

broadcast information should only be 

available to government, law 

enforcement, and emergency services. 

Some commenters specifically 

referenced the 1989 murder of Rebecca 

Schaeffer, which led to passage of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4433 

1994 Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. 

Several commenters offered the example 

of the privacy protections required for 

automobile license plate numbers as 

well as manned aircraft registry privacy 

provisions, and suggested that UAS 

identification should be afforded similar 

protections. A commenter suggested 

that sharing remote identification 

information with the public should be a 

Federal crime similar to driver’s license 

and license plate information. 

Qualcomm suggested only granting 

public access to a limited set of message 

elements. 

Several commenters suggested the 

FAA consider the privacy of commercial 

and recreational users differently. These 

commenters suggested doing so by 

requesting recreational operators to 

provide less information in comparison 

to commercial ones, noting the potential 

security and safety resources available 

to large commercial operators. 

Though the Small UAV Coalition 

expected the accountability that comes 

with the remote identification final rule 

would deter irresponsible operations, 

including invasions of privacy by UAS, 

it mentioned the privacy interests of 

both UAS end-users and operators 

should also be protected. The Small 

UAV Coalition suggested the rule 

include limitations on: (1) The type of 

entities that can access historical 

message element data stored by a 

Remote ID USS (directly or indirectly); 

(2) the purposes for accessing this data; 

and (3) the correlation of public 

information such as remote 

identification message elements with 

non-public information like registration 

data. 

Numerous commenters believed 

remote identification of UAS does not 

include privacy and personally 

identifiable information protection, and 

others commented that the NPRM 

conflicted with existing privacy 

regulations at the State or Federal levels 

and could violate Constitutional rights. 

Kittyhawk submitted survey data 

showing the importance of privacy for 

the majority of those pilots surveyed. 

The Consumer Technology Association 

submitted survey results showing 90 

percent of UAS owners were not 

comfortable with publicly sharing 

remote identification information such 

as pilot location, identification 

information, and historical flight data; 

and nearly 40 percent were less likely 

to purchase a UAS if that is required. 

Some commenters expressed fear that 

their personal data could be misused by 

those who are ‘‘enraged by drones’’ and 

otherwise harbor antipathy toward UAS 

operators. Other comments were 

concerned about the possibility of the 

broadcasted information being 

vulnerable to hackers or available for 

data mining and misuse of registrants’ 

information, as well as the need to 

properly protect the data because of 

proprietary techniques and maneuvers 

of a company. Several commenters were 

also concerned about protecting the 

safety of young pilots and women, and 

were concerned that criminals may use 

the data to track them. Many 

commenters expressed privacy concerns 

if remote identification message 

elements became public, including 

issues related to confrontation leading 

to assaults or thefts as well as concerns 

that persons may be able to track where 

delivery unmanned aircraft have 

dropped packages. 

One commenter suggested that if FAA 

makes the real-time location data 

available to the public, they should also 

have a data log that shows who looked 

up the pilot’s location. Another 

commenter also wanted FAA to use an 

open standard of flight logs, and 

adherence to the flight regulations set by 

the FAA, stating that ‘‘like operating a 

motor vehicle, we do not need private 

companies tracking our movements to 

create a safe and orderly system.’’ 

FAA Response: Though the remote 

identification message elements 

broadcast from unmanned aircraft are 

publicly available information, 

registration data pertaining to 

individuals is protected in accordance 

with the requirements of the Privacy Act 

(5 U.S.C. 552a). Therefore, registry 

information pertaining to individuals 

will only be disclosed outside DOT if a 

Privacy Act exception applies. In 

addition to other disclosures generally 

permitted under the Privacy Act, DOT 

has published System of Records Notice 

(SORN) DOT/FAA 801, which identifies 

the specific circumstances under which 

the DOT discloses individuals’ registry 

information to the public under the 

Privacy Act’s routine use exception. 81 

FR 54187, August 15, 2016. 

For those individuals who register 

small unmanned aircraft under 14 CFR 

part 48, the only registration 

information generally available to the 

public includes the registrant’s country, 

state, city, postal code, and number of 

unmanned aircraft registered. For 

individuals and entities who register 

unmanned aircraft, including small 

unmanned aircraft, under part 47, the 

registry information generally available 

to the public includes the registrant’s 

name, street address, country, state, city, 

postal code, and additional information 

about the registered unmanned aircraft. 

For both categories of unmanned aircraft 

registration, these are the same data 

elements that have always been publicly 

available, and are unchanged by this 

rule. Serial numbers of unmanned 

aircraft are not included in the 

information publicly available from the 

registry for those who register under 

part 48. As with all other information 

maintained within the registry, the FAA 

has implemented the required privacy 

and security measures to protect data 

maintained in the registry system. 

Therefore, the FAA does not believe that 

there are compelling concerns regarding 

PII data leakage from serial numbers. 

Because the serial number is not 

generally available to the public, 

members of the public will be unable to 

correlate a broadcasted serial number 

with identifying information of the 

individual who owns the UAS through 

the public facing registry. In addition, in 

accordance with routine use (1) 

contained in SORN DOT/FAA 801, the 

FAA will not routinely disclose 

identifying information of individuals 

who register under 14 CFR part 48 to the 

public unless a member of the public 

provides the unmanned aircraft 

registration number, which is not one of 

the data elements that the unmanned 

aircraft will broadcast. Members of the 

public cannot generally receive a part 48 

registrant’s name or address if their 

request to the FAA identifies only the 

serial number, rather than the 

registration number. 

Any correlation of other information 

held by the FAA that would identify 

any individual member of the public 

beyond the public remote identification 

message elements will be strictly 

limited to authorized FAA and other 

government and law enforcement 

personnel who are operating in their 

official capacities pursuant to all legal 

limitations and authorized use of the 

information. This correlation may occur 

with data such as unmanned aircraft 

registration information held by the 

FAA, authorizations to operate UAS 

under 14 CFR part 107 and 49 U.S.C. 

44809, and any waivers from the 

operating requirements of 14 CFR part 

107. All personnel, whether FAA or 

other government or law enforcement, 

allowed to access the data will need to 

be authorized and will access the 

information only through approved, 

secured channels when necessary to 

perform proper actions authorized by 

law in accordance with all due process 

and other legal and constitutional 

requirements. 

UAS operators will broadcast the 

serial number or session ID of their 

unmanned aircraft. However, that serial 

number is non-identifying unless it is 

correlated with the information in the 

FAA aircraft registration databases. 

Access to the part 48 database is strictly 

4434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

controlled, and no member of the public 

may have access to FAA’s database; 

information within the database is 

disclosed to members of the public only 

in accordance with the Privacy Act. As 

with correlating information related to 

session IDs, access will be limited to 

authorized official personnel who are 

engaged in approved duties with proper 

legal foundation and authority. For 

persons with concerns about 

broadcasting the unmanned aircraft 

serial number, a session ID may be used 

and broadcasted instead of the serial 

number to help protect the privacy of 

the individual user or the 

confidentiality of a business. These 

message elements for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft are 

discussed in more detail in section 

VIII.A of this preamble. 

The only information that will be 

broadcast or otherwise available 

publicly is the remote identification 

message elements as described in 

subpart D of part 89. As these message 

elements will be broadcast directly from 

the unmanned aircraft, they are public 

data. 

In connection with this rule, DOT has 

conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment 

(PIA) further analyzing the privacy 

impact of this rule on individuals. This 

PIA is published on the DOT website 

and has been included in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

XI. Government and Law Enforcement 

Access to Remote Identification 

Information 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

In addition to aiding the FAA in its 

civil enforcement of FAA regulations, 

the FAA anticipates that law 

enforcement and Federal agencies will 

find remote identification information 

useful for enforcement of laws, public 

safety, and security purposes. The FAA 

envisions pairing remote identification 

data with certain registration data, when 

necessary, for accredited and verified 

law enforcement and Federal agencies. 

The information could be used to 

identify, locate, or contact the person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

UAS during an incident response. This 

information will help with preliminary 

threat discrimination. 

For example, when correlated with 

registration information, remote 

identification of UAS also enables law 

enforcement officers to determine some 

information about who the unmanned 

aircraft owner is before engaging with 

the person manipulating the flight 

controls of the UAS. In addition, once 

located, a law enforcement officer can 

speak with the person manipulating the 

flight controls of the UAS to gain 

potential insight into his or her 

intentions, and allow the officer to 

either educate the person manipulating 

the flight controls of the UAS or begin 

an investigation. Though remote 

identification of UAS may not deter all 

nefarious actors, this rule allows the 

swift interdiction of clueless and 

careless persons manipulating the flight 

controls of the UAS and can help law 

enforcement and security partners focus 

their efforts on truly nefarious actors. 

This information will also aid in any 

subsequent criminal or civil 

enforcement action. 

B. Public Comments and FAA Response 

1. Law Enforcement Access to Remote 

Identification Information 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed support for law 

enforcement—including Federal, State, 

and local agencies—as well as the FAA, 

having access to remote identification 

information. The Stadium Managers 

Association commented that remote 

identification information should be 

made available to law enforcement and 

that information available to the general 

public should be limited, particularly in 

the case of stadiums. The University of 

Washington—NSF RAPID Facility, 

Pierce Aerospace, and many individual 

commenters believed the remote 

identification message should be 

encrypted or otherwise protected to 

ensure that only law enforcement, and 

not the general public, had access to the 

information. A number of commenters, 

including the American Association of 

Airport Executives, supported the need 

for law enforcement to have access to 

remote identification information, but 

believed that the proposed rule did not 

outline in enough detail how, when, 

why, and to what extent the data would 

be available to law enforcement or even 

to the general public. 

A few commenters expressed support 

for law enforcement and other entities 

having access to remote identification 

information in controlled airspace or 

while operating near sensitive security 

locations, but opposed having 

information other than aircraft location 

made available while operating in Class 

G airspace. 

Commenters mentioned a need to 

clarify who would grant access to the 

information. Airlines for America stated 

the FAA should provide details of the 

standard(s) and processes verifying and 

accrediting law enforcement for UAS 

enforcement and allow the public to 

provide comments on such standards 

and processes. Some commenters 

believed that no one should have access 

to their remote identification 

information, including law enforcement. 

A form letter from the Academy of 

Model Aeronautics stated the safety of 

law enforcement officers depends on 

having remote identification 

information available in real-time. The 

Academy of Model Aeronautics 

expressed concerns that many local law 

enforcement agencies do not have the 

resources to outfit their officers with 

smart phones or other technology 

capable of receiving remote 

identification information. 

A significant number of commenters, 

while not necessarily objecting to 

having information provided to law 

enforcement, questioned the value of 

the remote identification rule entirely. 

These commenters asserted that only 

law-abiding UAS operators would 

comply with remote identification 

requirements and those persons who 

intend to violate the law will not 

comply with remote identification 

requirements at all. Based on this 

assumption, these commenters 

questioned the value of the rule and its 

necessity. The Stadium Managers 

Association was skeptical of remote 

identification’s ability to assist law 

enforcement in locating and 

apprehending UAS pilots given the 

amount of time they believed it will take 

to identify the unmanned aircraft and 

then locate the pilot some distance away 

from the aircraft. 

FAA Response: A remote 

identification broadcast is, by nature 

and intent, public. Though remote 

identification provides situational 

awareness to law enforcement, it will 

also provide the public with basic 

information about a particular 

unmanned aircraft to facilitate reporting 

to law enforcement, if appropriate. This 

information will be anonymous, 

however. Under this rule, the FAA will 

not grant members of the public access 

to information that could be correlated 

to a particular unmanned aircraft or 

operation. This is similar to the public 

ADS–B Out broadcast emitted by 

manned aircraft. As in the case with 

ADS–B Out, it is possible that members 

of the public could develop systems for 

tracking and aggregating information 

about UAS flights, but those systems 

would not include personal information 

from the FAA’s databases. 

The FAA finds that remote 

identification information plays a 

critical role in threat discrimination by 

law enforcement and national security 

entities regardless of class of airspace. 

Law enforcement officials have made 

clear that it can be very difficult to make 

a decision about the risk posed by a 

person manipulating the flight controls 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4435 

of the UAS with the limited information 

available from visually observing an 

unmanned aircraft. Remote 

identification information will enable 

better threat discrimination, an 

immediate and appropriate law 

enforcement response, and a more 

effective follow-on investigation. This is 

because remote identification 

information can be correlated with 

unmanned aircraft registry information 

to inform law enforcement officers 

about the registered owner. This 

information, along with the real-time 

location of the unmanned aircraft 

operator, provides critical input to a law 

enforcement officer’s decision on 

whether intervention is appropriate. 

The remote identification message is 

broadcast over unlicensed radio 

frequency spectrum and therefore 

would be accessible by any device 

capable of receiving that broadcast. 

Though the FAA does not consider that 

such a device would be costly, this rule 

does not place any compliance 

requirements on local law enforcement 

agencies, leaving them free to choose 

not to use remote identification as a 

tool. 

The FAA’s regulatory approach is 

based on the fundamental assumption 

that regulated entities will comply with 

the rules; the FAA does not assume 

noncompliance. Acknowledging that 

not all entities will comply with 

regulations, the FAA is promulgating 

this rule to be a tool to help relevant 

authorities distinguish between 

compliant and noncompliant actors. 

The FAA recognizes that certain 

nefarious actors may not comply with 

remote identification requirements; 

however, the fact that an unmanned 

aircraft or an unmanned aircraft 

operation is noncompliant is an 

important data point for law 

enforcement to consider as they engage 

in a threat analysis. A noncompliant 

actor will stand out, allowing law 

enforcement to shift its attention 

appropriately. Even if the noncompliant 

actor has no nefarious intent, there is 

value in this type of threat 

discrimination. A careless or clueless 

operator may be introducing 

unnecessary risk into the airspace of the 

United States without realizing it. 

Remote identification allows 

appropriate authorities to identify the 

operator for follow up or education on 

how to operate safely and in compliance 

with the FAA’s rules. 

2. Law Enforcement Uses of Remote 

Identification Information 

Comments: Commenters expressed 

concerns regarding potential abuse of 

remote identification information by 

law enforcement. Some commenters 

described the proposed remote 

identification system as a central 

database, and believed that the 

information would be used 

inappropriately when provided to local 

law enforcement. The Academy of 

Model Aeronautics expressed concern 

that there is nothing in the NPRM about 

how remote identification information 

will be integrated with the rest of the 

data that law enforcement routinely 

uses. The Academy of Model 

Aeronautics believed this is a critical 

point because law enforcement officers 

are trained to use personal identifying 

information about the person they have 

in front of them. Many commenters 

believed that all remote identification 

information for all unmanned aircraft 

flights would be provided to all law 

enforcement organizations regardless of 

need. These commenters argued that 

law enforcement, particularly local law 

enforcement, does not need this type of 

information for every pilot and every 

flight regardless of origin, destination, 

and other factors. Other commenters 

argued that law enforcement does not 

need information regarding every flight 

in real time, noting that law 

enforcement does not have access to 

real-time driving information for every 

vehicle on the roads. Commenters 

questioned local law enforcement 

agencies’ need for this information, 

particularly as the Federal Government 

is the sole regulator of airspace. 

Wing Aviation asserted that persistent 

surveillance without cause is not 

consistent with community expectations 

of privacy and due process, nor is it 

necessary to support compliance, 

accident investigation, or security. If 

agencies intend to use retained data for 

other purposes, Wing Aviation believed 

that request should be subject to 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

procedures. 

Many commenters believed that 

Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement agencies would use the 

data provided to identify, harass, and 

arrest remote operators. Some 

commenters believed this was a 

particular possibility if law enforcement 

believed that the UAS operator was 

using unmanned aircraft-mounted 

camera systems to expose law 

enforcement’s behavior or activities to 

the public. Still other commenters 

believed that the proposal creates the 

potential for illegal tracking, 

unwarranted surveillance, and 

harassment of American citizens by 

Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement. An individual commenter 

asked the FAA to clarify if remote pilots 

operating small UAS under part 107 

have the same protection as manned 

pilots from outside interference, and if 

such interference would carry ‘‘hefty 

penalties.’’ The commenter noted that 

he had been ‘‘accosted by law 

enforcement even when operating [his] 

UAS responsibly.’’ The commenter 

suggested that an emphasis be placed on 

ensuring that law enforcement officers 

do not interfere with remote pilots 

during flight operations. Multiple 

commenters expressed the view that 

unfettered access by law enforcement to 

remote identification information could 

lead to both a compromise of personally 

identifiable information and potential 

abuses. Many individual commenters 

believed that law enforcement should 

not be granted access to any remote 

identification information without 

probable cause and a warrant. 

The Consumer Technology 

Association stated that remote 

identification requirements should 

include due process protections and 

articulate a legal standard for law 

enforcement and security officials 

seeking access to database information, 

if they will have access with less than 

a subpoena or warrant. To ensure 

accountability and prevent abuse, the 

Consumer Technology Association 

advocated the FAA should maintain a 

record that documents every instance 

where officials access the remote 

identification database, with this 

information (who requested access, 

when was it requested, and for what 

purpose) subject to the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

Other commenters were concerned 

about the inappropriate policing of UAS 

activities. Several commenters used 

examples of having incorrect altitude 

readings above the 400-foot limit for 

part 107 operations of unmanned 

aircraft broadcast and questioned what 

type of enforcement action would result 

at the Federal, State, or local level. 

Commenters also asked who would 

validate the data, determine whether 

violations had been committed, and 

assess fines or other penalties. 

Further, several commenters 

expressed the view that unfettered 

access by law enforcement to remote 

identification information could lead to 

specific monitoring of the media by law 

enforcement agencies, impacting 

freedom of the press. 

FAA Response: The FAA emphasizes 

that any use of remote identification 

data by law enforcement agencies is 

bound by all Constitutional restrictions 

and any other applicable legal 

restrictions. The purpose of this rule is 

to provide a tool for identifying an 

unmanned aircraft and locating its 

operator. One of those uses is to help 

4436 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

22The 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 FAArecognized identification area. 

local law enforcement engage in threat 

discrimination while discharging their 

lawful law enforcement duties. This 

rulemaking does not speak to the use of 

information by law enforcement 

agencies or how remote identification 

data will be correlated with other law 

enforcement data. Real-time information 

is critical for law enforcement and 

national security purposes because 

compliance is a useful tool for threat 

discrimination. 

The FAA considers that the remote 

identification requirements are 

analogous to surface transportation 

vehicles. Though real-time driving 

information is not available for every 

vehicle on the road, an indication of 

certain compliance status is viewable to 

law enforcement for all vehicles by way 

of visible markings such as a license 

plate, registration marking, and 

inspection marking. Similarly, a vehicle 

not in compliance with license plate 

display, registration, or inspection 

would be apparent to law enforcement, 

and the driver is co-located with the 

vehicle. There is currently no 

standardized system to query such 

information for unmanned aircraft for 

law enforcement and national security 

purposes, and this rule would meet that 

need. 

3. Law Enforcement Training on Remote 

Identification Information 

Comments: A number of commenters 

discussed the necessity for public safety 

training to recognize questionable 

operations. Several commenters, 

including the National Sheriffs’ 

Association, were concerned that law 

enforcement will need training as to 

what is, and is not, a legal UAS 

operation. Some commenters believed 

that information gathered from remote 

identification would be used by local 

law enforcement to enforce local 

regulations that conflict with FAA 

regulations pertaining to use of the 

airspace of the United States. Individual 

commenters discussed the confusion of 

local law enforcement regarding 

operations permitted under part 107 and 

believed that access by these 

organizations to remote identification 

information would be used to further 

harass persons conducting such 

legitimate operations. 

Several individual commenters also 

raised concerns about flight safety if 

they were interrupted, interfered with, 

interrogated, or harassed by law 

enforcement while conducting a lawful 

unmanned aircraft operation. These 

commenters believed the FAA needed 

to provide greater training to law 

enforcement. Commenters emphasized 

the need for law enforcement to learn 

how to interact with a UAS pilot 

appropriately to ensure the safety of the 

operation, including the safe landing of 

the aircraft if necessary. The National 

Sheriffs’ Association called specifically 

on the FAA to work with more than 

Federal law enforcement agencies, by 

providing training or assistance to State 

and local agencies as to what is, and is 

not, a UAS threat. One commenter also 

cited the need for an easy-to-use system 

to report illegal UAS operations. 

The executive director of the 

Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) 

asked who was going to fund, train, and 

equip law enforcement to use the 

remote identification system. AMA 

believes that the remote identification 

rule should not be implemented without 

further research and data, to include the 

impact on privacy. 

The Coconino County Sheriff’s Office 

asked the FAA, prior to adoption of any 

rule on remote identification, to seek 

further clarification in consultation with 

Federal, State, local, and tribal law 

enforcement representatives regarding 

the provision of equipment and training 

for local law enforcement for access to 

remote identification information. 

FAA Response: The FAA is actively 

engaged in significant outreach and 

education to law enforcement on many 

matters related to UAS, including 

educating the public safety community 

on understanding how to distinguish 

between, and respond to, authorized 

and unauthorized or unsafe UAS 

operations. The FAA also maintains an 

updated toolkit for public safety and 

government users. Further, law 

enforcement personnel can contact Law 

Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) 

Special Agents, who regularly assist law 

enforcement on matters related to FAA 

regulations. The desire of a commenter 

for an easy-to-use system to report 

illegal unmanned aircraft operations is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The purpose of this rule is to provide a 

tool for locating and identifying an 

unmanned aircraft and locate its 

operator. One of those uses is to help 

local law enforcement engage in threat 

discrimination while discharging their 

law enforcement duties. This 

rulemaking does not speak to the use of 

information by law enforcement 

agencies, or how remote identification 

data will be correlated with other law 

enforcement data. 

XII. FAA-Recognized Identification 

Areas 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

As discussed in section VII.F.2 of this 

preamble, FAA-recognized 

identification areas are locations where 

unmanned aircraft may operate without 

remote identification equipment. The 

FAA proposed subpart C to outline the 

requirements for establishment of FAArecognized identification areas. After 

consideration, the FAA is making 

changes to this subpart in the final rule. 

This rule expands eligibility to apply for 

establishment of an FAA-recognized 

identification area to include 

educational institutions in addition to 

community-based organizations (CBOs), 

and also removes the 12-month 

limitation on time to submit 

applications. The FAA is also clarifying 

the application review criteria and 

required information for application. 

The criteria will be described in greater 

detail in the advisory circular on FAArecognized identification areas, which 

will be published following this 

rulemaking. 

Finally, this rule removes the 

prohibition on re-application for FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4437 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Commenters, including 

AOPA, the Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation and the Air Line Pilots 

Association, supported the idea of FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas would 

pose an unnecessary impediment to 

science and engineering opportunities 

for university students, faculty, and 

staff. Some commenters such as the 

Alliance for Drone Innovation and 

AiRXOS contended that expanding 

eligibility to educational institutions is 

necessary to spur innovation and 

promote workforce development and 

public safety. 

Commenters emphasized that certain 

universities and other entities such as 

State and local governments could not 

qualify to become CBOs in accordance 

with 49 U.S.C. 44809(h) due to the 

501(c)(3) requirement and because they 

are not membership-based associations. 

Organizations such as the National 

Association of State Aviation Officials, 

City of Albuquerque Parks and 

Recreation Department, Experimental 

Aircraft Association, Southern 

Company, The Commercial Drone 

Alliance, and University of Texas 

Austin UAV Committee made similar 

comments in support of expanding 

eligibility. Some commenters 

highlighted section 350 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2018 as evidence 

that Congress intended for the FAA to 

create allowances for recreational UAS 

that are operated by an institution of 

higher education for educational 

purposes. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

commenters that eligibility to apply for 

establishment of an FAA-recognized 

identification area should be expanded 

to include educational institutions. 

Community-based organizations will 

continue to be eligible to apply. 

The FAA is including educational 

institutions—including primary and 

secondary educational institutions, 

trade schools, colleges, and 

universities—in recognition of the 

critical role they play in providing 

pathways to aviation careers, whether 

through science, technology, 

engineering, and math curricula; the 

building and flight of unmanned 

aircraft; or other educational activities. 

The FAA determined it is appropriate to 

allow educational institutions to request 

the establishment of FAA-recognized 

identification areas. The FAA believes 

that extending the ability to request 

establishment of FAA-recognized 

identification areas to educational 

institutions will provide additional 

convenient locations for those 

associated with the educational 

institution to be able to operate 

unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification and reduce costs 

associated with travel time to other 

FAA-recognized identification areas. 

Comments: Several commenters 

advocated for wider expansion of 

eligibility for FAA-recognized 

identification areas beyond just CBOs 

and educational institutions. Several 

commenters requested the FAA 

consider expanding eligibility to State 

and local governments. Many individual 

respondents believed the proposed 

eligibility criteria would force local 

governments and schools to work 

through a non-governmental 

organization to request FAA-recognized 

identification area designations on 

public property. One commenter noted 

there are many local organizations not 

affiliated with a CBO that operate from 

local private and municipal fields. 

Commenters stated that limiting 

eligibility to CBOs would discourage 

student model flyers who 

predominately learn at parks, schools, 

and gyms, and could disadvantage lowincome and urban enthusiasts who 

cannot afford CBO dues. 

FAA Response: The FAA considers 

that expanding eligibility to CBOs and 

educational institutions at all levels is 

sufficient to meet the needs of student 

model flyers and declines to expand 

eligibility to State and local 

governments. Expanding eligibility to 

State and local governments could 

expand the scope of FAA-recognized 

identification areas to an extent that 

would undermine the effectiveness of 

remote identification. The purpose of 

FAA-recognized identification areas is 

to help accommodate traditional model 

aircraft, many of which are home-built 

unmanned aircraft and may not meet 

remote identification requirements, and 

not to provide sites for State or local 

governments to operate. 

Comments: The New Hampshire 

Department of Transportation stated 

that anyone should be able to request an 

FAA-recognized identification area by 

certifying that they are responsible for 

the area and will operate within FAA 

regulations. A large number of 

individual commenters believed that 

private individuals should be able to 

register their private property as an 

FAA-recognized identification area. 

Some commenters also asserted this 

restriction infringes on private property 

rights. The American Association of 

Airport Executives recommended that 

local governments should control the 

use of FAA-recognized identification 

areas through local laws and 

ordinances. The Experimental Aircraft 

Association suggested that if the FAA 

adopted a system like the FAA’s Webbased 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 FAArecognized 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 

4438 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas. These 

commenters argued that model aircraft 

flyers would be compelled to join 

Academy of Model Aeronauticsaffiliated clubs to pursue their hobby. 

Some commenters requested the FAA 

automatically establish FAA-recognized 

identification areas at all existing AMA 

flying sites. 

FAA Response: The FAA considers 

that CBOs and educational institutions 

can perform an important function in 

promoting safety in recreational UAS 

flying. These organizations must submit 

applications for any sites for which they 

request establishment of FAArecognized 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 FAARecognized Identification Area 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that applications 

for establishment of an FAA-recognized 

identification area would have to be 

submitted within 12 calendar months 

from the effective date of a final rule. 

Under the proposal, at the end of that 

12-calendar month period, no new 

applications for FAA-recognized 

identification areas would be accepted. 

This rule eliminates the 12 calendar 

month limitation on applications, and 

the FAA will begin accepting 

applications September 16, 2022. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Though a few commenters 

suggested varying timeframes over 12 

months for the application period, the 

vast majority of commenters opposed 

the 12-month application time period 

limitation. Commenters including the 

Airports Council International-North 

America, AiRXOS, AirMap, the 

Consumer Technology Association, DJI, 

New Frontier Airspace, the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, 

Wing Aviation, and others strongly 

opposed the 12-month application 

period. Some commenters, including 

AUVSI and AOPA, expressed concern 

that the 12-month limit on new FAArecognized 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, rezoning, community encroachment, sale 

of property or loss of lease, 

demographics, and other factors 

regularly necessitated that flying clubs 

cease operations and re-locate. 

Commenters also expressed concern 

that the 12-month period would result 

in the elimination of traditional radio 

controlled flying through attrition. 

Nearly all commenters felt that the 12- 

month limit should be eliminated, and 

that recreational UAS without remote 

identification should be permitted to 

operate—at least at selected sites—in 

perpetuity. 

FAA Response: Based on the 

comments received, the FAA has 

determined that there will be a 

continued need for FAA-recognized 

identification areas for certain types of 

unmanned aircraft such as home-built 

unmanned aircraft and that these areas 

will not phase out as originally 

conceived. Though the FAA considered 

that the addition of the remote 

identification broadcast module option 

and elimination of the proposed 

network requirements would reduce the 

need for FAA-recognized identification 

areas, the FAA still foresees an ongoing 

need for these areas for some operators 

such as some home-built UAS that 

cannot equip and educational science, 

technology, engineering, and math 

programs. Due to this ongoing need, the 

FAA has decided to remove the 12 

calendar month limitation on 

applications to establish an FAArecognized identification area. 

In addition, comments about the 

potential impacts on education and the 

recreational community were 

persuasive. 

The FAA will begin accepting 

applications for FAA-recognized 

identification areas September 16, 2022. 

D. Process To Request an FAARecognized 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 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area. This rule 

clarifies the criteria proposed in 

§ 89.215 to explain how the FAA may 

evaluate the requested location of an 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4439 

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 FAArecognized identification area. The 

Agency may also consider the need for 

an FAA-recognized identification area 

in the proposed location and proximity 

of other FAA-recognized identification 

areas to determine whether to grant or 

deny an application. The effectiveness 

of remote identification relies upon the 

majority of operators remotely 

identifying, therefore, these 

considerations are necessary to prevent 

undermining of that effectivity. The 

FAA has removed the separate criteria 

of the effects on airspace capacity, 

determining that the criteria is already 

encompassed in the consideration of the 

safe and efficient use of the airspace by 

other aircraft. 

The FAA is adopting the other criteria 

(e.g., the safe and efficient use of 

airspace by other aircraft and the safety 

and security of persons or property on 

the ground) as proposed. The FAA will 

issue an advisory circular to provide 

additional guidance on FAA-recognized 

identification areas, which will be 

published following this rulemaking. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The FAA received 

comments on the information required 

for application as well as the criteria 

used to evaluate potential FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area boundary. 

FAA Response: The advisory circular 

on FAA-Recognized Identification Areas 

will provide additional guidance for 

how the FAA may accept descriptions 

of the location and boundary shapes. 

The FAA adopts this application 

requirement for geographic boundaries 

as ‘‘the location of the FAA-recognized 

identification area in a form and manner 

prescribed by the Administrator.’’ The 

FAA expects that a CBO or educational 

institution requesting establishment of 

an FAA-recognized identification area 

would need to have a clear 

understanding of the boundaries of the 

area they are requesting and that the 

FAA may require specific details about 

that location’s geographic boundaries. 

The application information and criteria 

established in this rule do not preclude 

circular FAA-recognized identification 

areas; however, the FAA foresees a need 

for increasingly specific boundary 

information to depict these areas 

accurately for the public. The advisory 

circular for FAA-recognized 

identification areas will provide 

additional guidance, and will be 

published following this rulemaking. 

Comments: Some commenters 

including the Commercial Drone 

Alliance supported the criteria for 

evaluation proposed in the NPRM and 

recommended that FAA take all four 

factors into consideration for every 

application. Other commenters 

requested additional requirements prior 

to the establishment of an FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

consider that public notice and 

comment is appropriate for the approval 

of FAA-recognized identification areas. 

The existence of an FAA-recognized 

identification area does not change 

airspace requirements for the area; all 

operating rules and airspace 

requirements and restrictions remain in 

effect whether an FAA-recognized 

identification area is established or not. 

The FAA-recognized identification area 

merely indicates that unmanned aircraft 

in that location are not required to be 

equipped with remote identification 

broadcast. Because the decision to 

establish an FAA-recognized 

identification area does not alter 

airspace requirements, the FAA finds 

that public notice and comment is not 

necessary. 

Comments: Flite Test Community 

Association recommended that the 

application process for FAA-recognized 

identification areas could be 

implemented similarly to the process for 

part 107 waivers. Commenters 

mentioned the FAA could identify 

default risk and safety thresholds and if 

the requested locations of the FAArecognized identification areas meet 

those thresholds the location could be 

granted automatic approval. 

FAA Response: The FAA notes the 

granting of part 107 waivers is not 

automatic and operational waivers are 

reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The 

Small UAV Coalition recommended the 

FAA should not simply approve or 

disapprove applications as submitted, 

but should grant approval if attributes of 

the proposed FAA-recognized 

identification area such as geographic 

boundaries can be altered to address 

FAA concerns. The FAA considers this 

to be unnecessary because applicants for 

FAA-recognized identification areas 

would be able to re-apply with different 

geographic boundaries if the initial 

application is denied. 

Comments: Many other commenters 

looked for greater specificity in the 

criteria and processes for requesting and 

approving an FAA-recognized 

identification area. Commenters argued 

that it is more effective for them to build 

an FAA-recognized identification area 

to FAA-established requirements than to 

risk FAA disapproval because their 

application did not meet the generalized 

criteria of § 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 

4440 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FAARecognized Identification Areas will 

provide greater specificity in the criteria 

and process for establishment of an 

FAA-recognized identification area, and 

will be published following this 

rulemaking. 

E. Official List of FAA-Recognized 

Identification Areas 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA stated it would maintain a 

list of FAA-recognized identification 

areas at https://www.faa.gov, and that 

the location of FAA-recognized 

identification areas would be made 

available to the public. The list would 

enable operators of unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification, and the 

public, to stay informed about these 

locations where unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification may be 

flown. In addition, law enforcement and 

security personnel would be able to 

identify if a suspect unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification is legally 

operating within an FAA-recognized 

identification area. Though no 

comments were received on this aspect 

of the proposal, the FAA believes it is 

appropriate to retain flexibility 

concerning the means by which FAA 

will publish the locations of approved 

FAA-recognized identification areas and 

ensure the information is made 

available in a useful format for the 

flying public and other stakeholders. 

The FAA clarifies in this rule that it will 

publish the location of FAA-recognized 

identification areas on a publicly 

accessible website in a form and manner 

to be prescribed by the Administrator. 

This may take the form of a list or 

another format, such as a graphical 

depiction. Additional guidance will be 

provided in the advisory circular on 

FAA-Recognized Identification Areas, 

which will be published following this 

rulemaking. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

The FAA received no public 

comments on this topic. 

F. Amendment of the FAA-Recognized 

Identification Area 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

In § 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 FAArecognized identification area. The 

geographic boundaries of the FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas from one 

CBO to another, which may be 

necessitated by CBO reorganization. The 

FAA finds that such a change in 

affiliation may be acceptable but would 

require the new CBO to submit an 

application and indicate the change, 

and for the FAA to review and approve 

the application. 

Comments: An individual commenter 

stated the allowance of only 10 days to 

submit amended information for an 

FAA-recognized identification area is 

too short for volunteer-based clubs that 

may only meet once every 30 days. 

FAA Response: The FAA adopts the 

time period to amend information as 

proposed. The FAA finds that 10 

calendar days is a reasonable amount of 

time for the holder of the FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area database 

to delete abandoned and nonoperational sites, and therefore, the FAA 

is keeping the site duration term as 

proposed. The proposed rule included 

the restriction that once an FAArecognized identification area had 

expired, it could not be re-established. 

This rule removes that restriction. 

1. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Commenters did not agree 

on whether FAA-recognized 

identification areas should ever expire. 

Some noted that many fixed flying sites 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4441 

are used (and reused) on a short-term 

basis for infrequent events such as 

competitions. Many commenters noted 

that current flying sites are leased from 

private property owners and are subject 

to renewal. Some commenters felt the 

48 month renewal requirement is 

burdensome, while others disputed that 

sites should require any renewal to 

retain their approval status. One 

commenter argued that expiration 

should only occur if a characteristic 

used to approve the FAA-recognized 

identification area has changed. Several 

commenters asserted that the renewal 

period should be longer than 48 months. 

The Small UAV Coalition and an 

individual commenter recommended 

extending the renewal period to 60 

months to align with the duration of 

AMA-affiliated fixed site land leases. 

The commenter also recommended 

allowing FAA-recognized identification 

areas to continue to operate while the 

renewal is being considered, to include 

any period of time where the FAA’s 

determination is under appeal. One 

individual commenter recommended a 

60-month duration but with annual 

reviews for changes in site parameters. 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association and two individual 

commenters recommended the FAA 

change the renewal period to 120 

calendar months. They commented that 

48 months is too burdensome for both 

community-based organizations and the 

FAA as well. Commenters generally 

objected to provisions such as 

expiration and the prohibition on reapplying 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 nonequipped UAS would dwindle is faulty 

and demonstrates a flawed 

understanding of the modeling 

community. 

Commenters stated that the 

requirement to request renewal of FAArecognized 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 nonoperational sites. In addition, the 48- 

month renewal period gives the FAA 

the opportunity to validate that these 

sites are still necessary and continue to 

meet the applicable safety and security 

criteria. The FAA has determined that a 

48-calendar month term balances the 

safety and security needs to periodically 

review FAA-recognized identification 

areas against the administrative 

overhead associated with conducting 

the review. The FAA finds that 

commenter suggestions for longer time 

periods (60 months or 120 calendar 

months) do not allow for sufficiently 

frequent review. For the reasons 

detailed above, the FAA has also 

determined the requirement to submit a 

renewal request for FAA-recognized 

identification areas is also reasonable. 

The FAA determines that the 

requirement to request renewal no later 

than 120 days before the expiration 

period is necessary to provide the FAA 

time to process the renewal. 

Comments: Commenters objected to 

the restriction on re-establishment of 

FAA-recognized identification areas that 

have expired. AiRXOS commented that 

the FAA provided no reasonable 

explanation for prohibiting applicants 

from applying to reestablish a 

previously approved FAA-recognized 

identification area that had expired, and 

noted that it does not appear to be a 

risk-based provision. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

commenters that these areas will not 

phase out as initially conceived. In 

addition to removing the 12-calendar 

month limitation for application, the 

FAA will allow applicants to re-apply 

for an area that had expired. The FAA 

envisions that the process to re-apply be 

the same as the process for new 

applications, because the application 

would be evaluated against the same 

criteria. 

H. Requests to Terminate an FAArecognized 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 reestablishment of an FAA-recognized 

identification area that was voluntarily 

terminated. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees. This 

rule allows applicants to re-apply for an 

area that has been terminated by the 

previous holder of the FAA-recognized 

remote identification area. The FAA 

envisions that the process to re-apply be 

the same as the process for new 

applications, because the application 

would be evaluated against the same 

criteria and the 12-calendar month 

limitation on new applications is no 

longer applicable. 

I. Termination by FAA and Petitions To 

Reconsider the FAA’s Decision To 

Terminate an FAA-Recognized 

Identification Area 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed in § 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 FAArecognized 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 communitybased 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 FAArecognized identification area. 

As proposed, once an FAA-recognized 

identification area is terminated by the 

FAA, a CBO would not be able to 

reapply to have the associated area 

reestablished as an FAA-recognized 

identification area. In this rule, the FAA 

clarifies that except as provided in 

petitions for reconsideration, if the FAA 

terminates an FAA-recognized 

identification area based upon a finding 

that the FAA-recognized identification 

area may pose a risk to aviation safety, 

public safety, or national security, that 

flying site will no longer be eligible to 

be an FAA-recognized identification 

area for as long as those conditions 

4442 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

23See OMB Circular A–4. 24Public Law 104–113; 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq. 25 49 CFR 5.5(e). 

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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 reestablish the site. The FAA is 

committed to not allowing FAArecognized identification areas in 

locations that would pose a risk to 

aviation safety, public safety, or national 

security. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

expressed concern with the termination 

and appeal process, in particular over 

whether due process was being 

sufficiently applied. AOPA suggested 

the FAA allow for a decision 

reconsideration process so that CBOs 

may address and resolve any relevant 

outstanding safety issues that lead to the 

FAA termination decision. AOPA 

further proposed that impacted parties 

should be able to seek an administrative 

hearing concerning the FAA’s decision 

to terminate an FAA-recognized 

identification area under part 13, 

expressing concern that without an 

administrative hearing there was no 

guarantee that all the relevant facts 

would be considered, nor that an 

impartial decision on the matter would 

be reached. 

FAA Response: The absence of an 

FAA-recognized identification area does 

not prohibit UAS from operating in the 

area so long as those UAS are able to 

identify remotely. However, the FAA 

recognizes that the termination of an 

FAA-recognized identification area 

could affect persons flying unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification 

because, for example, the persons would 

have to fly their unmanned aircraft at 

another FAA-recognized identification 

area or would have to retrofit their 

unmanned aircraft with a remote 

identification broadcast module. As 

discussed in this rule, § 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 FAArecognized identification area does not 

ground unmanned aircraft that can 

remotely identify, persons can choose to 

retrofit their unmanned aircraft with 

remote identification broadcast modules 

if they want to continue flying in that 

airspace, and they can continue to fly 

their unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification at other FAA-recognized 

identification areas. 

Comments: Some individual 

commenters were unsatisfied with the 

wording of this section. One individual 

commenter requested the FAA amend 

the wording to specify that a ‘‘FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area is no 

longer relevant, an FAA-recognized 

identification area application should be 

open to consideration. The advisory 

circular will contain further details 

regarding FAA-recognized identification 

areas, including the process for 

termination and appeal. The advisory 

circular on FAA-recognized 

identification areas will be published 

following this rulemaking. 

XIII. Means of Compliance 

A. Performance-Based Regulation 

The FAA adopts the regulatory 

framework for remote identification 

with performance-based requirements 

rather than prescriptive text to provide 

a flexible regulation that allows a person 

to develop a means of compliance— 

which may include industry consensus 

standards—that adjusts to the fast pace 

of technological change, innovation, 

design, and development while still 

meeting the regulatory requirements. 

Performance-based requirements 

describe outcomes, goals, or results 

without establishing a specific means or 

process for regulated entities to 

follow.23 The FAA recognizes that UAS 

technology is continually evolving, 

making it necessary to harmonize 

regulatory action with technological 

growth. Setting performance 

requirements is one way to promote that 

harmonization. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4443 

26OMB Circular A–119, Section 5d. 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–119, which favors the use of 

performance-based regulations and 

voluntary consensus standards. OMB 

Circular A–119 states that, for cases in 

which no suitable voluntary consensus 

standards exist, an agency may consider 

using other types of standards. In 

addition, an agency may develop its 

own standards or use other governmentunique 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 FAAaccepted consensus standard as a means 

of compliance provides stakeholders the 

flexibility to comply with the remote 

identification requirements. However, 

the FAA recognizes that consensus 

standards are one way, but not the sole 

means, to show compliance with the 

performance requirements of this rule. 

The FAA emphasizes that, though a 

means of compliance developed by a 

consensus standards body (e.g., ASTM, 

SAE, Consumer Technology Association 

(CTA), etc.) may be available, any 

individual or organization can submit 

its own means of compliance to the 

Administrator for consideration and 

potential acceptance under subpart E of 

this rule. 

The FAA adopts subpart E essentially 

as proposed in the NPRM. However, the 

Agency is making certain modification 

to subpart E to reflect the revisions 

made to the remote identification 

framework in subpart B and subpart D. 

The FAA is eliminating all references to 

limited remote identification UAS in 

subpart E because of the decision not to 

move forward with that concept. The 

Agency is also incorporating the remote 

identification broadcast module 

solution into subpart E to enable the 

development of means of compliance 

used to produce the broadcast modules. 

For more information on these changes, 

see sections VII.A and VII.D of this 

preamble. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems 

International (AUVSI) and other 

commenters believed that the FAA’s 

proposal is not performance-based; they 

mentioned that the rule is based on 

prescriptive technology mandates. 

AUVSI asked the FAA to adopt 

performance-based requirements that 

comply with international standards 

and avoid requiring specific technology 

mandates. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with this assertion because this 

rule mainly describes outcomes, goals, 

and results without establishing a 

specific way to achieve it. The FAA 

recognizes that UAS technology is 

continually evolving, making it 

necessary to harmonize regulatory 

action with technological growth. By 

establishing performance requirements 

in part 89, the FAA is promoting 

harmonization and is providing a 

flexible regulation that allows a person 

to develop a means of compliance that 

adjusts to the fast pace of technological 

change, innovation, design, and 

development while still meeting the 

regulatory requirements. 

B. Applicability and General Comments 

In § 89.401, the FAA describes the 

applicability of subpart E. The FAA did 

not receive significant comments on this 

section and adopts the section mostly as 

proposed. The Agency is revising the 

regulatory text to delete references to 

the limited remote identification UAS, 

and incorporate the remote 

identification broadcast module 

concept. 

C. Submission of a Means of 

Compliance 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

In accordance with § 89.405, any 

person may submit a means of 

compliance for acceptance by the FAA. 

Section 89.405 also establishes the 

information that has to be submitted to 

seek the FAA’s acceptance of a means 

of compliance, and requires a means of 

compliance to include testing and 

validation procedures. 

The FAA adopts this section mostly 

as proposed. The Agency is revising the 

regulatory text to delete references to 

limited remote identification UAS, and 

incorporate the remote identification 

broadcast module concept so that 

persons can file a means of compliance 

for the latter. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Some commenters 

questioned the value and use of the 

means of compliance process. Others 

believed that the proposed requirements 

for the submission of the means of 

compliance were vague. A number of 

commenters asked the FAA to clarify 

what information must be submitted for 

the FAA to accept a means of 

compliance under subpart E. Some 

asked the FAA to include standards or 

performance metrics for persons to 

follow when submitting a means of 

compliance for FAA-acceptance. Other 

commenters asked the FAA to consider 

‘‘best practices’’ when evaluating 

submissions. Commenters also asked 

the Agency to publish guidance material 

or examples of FAA-accepted means of 

compliance and related documents. 

Multiple commenters asked the 

Agency to identify the standards and 

organizations it would work with to 

develop and accept the means of 

compliance under part 89. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with commenters who believe the 

means of compliance process is vague. 

Section 89.405 describes the 

information that must be submitted by 

any person seeking the FAA’s 

acceptance of a means of compliance. 

The FAA has determined this 

information is necessary to assess 

whether a proposed means of 

compliance (e.g., a standard) meets all 

of the remote identification 

requirements of subpart D and subpart 

E of this rule and whether it can be used 

for the design and production of 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast modules. 

The process is an essential component 

of the remote identification framework 

because an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance is used by designers and 

producers of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast modules 

to ensure that the unmanned aircraft or 

broadcast modules meet the minimum 

performance requirements of this rule. 

Consistent with its statements in the 

NPRM, the Agency is not planning on 

publicly disclosing the details or 

specification of any FAA-accepted 

means of compliance or related 

documents because they may contain 

proprietary data or commercially 

valuable information. The FAA is, 

however, publishing an advisory 

circular on the Means of Compliance 

Process for Remote Identification of 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems, that 

provides further guidance on the 

process. The advisory circular addresses 

the process and information that must 

be submitted under subpart E and is 

available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

believed the requirements in subpart E 

will impose financial and 

4444 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

administrative burdens, and will 

prevent or dissuade persons from 

submitting a means of compliance for 

FAA acceptance. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges that the rule imposes 

certain costs related to the development 

and submission of a means of 

compliance. These costs are justified by 

the benefits that will result from the 

rule, and both costs and benefits are 

evaluated and addressed in the 

regulatory evaluation available in 

section XXII.A of this preamble. 

Comments: Many commenters, 

including some that identified as homebuilders, 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 homebuilders will file their own means of 

compliance. The FAA expects most will 

use an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance submitted by another 

person, such as a consensus standards 

body. 

Comments: Wingcopter and other 

commenters mentioned that the testing 

and validation requirements in 

§ 89.405(c) are complex and might make 

it difficult for persons to comply with 

the regulation. The commenters 

specifically questioned whether the 

means of compliance framework applies 

to UAS produced under part 21. The 

commenters said it was confusing 

because the certification specifications, 

special conditions, or Technical 

Standard Order requirements of part 21 

cover testing and validation in addition 

to compliance demonstrations as part of 

the type certification process. 

Commenters specifically asked the FAA 

to clarify that the testing and validation 

requirements for certificated unmanned 

aircraft are addressed through the type 

certification process of part 21 instead 

of the requirements in part 89. 

FAA Response: The FAA has 

determined that the testing and 

verification procedures are essential 

because an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance is used for the production of 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules. The 

requirement enables the person 

responsible for the production of the 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast module to 

demonstrate to the FAA through 

analysis, ground test, or flight test, as 

appropriate, how the unmanned aircraft 

or broadcast module performs its 

intended functions and meets the 

requirements in subpart D. 

The FAA clarifies that the means of 

compliance framework applies to 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft manufactured under 

parts 89 and 21. While unmanned 

aircraft that are certified under the 

airworthiness certification processes of 

part 21 may have other identification 

requirements in addition to those 

included in this rule, the requirements 

in subpart D of part 89 (which can be 

met through an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance issued under subpart E) will 

be applied during the type or 

supplemental type certification process 

for standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft certificated and 

produced under part 21. 

Comments: A multitude of 

commenters urged the FAA to revise the 

rule to allow for the submission of a 

means of compliance for remote 

identification retrofit equipment. 

Commenters support allowing 

manufacturers to produce these means 

of compliance to produce retrofit 

equipment and argued it would help 

increase compliance with the remote 

identification operating requirements. 

FAA Response: As discussed in 

sections VII.A and VII.D of this 

preamble, after reviewing public 

comments and giving further 

consideration, the FAA is incorporating 

the remote identification broadcast 

module concept into this rule. 

Accordingly, the Agency is revising this 

rule by incorporating minimum 

performance requirements for remote 

identification broadcast modules. With 

the changes effected in this rule, 

persons can now develop means of 

compliance for remote identification 

broadcast modules and submit them to 

the FAA for acceptance. The procedural 

requirement for submission and 

acceptance of means of compliance 

remains the same as with standard 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft. Such FAA-accepted means of 

compliance can be used for the 

production of remote identification 

broadcast modules under subpart F. 

With these revisions, operators are now 

able to equip their existing unmanned 

aircraft with remote identification 

broadcast modules to comply with the 

operating requirements of subpart B. 

Comments: The Motion Picture 

Association asked the FAA to develop 

an alternate means of compliance 

particularly for UAS operated indoors or 

those unable to utilize certain means to 

determine location reliably (e.g., GPS). 

FAA Response: The FAA regulates the 

navigable airspace of the United States. 

Because this rule does not apply to 

indoor operations of unmanned aircraft, 

the FAA has determined that there is no 

need to incorporate the alternate means 

proposed by the Motion Picture 

Association. See section VI.B for more 

information on the applicability of 

operating requirements. 

D. Acceptance of a Means of 

Compliance 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

Section 89.410 prescribes the 

requirements for accepting a means of 

compliance. This section requires that a 

person must demonstrate to the 

Administrator that the means of 

compliance submitted for assessment 

and potential acceptance addresses all 

of the requirements of subpart D and E, 

and that any standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

designed and produced in accordance 

with such means of compliance would 

meet the performance requirements of 

subpart D. Section 89.410 also clarifies 

that the Administrator will evaluate a 

means of compliance that is submitted 

to the FAA and may request additional 

information or documentation, as 

needed, to supplement the means of 

compliance. The Administrator will 

notify the person submitting the means 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4445 

of compliance whether the means of 

compliance has been accepted or not. 

The FAA adopts this section mostly 

as proposed. The Agency is revising the 

regulatory text to delete references to 

limited remote identification UAS and 

incorporate the remote identification 

broadcast module concept. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The National Association 

of State Aviation Officials, Skydio Inc., 

the Consumer Technology Association 

(CTA), and others asked the FAA to 

commit to a deadline to review all 

submissions of means of compliance. 

Commenters indicated that without 

deadlines, the review process could be 

lengthy, impede the ability of designers 

and producers of UAS to bring products 

to market quickly, and inhibit 

innovation. Some commenters 

suggested specific deadlines. For 

example, Skydio Inc. asked the FAA to 

render a decision within 90 days of the 

submission unless there is a justified 

reason for the delay. Commenters also 

mentioned that the FAA should notify 

submitters, in writing, of the reason of 

any delay in reviewing the application. 

FAA Response: A means of 

compliance must be accepted prior to 

being listed on a declaration of 

compliance for the design and 

production of a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module. 

The FAA acknowledges that the review 

process and response time will vary, 

and will be dependent on the 

complexity of the application and the 

technology employed. In certain 

circumstances the Administrator may 

need additional information or 

documentation to supplement the filing 

to be able to make a determination. 

Therefore, the FAA cannot commit to a 

specific timeline for review because the 

process is dynamic, however the 

Agency is committed to working with 

stakeholders and allocating the 

necessary resources to review 

submissions of means of compliance in 

a timely manner. 

Comments: Various commenters 

mentioned that the Agency should 

explain the grounds for rejecting a 

means of compliance, so submitters can 

understand the issues and correct 

defects. 

FAA Response: The FAA will 

evaluate the means of compliance to 

ensure completeness and compliance 

with the requirements of subpart D or E. 

Consistent with § 89.410(c), if the 

Administrator determines the person 

has not provided sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that the means of 

compliance meets the requirements of 

subpart D or E, the Agency will notify 

the person that the Administrator has 

not accepted the means of compliance 

and provide the reasons for the 

decision. 

Comments: Streamline Designs LLC 

and others asked the FAA to file a 

notice of availability in the Federal 

Register whenever it accepts a means of 

compliance submitted by a standards 

body. 

FAA Response: As discussed in the 

NPRM and as promulgated in this rule, 

the FAA will indicate acceptance of a 

means of compliance by notifying the 

submitter and publishing a notice in the 

Federal Register identifying that a 

means of compliance is accepted. All 

FAA-accepted means of compliance will 

be listed on https://www.faa.gov. The 

FAA will not disclose proprietary 

information in the document and will 

only provide general information stating 

that FAA has accepted the means of 

compliance. The FAA may disclose the 

non-proprietary broadcast specification 

and radio frequency spectrum so that 

sufficient information is available to 

develop receiving and processing 

equipment and software for the FAA, 

law enforcement, and the public. 

Comments: The Air Line Pilots 

Association, Int’l and various 

commenters expressed concerns with 

the ability of the FAA to handle the 

workload created by this rule. 

Commenters specifically mentioned 

issues regarding cost, timeliness, and 

availability of resources. For example, 

they argued that the FAA and other 

stakeholders would need to invest a 

significant amount of money and 

identify substantial resources. 

FAA Response: As stated earlier, the 

FAA is committed to the 

implementation of remote identification 

and is developing internal procedures 

and allocating the appropriate resources 

to facilitate the review and acceptance 

processes under part 89. The FAA is 

committed to working with internal and 

external stakeholders to ensure that the 

process for submitting and obtaining 

FAA-acceptance of a means of 

compliance is conducted in an effective 

and timely manner. 

Comments: Many commenters, 

including Amazon Prime Air, AUVSI, 

GSMA, ASTM International, Drone 

Delivery Systems, and others urged the 

FAA to accept the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

international F3411–19 Standard 

Specification for Remote ID and 

Tracking as a means of compliance 

under this rule and requested the FAA 

work with ASTM to develop a rigorous 

standardized test plan. Drone Delivery 

Systems mentioned it supported the 

ASTM F3411–19 Standard Specification 

for Remote ID and Tracking for 

commercial UAS but that they did not 

expect it to become the requirement for 

every UAS. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 

that FAA-accepted consensus standards 

are one way, but not the sole means, to 

show compliance with the performance 

requirements of part 89. The FAA 

encourages ASTM and all other 

consensus standards bodies and 

interested parties to submit a means of 

compliance for FAA acceptance in 

accordance with the requirements of 

subpart E. The FAA emphasizes that, 

though a means of compliance 

developed by a consensus standards 

body may be available, any individual 

or organization is able to submit its own 

means of compliance to the 

Administrator for consideration and 

potential acceptance. Only FAAaccepted means of compliance can be 

used to produce standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. 

The FAA acknowledges those 

comments requesting the FAA adopt 

ASTM F3411–19 as a remote 

identification means of compliance as 

part of this final rule. The FAA 

recognizes the significant work that 

ASTM and its members have put into 

the development of ASTM F3411–19. 

The FAA notes that some aspects of 

ASTM F3411–19 may need to be revised 

or updated as a result of the 

requirements of this final rule. Once 

that process has occurred, the FAA 

looks forward to evaluating ASTM 

F3411–19 as a potential means of 

compliance for remote identification of 

unmanned aircraft. 

E. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a 

Means of Compliance 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

According to § 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 

4446 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

believed the requirement could inhibit 

the production of UAS and broadcast 

equipment and stifle UAS research and 

development, especially if the means of 

compliance becomes obsolete a couple 

of years after it has been accepted. 

FAA Response: An FAA-accepted 

means of compliance will remain in 

effect until the FAA rescinds its 

acceptance after the Administrator 

determines that the means of 

compliance does not meet the 

requirements in subpart D or E. This 

means that a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or a 

remote identification broadcast module 

that is produced under a means of 

compliance that remains accepted by 

the FAA—however old it may be— 

complies with the requirements of this 

rule as long as it continues to meet all 

of the requirements of subparts D and E. 

The filing of new means of compliance 

for the manufacturing of new or 

upgraded standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast modules that 

addresses technological advancements 

does not render the older versions 

obsolete. 

In the event the means of compliance 

is rescinded, the FAA’s acceptance of 

any declaration of compliance that 

relies on the no longer accepted means 

of compliance may be rescinded as well. 

The FAA may allow the submitter of the 

FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance to amend the declaration of 

compliance to include another FAAaccepted 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 newlylisted means of compliance. The FAA 

will not rescind its acceptance of a 

declaration of compliance that is 

promptly amended to list another FAAaccepted 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. 

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. Homebuilders 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 homebuilder can develop and use its own 

means of compliance or can use an 

FAA-accepted means of compliance 

held by another person (e.g., a 

consensus standard). The home-builder 

would not need to comply with the data 

retention requirements of subpart E 

unless it chooses to submit its own 

means of compliance under subpart E. 

Comments: Streamline Designs LLC 

and others asked which data the holders 

of an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance have to retain. 

FAA Response: Section 89.420 lists 

the data that the holders of FAAaccepted 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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4447 

to clarify who is a ‘‘manufacturer’’ 

under subpart F to help people identify 

whether they need to comply with the 

design and production requirements. 

Airlines for America, the Experimental 

Aircraft Association, and others 

questioned whether the FAA has 

statutory authority to regulate the 

foreign manufacturing of UAS as well as 

the importation and sale of UAS, 

particularly those without an 

airworthiness certification. A 

commenter asked the FAA to clarify 

how it would ensure foreign producers 

comply with the requirements of 

subpart F within the timeframes 

established in the rule, and without 

burdening operators. 

FAA Response: The FAA clarifies that 

it does not regulate the sale or 

importation of unmanned aircraft. The 

requirements in subpart F apply to the 

production of remote identification 

broadcast modules and the production 

of unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification operated in the airspace of 

the United States. Any person, whether 

in the United States or a foreign 

country, producing such unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast modules must file 

a declaration of compliance, provide 

certain information, and agree to abide 

by the production requirements and 

certain terms and conditions (e.g., 

inspection, audit, product support and 

notification, instructions). If the person 

produces an unmanned aircraft or 

broadcast module that is not covered by 

an FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance, the unmanned aircraft or 

broadcast module would not meet the 

remote identification requirements of 

part 89, and the operation would be 

restricted to an FAA-recognized 

identification area when conducted in 

the airspace of the United States. This 

regulatory framework is necessary to 

ensure that standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast modules 

used in the airspace of the United States 

can broadcast the remote identification 

message elements required by this rule, 

irrespective of where the unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast module is 

produced. 

Persons producing unmanned aircraft 

identified in § 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, selfflying, and self-navigation capabilities.’’ 

Some commenters asked the FAA to 

modify the applicability of subpart B 

based on a risk-based approach that 

maximizes opportunities for compliance 

and enhances the safety and security 

outcomes for airspace users. Wing 

Aviation indicated that risk factors 

associated with UAS operations are 

most closely correlated with careless, 

clueless, or higher-risk operations, and 

indicated that the design and 

production requirements would impose 

unnecessary restrictions on self-built 

UAS, which typically pose a lower risk. 

Multiple commenters also mentioned 

that the design and production 

requirements would preclude many 

hobbyists from designing, building, and 

flying their own UAS. The Experimental 

Aircraft Association (EAA) and many 

individuals indicated that the design 

and production requirements should not 

apply to traditional model aircraft given 

their low risk profile and lack of need 

for specialized equipment. Many 

recreational UAS owners expressed 

concerns that only FAA-approved 

ready-to-fly UAS would be allowed for 

sale and this would increase the 

financial burden to UAS operators. 

Some commenters mentioned that the 

design and production requirements 

should apply to manufacturers of a 

certain size or to ‘‘mass manufacturers’’ 

of UAS. A significant number of 

commenters opposed requiring 

manufacturers of single units, UAS used 

in recreational operations, UAS used for 

experimental purposes, or similar UAS 

from having to comply with subpart F. 

Another commenter mentioned that the 

FAA should create an expedited process 

(e.g., with less documentation 

requirements) to allow persons 

manufacturing few UAS to have a 

simpler means to comply with the 

design and production requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with comments that the design 

and production requirements should be 

based on the performance or capacity of 

the unmanned aircraft, the number of 

unmanned aircraft produced, the size or 

weight class, or the risk of the operation. 

The FAA also does not agree that the 

requirements should only apply to 

highly automated aircraft intended for 

sale to third parties or for commercial 

use. 

The design and production 

requirements of this rule apply to most 

unmanned aircraft operating in the 

airspace of the United States. They are 

necessary to ensure that standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

and remote identification broadcast 

modules used in the United States 

broadcast the remote identification 

message elements to enable compliance 

with the operating requirements of 

subpart B. The FAA has determined that 

it is in the interest of safety and security 

to require most unmanned aircraft to 

identify remotely when operating in the 

airspace of the United States. 

Accordingly, it has determined that the 

design and production requirements 

should be a rule of general applicability. 

The FAA acknowledges that certain 

exceptions are warranted and adopts 

these exceptions in § 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 

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 

4448 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

on board or otherwise attached to the 

aircraft.’’ 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The FAA received many 

comments addressing exceptions to the 

design and production requirements. 

The Boeing Company asked the FAA to 

remove the proposed exceptions for 

home-built UAS, UAS of the United 

States Government, and UAS designed 

or produced for aeronautical research or 

to show compliance with regulations, 

unless the UAS are intended exclusively 

for operations at FAA-recognized 

identification areas. Boeing believed 

that, when operated in civil airspace, 

those excepted UAS should be subject 

to the same rules and requirements as 

other UAS to ensure safe operations for 

all. 

Multiple commenters also mentioned 

that the design and production 

requirements should apply to all UAS. 

Some commenters indicated that the 

FAA could create tiers of design and 

production requirements so that the 

requirements that apply to certain UAS 

(e.g., home-built UAS and UAS used in 

recreational operations) are less strict 

than those that apply to other UAS (e.g., 

UAS used in commercial operations). 

FAA Response: The FAA considered 

extending the design and production 

requirements to all unmanned aircraft 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. However, the Agency identified 

a need to except certain unmanned 

aircraft from the design and production 

requirements of this rule. As discussed 

above, home-built unmanned aircraft, 

unmanned aircraft of the United States 

Government, and unmanned aircraft 

designed or produced exclusively for 

the purpose of aeronautical research or 

to show compliance with regulations, 

are included in the exceptions to the 

design and production requirement the 

FAA is adopting in this rule. These 

exceptions, as well as the exception for 

unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 

pounds or less on takeoff, including 

everything that is on board or otherwise 

attached to the aircraft, are discussed in 

detail in sections XIV.B.2 through 

XIV.B.5 of this preamble. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

opposed requiring UAS used in 

recreational operations or traditional 

model aircraft to comply with the 

requirements of subpart F. The 

commenters argued that these aircraft 

are typically used in low risk profile 

operations. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with comments that the design 

and production requirements of subpart 

F should not apply to unmanned aircraft 

used in recreational operations or to 

traditional model aircraft given the low 

risk profile of the operations. The design 

and production requirements of subpart 

F are implemented to ensure unmanned 

aircraft have the remote identification 

capabilities necessary to enable 

operators to comply with the 

operational requirements in subpart B, 

which apply to most unmanned aircraft 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. 

2. Exceptions: Home-Built Unmanned 

Aircraft 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA chose to exclude home-built 

unmanned aircraft from the design and 

production requirements because 

persons building these unmanned 

aircraft may not have the necessary 

technical knowledge, ability, or 

financial resources to design and 

produce an unmanned aircraft that 

meets the minimum performance 

requirements of this rule. The FAA 

believes requiring home-built 

unmanned aircraft to comply with the 

performance requirements for remote 

identification would place an undue 

burden on homebuilders. The Agency 

expects home-built unmanned aircraft 

will represent a very small portion of 

the total number of unmanned aircraft 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. The FAA’s position is that 

nothing in this rule prohibits a person 

from building a home-built standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

for educational or recreational purposes. 

However, in that case, the person would 

be subject to all of the requirements of 

subpart F, even if the unmanned aircraft 

would otherwise be considered a homebuilt 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 homebuilt 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 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 homebuilt unmanned aircraft) in the airspace 

of the United States must comply with 

the operating requirements of subpart B 

if the unmanned aircraft is registered or 

required to be registered under part 47 

or 48. This means that the operator of 

a home-built unmanned aircraft that is 

not produced as a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft under 

subpart F must operate within FAArecognized 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), homebuilt unmanned aircraft are excepted 

from having to comply with the design 

and production requirements of subpart 

F. However, designers or producers of 

home-built unmanned aircraft can 

choose to comply with the design and 

production requirements by voluntarily 

opting into subpart F and building 

home-built standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed concerns with the exception 

for home-built UAS. These commenters 

said that the exception could increase 

the demand for UAS kits and lead to an 

increase in UAS being built without 

remote identification. The Motion 

Picture Association (MPA) expressed 

concerns with excepting home-built 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4449 

UAS from the design and production 

requirements because they could have 

the ability to fly several miles from the 

control station using a remotely 

viewable camera, even though they are 

not equipped with remote identification 

capabilities. The MPA asked the FAA to 

add a technological requirement to the 

home-built UAS exception in 

§ 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 homebuilt unmanned aircraft must still 

comply with the operating rules of 

subpart B. 

Comments: Several commenters asked 

the FAA for an alternate way for homebuilt UAS to comply, noting that 

hobbyists often build UAS from parts, 

including foam and balsa wood, rather 

than kits from recognized 

manufacturers. Other commenters 

mentioned that kit-built UAS are 

considered home-built and should be 

excepted from the design and 

production requirements, while other 

commenters mentioned that kit-built 

UAS should have some type of remote 

identification, particularly if they are 

operated outside an FAA-recognized 

identification area. For example, DJI 

Technology, Inc. asserted that excepting 

UAS from the remote identification 

requirements when a person fabricates 

and assembles more than 50 percent of 

the UAS makes no difference to safety 

and would not address approximately 

80 percent or more of home-built 

aircraft as they are built today. DJI 

recommended a focus on the 

performance of the resulting UAS, 

basing the need to comply with remote 

identification on the risk the UAS 

creates due to its performance. 

The Academy of Model Aeronautics 

supported excepting persons assembling 

UAS from kits that contain 100 percent 

of the parts and instructions from 

having to comply with the design and 

production requirements. They 

recognized that many of these kit UAS 

would only be flown at FAA-recognized 

identification areas. Droneport Texas 

LLC stated that UAS kit designers or 

producers and suppliers should be able 

to provide 100 percent of the parts and 

instructions that are necessary for 

assembly of a fully functioning UAS 

without remote identification 

capabilities. The New Hampshire 

Department of Transportation suggested 

that the rule would motivate designers 

and producers of UAS to produce kits 

with less than 100 percent of the 

necessary parts to shift responsibility for 

subpart F compliance to homebuilders 

who would be reluctant or unable to 

comply. 

FAA Response: As further discussed 

in section V.D of this preamble, the FAA 

originally proposed to use the term 

amateur-built unmanned aircraft system 

for the exception in § 89.501(c)(1) and 

defined it as ‘‘an unmanned aircraft 

system the major portion of which has 

been fabricated and assembled by a 

person who undertook the construction 

project solely for their own education or 

recreation.’’ Under the proposal, the 

person building the amateur-built 

unmanned aircraft would have been 

required to fabricate and assemble at 

least 50 percent of the UAS. Following 

comments received, the FAA relabeled 

the exception as home-built unmanned 

aircraft and eliminated the fabrication 

and major portion requirements. This 

rule adopts the definition of home-built 

unmanned aircraft that an individual 

built solely for education or recreation. 

The FAA recognizes that 

homebuilders may produce unmanned 

aircraft from scratch, may use partial 

kits in the building process, or may 

assemble unmanned aircraft from a 

complete kit produced by another 

person or entity. The exception for 

home-built unmanned aircraft in 

§ 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-tofly 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 kit 

is not the designer or producer of the 

unmanned aircraft for purposes of 

subpart F of this rule. Therefore, the 

homebuilder does not need to comply 

with the design and production 

requirements in subpart F. Nevertheless, 

the operator of a home-built unmanned 

aircraft—whether produced from 

scratch or assembled from a partial kit 

or a complete kit—must comply with 

the operating requirements in subpart B 

of part 89. 

3. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft of the 

United States Government 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA chose to exclude unmanned 

aircraft of the United States Government 

from the design and production 

requirements because of the need for the 

Federal Government of the United 

States to produce aircraft without 

remote identification to meet certain 

operational missions. 

The production requirements and 

operational requirements are 

independent of each other. Even though 

subpart F establishes an exception for 

unmanned aircraft of the United States 

Government, an entity of the Federal 

Government of the United States 

operating an unmanned aircraft must 

assess whether it is subject to the 

operational requirements of part 89. The 

entity will have to comply with the 

remote identification operating 

requirements if it operates an unmanned 

aircraft that is registered, or required to 

be registered under part 47 or 48. Only 

the aircraft of the national defense 

forces of the United States are excepted 

from the aircraft registration 

requirements and are therefore not 

required to comply with the operating 

requirements of subpart B. This means 

that all other entities of the Federal 

Government of the United States, as 

4450 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

well as all entities of the government of 

a State, the District of Columbia, or a 

territory or possession of the United 

States or a political subdivision of one 

of these governments or an Indian Tribal 

government, that wish to operate an 

unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification at a location other than an 

FAA-recognized identification area 

would be required to seek authorization 

from the Administrator to deviate from 

the operating provisions of subpart B of 

part 89. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The Utah Department of 

Transportation requested that the FAA 

clarify which aircraft are covered by the 

exception in § 89.501(c)(2) by deleting 

the phrase ‘‘aircraft of the United States 

Government’’ and replacing it with 

‘‘aircraft of the United States Military.’’ 

FAA Response: The FAA adopts the 

language as proposed because aircraft of 

the Federal Government of the United 

States are excepted from the design and 

production requirements of subpart F. 

This includes, but is not limited to, 

aircraft of the United States Military. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

expressed concerns with the proposed 

exception for UAS of the United States 

Government because they believe it 

could cause public distrust. The 

commenters mentioned that a better 

approach would be to create 

requirements (e.g., specific operational 

or pilot-related requirements) to enable 

sensitive operations to be conducted 

safety while still identifying in a general 

or broader manner. 

FAA Response: The FAA has 

determined the exception is necessary 

so that the United States Government 

can produce unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification equipment, or can 

deviate from the design and production 

requirements of this rule. The exception 

is necessary to facilitate certain 

operational missions of the United 

States Government. The FAA believes 

that—unlike with the Federal 

Government—a State, the District of 

Columbia, territories, possessions, or 

Indian Tribal governments are unlikely 

to produce their own unmanned 

aircraft. However, the FAA 

acknowledges that these governments 

may have a need to deviate from the 

operating requirements of this rule 

when conducting sensitive operations. 

This is why this rule incorporates a 

deviation option. Through this 

deviation, governments can request 

authorization from the Administrator to 

deviate from the operating provisions of 

subpart B. 

4. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft That 

Weigh 0.55 Pounds or Less on Takeoff, 

Including Everything That Is On Board 

or Otherwise Attached to the Aircraft 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA chose to exclude unmanned 

aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds or less 

on takeoff, including everything that is 

on board or otherwise attached to the 

aircraft from the design and production 

requirements because, most of these 

unmanned aircraft may not be subject to 

the registration or recognition of 

ownership requirements of part 48, and 

therefore would not need to comply 

with the operating requirements of 

subpart B of part 89. 

As discussed in section XV of this 

preamble, if an unmanned aircraft 

weighing 0.55 pounds or less is 

operated under part 91, 107, or 135, an 

exemption issued under 49 U.S.C. 

44807, or any other regulatory part 

requiring the aircraft to be registered, 

the design and production of such 

unmanned aircraft would have to 

comply with subpart F of part 89 and 

the operation of the unmanned aircraft 

would have to comply with subpart B. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that the FAA should except 

small UAS from the remote 

identification requirements because 

many cannot carry additional 

equipment to comply with the rule. 

Commenters asked the FAA to expand 

this exception to cover UAS that end up 

exceeding the 0.55 pound threshold as 

a result of the installation of remote 

identification equipment. A commenter 

stated that UAS that weigh less than 

0.55 pounds should be allowed up to an 

additional 0.1 pounds of add-ons to 

enable compliance with this rule. 

Some commenters believed only large 

UAS would be capable of carrying 

remote identification equipment. 

Similarly, others believed that the 

Agency should only require large UAS 

to identify remotely. Therefore, many 

commenters suggested the FAA 

implement remote identification 

requirements based on the weight or 

size of the unmanned aircraft. For 

example, a commenter mentioned that a 

UAS weighing less than 20 pounds and 

with a wingspan of less than 80 inches 

should be excepted from the remote 

identification requirements of this rule. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with comments urging the Agency 

to expand the exception in 

§ 89.501(c)(3) to unmanned aircraft that 

exceed the 0.55 pounds threshold as a 

consequence of installing remote 

identification equipment. The exception 

covers a subgroup of unmanned aircraft 

that is not subject to the registration 

requirements of part 48 because they 

weigh 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, 

including everything that is on board or 

otherwise attached to the aircraft. 

Because aircraft that exceed the weight 

threshold have to register (or file a 

confirmation of identification for foreign 

civil unmanned aircraft) and comply 

with the operating requirements of 

subpart B, the FAA determined these 

unmanned aircraft should also comply 

with the design and production 

requirements of this rule. 

5. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft 

Designed or Produced Exclusively for 

the Purpose of Aeronautical Research or 

To Show Compliance With Regulations 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA chose to exclude unmanned 

aircraft designed or produced 

exclusively for the purpose of 

aeronautical research or to show 

compliance with regulations from the 

design and production requirements of 

this rule. This exclusion fosters 

innovation and encourages research, 

development, and testing activities 

related to the unmanned aircraft, the 

unmanned aircraft’s control systems, 

equipment that is part of the unmanned 

aircraft (such as sensors), and the 

unmanned aircraft’s flight profiles, as 

well as the development of specific 

functions and capabilities for the 

unmanned aircraft. The FAA 

determined that the exception is also 

necessary so that unmanned aircraft 

prototypes can show compliance with 

FAA regulations. This exception 

includes regulations related to FAAaccepted 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4451 

technology, engineering, and mathrelated 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 FAArecognized 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, 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 89, or a remote identification 

broadcast module, unless the unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast module is issued a 

serial number that complies with ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A. A producer of an 

unmanned aircraft with an integrated 

broadcast capability may update the 

serial number as part of the software 

upgrade to install the remote 

identification broadcast module. The 

ANSI/CTA–2063–A standard is 

incorporated by reference into this 

regulation, and is available for review 

and download, free of charge, at the 

time of publication of this rule. 

The FAA adopts the use of the ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A standard because using a 

single accepted format for serial 

numbers helps ensure consistency in 

the broadcast of the message element. 

The FAA adopts this section essentially 

as proposed, but is making certain 

modification to the regulation to 

eliminate the limited remote 

identification UAS concept and 

incorporate the remote identification 

broadcast module concept. 

The NPRM sought comments 

regarding the adoption of ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A as the serial number standard 

for remote identification. The FAA 

specifically requested comments on 

whether ANSI/CTA–2063–A can be 

effectively used as a serial number 

standard for larger unmanned aircraft. 

The Agency particularly sought 

feedback from designers and producers 

of unmanned aircraft that assign serial 

numbers in accordance with ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A and inquired about the 

type and number of unmanned aircraft 

that the serial numbers are being 

assigned to. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

i. General Comments Regarding The 

Requirement To Issue a Serial Number 

to Unmanned Aircraft With Remote 

Identification 

Comments: Droneport Texas LLC, 

Wing Aviation, LLC, and others urged 

the FAA to modify the serial number 

requirement so that it only applies to 

UAS intended to be flown in the 

airspace of the United States, BVLOS, or 

for commercial use. Along these lines, a 

number of commenters opposed 

requiring producers of UAS used for 

limited recreational operations to 

comply with the serial number 

requirement in § 89.505. They 

mentioned that many of the unmanned 

aircraft will fly within FAA-recognized 

identification areas or VLOS, and 

therefore believed there is no need to 

require such aircraft to comply with the 

serial number requirement. The Drone 

U, Brands Hobby, University of Utah 

and many individuals also asked the 

FAA to eliminate the serial number 

requirement or to except UAS used for 

limited recreational operations from 

having to comply. 

Many stated that this requirement 

would be impossible to comply with for 

those with amateur-built aircraft, as they 

do not come with serial numbers. Some 

of the commenters believed the 

requirement would potentially destroy 

the value of recreational UAS and 

threaten recreational operations of UAS 

and supporting industries. The 

Executive Director of the Academy of 

Model Aeronautics stated that a serial 

number requirement would destroy the 

historical accuracy of scale replicas of 

manned aircraft. The 

DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety 

Alliance worried that many current 

models from popular manufacturers do 

not have serial numbers that comply 

with the proposal. 

FAA Response: Aircraft registration 

and identification is consistent with 

preserving aviation safety. The FAA has 

determined that the serial number 

requirement must apply to all aircraft 

and broadcast modules subject to 

subpart F, and should not be based on 

the purpose or intent of the operation of 

the unmanned aircraft. The serial 

number requirement is necessary 

because it enables the unique 

identification of unmanned aircraft 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. The requirement is particularly 

necessary to identify every unmanned 

aircraft that is registered under a single 

registration number issued under 14 

CFR part 48 to the owner of multiple 

unmanned aircraft used exclusively for 

limited recreational operations in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44809. This 

is particularly important when these 

unmanned aircraft are flown outside of 

FAA-recognized identification areas. 

Home-built unmanned aircraft are 

excluded from the design and 

production requirements under subpart 

F. Producers of home-built unmanned 

aircraft do not have to comply with 

§ 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 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 

4452 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

27Producers 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. 

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 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 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. 

The Coconino County Sheriff’s Office 

expressed concern about current serial 

numbers not complying with the ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A standard, but suggested 

that compliant serial numbers could 

perhaps be issued by the FAA at the 

time of registration or re-registration. 

One commenter stated the FAA should 

permit the use of user-generated serial 

numbers at least until industry makes 

available modular dongles that transmit 

serial numbers compliant with ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A. Another individual 

suggested the FAA provide a 

mechanism allowing for serial number 

equivalent assignment during 

registration of amateur-built UAS using 

an approved open source code. 

Commenters questioned whether the 

requirement applied to the legacy UAS 

fleet. Other commenters mentioned that 

producers should be able to provide the 

serial number through a software 

upgrade. Some of these commenters 

raised concerns with a software upgrade 

because UAS manufacturers might not 

have the ability to track whether the 

upgrade was successfully installed for 

the UAS to meet the serial number 

requirement. 

FAA Response: The broadcast of a 

serial number is an essential component 

of remote identification. The FAA has 

decided to maintain its position to 

adopt the ANSI/CTA–2063–A standard, 

and require applicable producers to 

assign ANSI/CTA–2063–A compliant 

serial numbers to standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. While ANSI/CTA–2063–A 

was specifically developed to provide a 

serial number format for small 

unmanned aircraft serial numbers, the 

FAA has determined that ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A is appropriate to issue serial 

numbers under this rule regardless of 

the size of the unmanned aircraft or 

broadcast module because it enables the 

issuance of unique serial numbers, and 

promotes worldwide standardization of 

unmanned aircraft remote identification 

requirements. The use of ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A would provide a single 

accepted format for serial numbers. It 

would also help ensure consistency and 

avoid duplication in the broadcast of 

this message element at any given 

moment. The ANSI/CTA–2063–A 

standard is available for viewing and 

download free of charge as of the 

publication of this final rule. 

The FAA reaffirms that subpart F of 

this rule does not apply to the 

production of home-built unmanned 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4453 

aircraft. Accordingly, individuals 

constructing home-built unmanned 

aircraft are not required to obtain ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A serial numbers for their 

aircraft. As previously discussed, the 

serial number requirement in § 89.505 

does not apply to existing unmanned 

aircraft. Unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification can continue to 

operate, as long as they comply with the 

operating requirements under subpart B 

of this rule. 

The FAA is permitting the production 

and use of remote identification 

broadcast modules that may be 

retrofitted in unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification to meet the 

requirements of this rule. If operators of 

unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification, such as home-built 

unmanned aircraft or existing 

unmanned aircraft, want to operate 

outside of FAA-recognized 

identification areas, they would need to 

equip their unmanned aircraft with 

remote identification broadcast modules 

to comply with the operational 

requirements of this rule. 

In addition, the ANSI/CTA–2063–A 

standard has been available since before 

the publication of this rule, and nothing 

in this rule prohibits a producer from 

voluntarily assigning a compliant serial 

number to existing unmanned aircraft 

(e.g., through a software upgrade). A 

producer of unmanned aircraft with 

integrated broadcast capability may 

update the serial number as part of the 

software upgrade to install the remote 

identification broadcast module—this 

way existing unmanned aircraft may be 

issued an ANSI/CTA–2063–A compliant 

serial number and comply with the 

remote identification requirements. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

expressed concerns with their ability to 

access the ANSI/CTA–2063–A standard 

and the economic burdens of obtaining 

it. 

FAA Response: As of the publication 

of this rule, the ANSI/CTA–2063–A 

standard is available for viewing and 

download free of charge, so the FAA 

does not believe its adoption will pose 

financial hardships. 

Comments: Various individuals said 

the FAA should obtain a ‘‘manufacturer 

code’’ so they can issue ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A compliant serial numbers to the 

existing fleet of UAS. Other commenters 

indicated the FAA should provide a 

compliant serial number when the 

unmanned aircraft is registered or if the 

producer of the unmanned aircraft did 

not assign a serial number to the 

unmanned aircraft. Some commenters 

believe the FAA should create an 

automatic process to enable producers 

to obtain a manufacturer code to enable 

them to issue serial numbers via the 

FAA or ICAO website. Some 

commenters questioned whether they 

would have sufficient time to comply 

with the requirement. 

FAA Response: The FAA has 

determined there is no need for the 

Agency to issue serial numbers to the 

existing unmanned aircraft fleet, at this 

time. As discussed in this rule, an 

existing unmanned aircraft that does not 

meet all requirements of subpart F can 

continue to fly at FAA-recognized 

identification areas. It can also be 

retrofitted with a remote identification 

broadcast module to fly elsewhere. The 

remote identification broadcast module 

would need to have a serial number 

issued by the producer in accordance 

with § 89.505. 

This rule does not establish a specific 

process to issue serial numbers. 

Producers may develop or follow any 

process that enables them to issue and 

assign ANSI/CTA–2063–A compliant 

serial numbers to the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. 

Comments: Some commenters 

highlighted that ANSI/CTA–2063–A 

covers the issuance of serial numbers for 

small UAS. The National Agricultural 

Aviation Association and others asked 

the FAA to revise the rule so that the 

serial number requirement applies to 

UAS of a particular size or larger. The 

Small UAV Coalition and others asked 

the FAA to revise § 89.505 to require 

compliance with the ANSI serial 

number standard at the time of 

production of the UAS. Another 

commenter suggested the requirement 

be to use ‘‘an accepted industry 

standard on serial numbers.’’ A 

commenter asked the FAA to use a 

standard that provides a scalable format 

for serial numbers and a scalable 

process for producers to request or 

assign serial numbers. 

FAA Response: While ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A was specifically developed to 

provide a serial number format for small 

unmanned aircraft serial numbers, the 

FAA has determined that ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A is appropriate to issue serial 

numbers under this rule regardless of 

the size of the unmanned aircraft or 

broadcast module because it enables the 

issuance of unique serial numbers, and 

promotes worldwide standardization of 

unmanned aircraft remote identification 

requirements. The use of ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A provides a single accepted 

format for serial numbers, helping to 

ensure consistency in the broadcast of 

this message element. The FAA believes 

this standard provides for flexibility and 

scalability, noting that the 

‘‘Manufacturer’s Serial Number’’ field of 

the full serial number allows for over a 

quadrillion different number and letter 

combinations. The FAA notes that 

ANSI/CTA–2063–A is the current 

version of the standard as of the date of 

this rule and declines to include a 

policy for accepting new serial number 

standards. Any future changes to the 

requirement to issue serial numbers that 

comply with ANSI/CTA–2063–A would 

require a new rulemaking activity. 

The incorporation by reference 

approach requires pointing to a specific 

standard and the FAA must evaluate 

each standard to ensure it is consistent 

with the remote identification 

requirements and appropriately 

supports the transmission of the 

message elements. While this rule 

adopts ANSI/CTA–2063–A, the Agency 

may consider revisions to this 

standard—as well as other serial 

number standards—and may 

incorporate them into the regulation at 

a later time. 

iii. Incorporation by Reference 

As promulgated in § 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– 

4454 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

A standard is available for review and 

download, free of charge, at the time of 

publication of this rule. 

D. Labeling Requirements 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

According to § 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. 

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 FAArecognized identification area. The costs 

related to the labeling requirement are 

justified by the benefits that will result 

from the rule, and both costs and 

benefits are evaluated and addressed in 

the Regulatory Evaluation section of this 

rule and in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The FAA does not agree with 

commenters who believed the labeling 

requirement would impact performance 

and limit surface area availability for 

other sensors. This rule is performancebased and there is no prescriptive 

requirement for how the labeling must 

be done. There is no requirement on 

font type, size, or location of the label. 

The label will adjust to the size of the 

unmanned aircraft. Also, a standards 

body or any person may create a 

labeling standard to meet all labeling 

requirements with a single label (e.g., 

remote identification, registration, 

operations over people, etc.). 

Comments: Commenters including 

FPVFC and SenseFly asked the FAA to 

clarify how retrofitted UAS or UAS with 

remote identification add-on equipment 

would meet the labeling requirement. 

The Commercial Drone Alliance, 

FlyGuys, Inc., and ANRA Technologies 

suggested that if the rule allows for 

retrofit UAS or UAS with remote 

identification add-on equipment, then 

these aircraft would also have to meet 

all remote identification standards, 

including labeling. 

FAA Response: As previously 

discussed, the FAA modified this rule to 

allow for the production and use of 

remote identification broadcast modules 

to identify remotely. Section 89.525(b) 

establishes the labeling requirements for 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. The requirements are similar 

to those that apply to standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. 

Comments: Wingcopter mentioned 

that the labeling requirements should be 

moved to part 21 for UAS with a type 

certificate or production certificate 

issued under part 21. 

FAA Response: The FAA revised 

subpart F to clarify which remote 

identification requirements apply to 

standard remote identification UAS 

produced under a design approval or 

production approval issued under part 

21. While these aircraft are not subject 

to the labeling requirements in § 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4455 

1. Production Requirements: Standard 

Remote Identification Unmanned 

Aircraft Produced Under a Design or 

Production Approval Issued Under Part 

21 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA added § 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 

‘‘certification’’ process as a rather 

burdensome approach to determine 

whether a UAS complies with the 

remote identification requirements. 

Some commenters asked the Agency 

to clarify whether the design and 

production requirements of subpart F 

apply to UAS certified under part 21. 

Some commenters believed the 

requirements do not apply but felt the 

regulatory text was not sufficiently 

clear. The commenters mentioned that 

subpart F of part 89 includes 

requirements already covered by the 

part 21 certification process and 

indicated that the lack of clarity could 

cause confusion, could lead to 

additional administrative burdens, and 

could delay the airworthiness 

certification of UAS under part 21. 

UPS Flight Forward, United Parcel 

Service Co., and UPS Airlines indicated 

that the FAA should implement a 

technology-based solution that includes 

design requirements and a 

comprehensive system of oversight for 

the design and production of unmanned 

aircraft. UPSFF and UPS Airlines 

mentioned that the FAA should clarify 

how the requirements in the NPRM 

would affect or play into the approval 

of a type certificate for a UAS under part 

21. UPSFF and UPS Airlines also 

requested clarification on whether all 

FAA-accepted means of compliance 

under subpart E were acceptable as part 

of the certification basis under 14 CFR 

21.17. 

FAA Response: UAS certificated 

under part 21 do not have to meet all 

of the design and production 

requirements in subpart F of part 89 

because the requirements are redundant 

with some requirements that have to be 

met as part of the certification processes 

of part 21. Therefore, the FAA revised 

the subpart to clarify which 

requirements of subpart F apply to UAS 

certificated under part 21 and which 

apply to all other UAS produced under 

a declaration of compliance issued 

under part 89. 

The FAA clarifies that the minimum 

performance requirements in subpart D 

of part 89 (which can be met through an 

FAA-accepted means of compliance 

issued under subpart E) will be applied 

during the type or supplemental type 

certification process for standard remote 

identification UAS under part 21. 

The FAA also clarifies that the 

declaration of compliance process 

related to the production of all other 

UAS under subpart F is not a 

certification process. Therefore, an 

FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance is not a type certificate or an 

airworthiness certificate. 

2. Production Requirements: All Other 

Standard Remote Identification 

Unmanned Aircraft 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA adopts the production 

requirements in § 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 FAAaccepted 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. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Various commenters 

mentioned that the FAA should add 

detailed technical specifications (e.g., 

weight and the size of transmitters) to 

the design and production 

requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with the commenters. This rule 

establishes minimum performance 

requirements for remote identification. 

It does not establish prescriptive 

production requirements on matters 

such as weight or size of the broadcast 

equipment, because the Agency wants 

producers to have the flexibility to 

adjust their designs based on the 

available technologies and market 

demand. 

Comments: ALPA, National 

Agricultural Aviation Association 

(NAAA), CTIA—The Wireless 

Association, and other commenters 

expressed support for requiring remote 

identification UAS to meet the proposed 

minimum performance requirements. 

CTIA—The Wireless Association and 

NAAA, however, requested the FAA 

modify certain minimum performance 

requirements. NAAA asked the FAA to 

certify all UAS and UAS components. 

They believed that there should be 

prescriptive measures to determine 

whether a UAS is airworthy. For 

example, they mentioned that some of 

the requirements should include where 

to place the registration number and the 

need to equip the UAS with ADS–B In. 

FAA Response: The FAA promulgates 

this rule as a performance-based rule to 

grant producers flexibility to 

demonstrate that a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

was designed and produced to meet the 

minimum performance requirements in 

subpart D to enable the unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast module to 

broadcast the required remote 

identification message elements. 

At this time, the FAA does not agree 

with commenters asking the Agency to 

certify all standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

4456 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FAAaccepted 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 performancebased and allows the production of 

unmanned aircraft that exceed the 

minimum performance requirements. 

While the operators must abide by the 

operating rules in subpart B, nothing in 

the rule precludes producers from 

implementing stricter standards or 

imposing additional equipment 

restrictions (e.g., geo-fencing 

technology). 

Comments: Some individuals 

recommended the FAA eliminate 

subpart F and limit the rule to 

operational requirements. Others asked 

the FAA to remove requirements related 

to producer certification and standards, 

and mentioned that the burden for 

complying with remote identification 

should rest on the operators of UAS 

instead of producers. 

FAA Response: The success of the 

remote identification frameworks rests 

on having both operational and 

production requirements. Producers 

must follow requirements to ensure that 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules meet 

the minimum performance requirements 

and broadcast the message elements 

required by this rule. Operators must 

use such unmanned aircraft or broadcast 

modules to ensure they identify 

remotely when operating in the airspace 

of the United States. 

Comments: Commenters 

recommended that the FAA align the 

production requirements and UAS 

designations with ICAO guidance, 

especially regarding the aircraft make, 

model, and serials taxonomy. Many 

commenters mentioned that the United 

States should strive for international 

harmonization of the remote 

identification requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA follows 

Order 8000.71 ‘‘Aircraft Make, Model, 

and Series Taxonomy’’ which 

establishes key definitions for the FAA’s 

Make, Model, and Series (MMS) 

taxonomy and is based on the 

international standard taxonomy for 

MMS developed by the Commercial 

Aviation Safety Team/ICAO Common 

Taxonomy Team. The FAA recognizes 

that UAS technology is continually 

evolving, making it necessary to 

harmonize regulatory action with 

technological growth. The FAA 

regularly reaches out to its international 

partners on a bilateral and multilateral 

basis to harmonize regulations to the 

maximum extent possible. By 

establishing performance requirements, 

the FAA is promoting that 

harmonization and is providing a 

flexible regulation that allows persons 

to develop means of compliance that 

adjust to the fast pace of technological 

change, innovation, design, and 

development, and use them to design 

and produce unmanned aircraft that 

meet the remote identification 

requirements of this rule. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed concerns with the cost of 

complying with the design and 

production requirements. Commenters 

requested the FAA revise the 

requirements of subpart F to reduce the 

impact and burden on producers and 

recreational flyers. Some commenters 

believed the requirements would 

substantially increase the cost of 

production of UAS, and could impact 

innovation and the United States UAS 

market as a whole. 

FAA Response: Though the FAA does 

agree that the production requirements 

may impose additional burden on 

producers and increase production 

costs, the FAA is committed to the 

added safety and security benefits 

provided by remote identification and to 

the role it will play in the development 

of future UAS rules and concepts. 

The FAA has revised the design and 

production requirements under subpart 

F to allow for a simpler compliance 

process by introducing the remote 

identification broadcast module. 

Comments specific on the design and 

production of the remote identification 

broadcast module are discussed in 

section XIV.E.3 of this preamble. Based 

on comments received and information 

from unmanned aircraft producers, part 

of the existing fleet of unmanned 

aircraft could be modified to enable 

compliance with remote identification 

requirements with relative simplicity 

and minimal cost (e.g., by securing a 

remote identification broadcast module 

or doing a software upgrade through the 

internet). 

The Agency clarifies that subpart F 

applies to producers and not operators 

(e.g., recreational flyers). A recreational 

flyer who is also a producer of 

unmanned aircraft would be excepted 

from the design and production 

requirement in accordance with 

§ 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 selfcertify 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4457 

a safe and secure airspace for manned 

and unmanned aircraft operations. 

OEMs are essential to the advancement 

and proliferation of the remote 

identification technology and 

incorporation into UAS products. 

Without the commitment and 

involvement of the UAS OEM, the safety 

and security benefits gained from 

remote identification will never fully 

develop or be implemented into the 

airspace of the United States. The FAA 

recognizes the need for the existing 

unmanned aircraft fleet to be able to 

comply with remote identification 

requirements and, to meet that need, 

this rule allows persons to retrofit 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

allow them to identify remotely. 

3. Production Requirements: Remote 

Identification Broadcast Modules 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

After considering public comments, 

the FAA decided to allow for the 

production and use of remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

enable unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification to comply with the 

remote identification requirements of 

part 89. Section 89.520 establishes the 

production requirements for remote 

identification broadcast modules. This 

section prescribes that no person is 

allowed to produce a remote 

identification broadcast module unless 

it is designed and produced to meet the 

minimum performance requirements for 

a remote identification broadcast 

module established in § 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 through any other venue, as 

long as the person installing and 

operating the remote identification 

broadcast module has access to the 

instructions. The FAA expects these 

instructions would provide details 

about how to ensure the remote 

identification broadcast module is 

correctly installed, secured, or upgraded 

into the unmanned aircraft, and details 

to prevent the broadcast module from 

interfering with the aircraft flight 

characteristics or flight controls, as 

applicable. The instructions must 

describe any limitations associated with 

use of the broadcast module, such as 

certain features or characteristics of an 

unmanned aircraft that would prevent 

the broadcast module from meeting the 

required minimum performance 

requirements. 

Persons producing remote 

identification broadcast modules must 

comply with the declaration of 

compliance process in subpart F. This is 

the same process that applies to the 

production of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft 

without a design approval or production 

approval issued under part 21. 

The FAA envisions that some 

manufacturers would develop remote 

identification broadcast modules that 

can be installed on many different types 

of unmanned aircraft, whereas other 

manufacturers may produce broadcast 

modules that are compatible with only 

certain models of unmanned aircraft, 

either because of size, shape, power 

requirements, or other design features. 

The FAA does not require 

manufacturers to produce remote 

identification broadcast modules that 

work with all types of unmanned 

aircraft, but if the broadcast module is 

designed to meet the minimum 

performance requirements when 

installed on only certain models or 

types of unmanned aircraft, those 

limitations should be stated 

prominently in the installation 

instructions. 

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: A multitude of 

commenters indicated that the proposal 

precluded the production and use of 

add-on remote identification equipment 

and the retrofitting of older UAS with 

remote identification equipment. Some 

commenters believed the proposed 

requirements would make existing RC 

models, components, and electronics 

obsolete and un-flyable. AiRXOS 

indicated that the proposal did not 

address owner-initiated modifications, 

retrofits, compliance with maintenance 

schedules, and use of approved 

replacement parts. 

A significant number of commenters 

asked the FAA to incorporate 

requirements for the production of an 

add-on remote identification device that 

can be used to retrofit a UAS 

manufactured without remote 

identification equipment (e.g., existing 

UAS). FPVFC and others recommended 

allowing UAS to fly using add-on 

components or add-on subassemblies 

manufactured to perform in a manner 

consistent with the requirements and 

capabilities of remote identification. 

They mentioned that a single module 

should be allowed to be plugged into all 

of the owner’s UAS, and meet the safety 

requirements by associating individual 

serial numbers with operators. 

Commenters provided a number of 

reasons in favor of the add-on 

equipment including, but not limited to, 

extending the life of the current UAS 

fleet, enhancing compliance with 

remote identification, and cost 

considerations. Some commenters 

mentioned that without the add-on 

equipment, operators would likely have 

to buy new UAS and producers would 

spend additional resources developing 

and producing complete UAS rather 

than the add-on equipment and 

component pieces. 

Various commenters mentioned that 

some UAS might not be able to be 

retrofitted with remote identification 

equipment. For example, certain small 

UAS might exceed the weight 

limitations after retrofitting while others 

might not have sufficient space to install 

the remote identification equipment. 

Commenters also mentioned that adding 

remote identification equipment to 

UAS, particularly certain small UAS, 

could impact the performance of the 

unmanned aircraft and reduce its flight 

capacity or capabilities (e.g., duration 

and distance). 

One commenter expressed concerns 

that the design and production 

requirements would preclude owners 

from upgrading the remote 

identification electronics. This 

commenter, along with many others, 

mentioned that the requirements would 

preclude a party from installing remote 

identification electronics into a thirdparty 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 

4458 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

identification broadcast modules 

implemented through a software 

upgrade using existing equipment on 

the unmanned aircraft. See section IX of 

this preamble for a discussion of the 

minimum performance requirements for 

remote identification modules. 

Comments: The Consumer 

Technology Association and other 

commenters mentioned that the FAA 

should permit producers to continue 

selling non-compliant UAS if retrofit 

modules were available to bring the 

aircraft into compliance with the remote 

identification requirements. 

FAA Response: As stated earlier, this 

rule only applies to the design and 

production of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. The FAA clarifies that the 

Agency does not regulate the 

importation or sale of unmanned 

aircraft. 

Comments: Commenters, including 

senseFly, Recreational consumers, 

National Association of State Aviation 

Officials, National Alliance of Forest 

Owners, and many individuals 

indicated it would still be expensive to 

retrofit existing UAS with remote 

identification equipment. Theia stated 

the costs needed to obtain a declaration 

of compliance are unknown but could 

be substantial depending on final 

requirements; they urged the FAA to 

provide reduced cost declaration of 

compliance for entities that build, 

operate, and insure their own airframes. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges that this rule imposes 

certain costs on the designers and 

producers of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. These costs are justified by the 

benefits that will result from the rule, 

and both costs and benefits are 

evaluated and addressed in the 

Regulatory Evaluation section of this 

rule and in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

4. Product Support and Notification for 

Standard Remote Identification 

Unmanned Aircraft and Remote 

Identification Broadcast Modules 

i. Discussion of the Final Rule 

This rule finalizes the requirement 

that persons responsible for the 

production of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast modules 

must maintain product support and 

notification procedures to notify the 

public and the FAA of any defect or 

condition that causes the unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast module to no 

longer meet the requirements of subpart 

F within 15 calendar days of becoming 

aware of the defect or condition, as 

stated in paragraph (b)(3) of § 89.515 

and paragraph (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. 

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 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4459 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree that there is no need for audits or 

inspections. The FAA also does not 

agree with the recommendation of using 

spot testing, product reviews, or public 

assessment for compliance in lieu of 

auditing requirement. Producer audits 

and inspections help ensure continued 

compliance with applicable 

requirements and are consistent with 

other types of producer inspections 

performed by the Agency and its 

authorized representatives. These 

inspections assist the FAA validation 

procedures, processes, and methods 

used to demonstrate that the designers 

and producers of unmanned aircraft and 

their produced remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules meet 

the requirements of subpart F. 

Comments: AiRXOS and many 

individuals believed that the audit 

requirement is unnecessary and difficult 

to enforce, particularly with regards to 

the production of UAS used for research 

and development and home-built UAS. 

AiRXOS and others asked the FAA to 

impose the audit and inspection 

requirement only on commercial 

manufacturers. Some commenters asked 

the FAA to conduct independent audits 

of all original equipment manufacturers 

within the first 12 months of operation. 

The FPVFC, multiple commercial 

UAS manufacturers, and a number of 

persons identifying as homebuilders 

opposed the requirement to allow the 

FAA to inspect facilities and witness 

any test necessary to determine 

compliance with subpart F of part 89. 

Many commenters mentioned that the 

FAA has no authority to enter facilities 

or individuals’ homes and argued that 

the requirement is unenforceable. 

FPVFC specifically challenged the FAA 

to articulate any other lawful 

recreational activity that would permit 

the government’s inspection of a 

participating civilian’s home or places, 

papers, etcetera, without a warrant, even 

if the activity were otherwise federally 

regulated. FPVFC believed the 

requirement is beyond the FAA’s 

authority, that it raises 4th Amendment 

issues, and detracts from the FAA’s 

goals of regulating the national airspace. 

FAA Response: In accordance with 

§ 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. 

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 FAAaccepted declaration of compliance 

authorizing the production of standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

modules for use in the airspace of the 

United States. Failure to comply with 

any of the requirements—including the 

audit or inspection requirements— 

constitutes grounds for the FAA to 

rescind its acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance. Any standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or a 

remote identification broadcast module 

listed under the rescinded declaration of 

compliance would not be able to operate 

outside of an FAA-recognized 

identification area. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed concerns that the auditing 

requirement could place a burden on 

UAS producers, particularly small and 

new producers. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges that this rule imposes 

costs on the designers and producers of 

unmanned aircraft. These costs are 

justified by the benefits that will result 

from the rule, and both costs and 

benefits are evaluated and addressed in 

the Regulatory Evaluation section of this 

rule and in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Comments: Wingcopter suggested that 

the FAA should exclude the 

manufacturers of UAS produced under 

a design approval or production 

approval issued under part 21 from 

having to comply with the audit 

requirements under part 89 because part 

21 already includes requirements for 

audits and control of the quality system 

and production system. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

Wingcopter; as previously discussed, 

the FAA has modified the rule to clarify 

which requirements of subpart F apply 

to unmanned aircraft produced under a 

design approval or production approval 

issued under part 21. The audit and 

inspection requirements in subpart F do 

not apply to aircraft certified under part 

21 because they are subject to their own 

audits for quality system and 

production system controls under part 

21. 

Comments: Droneport Texas LLC, 

Watts Innovations LLC, and others 

believed the audits should be riskbased, and the frequency should be 

determined by each UAS manufacturerbased 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 

4460 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

date of the previous audit. The first 

audit should require a minimum of 60 

calendar days prior notice from the 

inspecting organization. The commenter 

mentioned that an audit for legal cause 

should be conducted using best 

practices from the United States 

Department of Justice and the justice 

agency of the host nation (if required). 

FAA Response: The audit 

requirements in subpart F apply to 

designers and producers of remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. As 

previously stated, this includes any 

local or foreign producers or designers 

that intends to produce unmanned 

aircraft for use in the airspace of the 

United States. The FAA does not agree 

with the suggestion for setting audit 

frequency. The FAA did not impose a 

timeframe for the independent audits. It 

expects the person responsible for the 

production of the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

to apply industry best practices to 

determine when and how often 

independent audits are needed. The 

FAA has determined the audits should 

occur on a regular basis and as many 

times as necessary. This grants 

flexibility to the producer to adjust the 

recurrence of the audits, based on the 

circumstances to ensure continuous 

compliance with the requirements of 

this rule. 

G. Filing a Declaration of Compliance 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

As discussed in section V.E of this 

preamble, the FAA is adding a new 

definition in § 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 should be 

simple and easy to follow, should not 

deter potential producers from 

venturing into the market, and should 

not stifle innovation. 

FAA Response: The FAA believes a 

declaration of compliance is an essential 

part of the remote identification 

framework. An FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance allows a 

person to produce standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. It serves as an assurance that 

producers are using an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance for the production 

of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast 

module to meet the minimum 

performance requirements of this rule 

and are complying with all other design 

and production requirements of subpart 

F. Various commenters questioned the 

use of the audit requirement and 

mentioned that the FAA could have 

difficulties inspecting producers and 

ensuring the audits are performed. 

The FAA has determined that the 

audit requirement is necessary, similar 

to the audit requirement under part 21, 

to ensure continued compliance with 

remote identification requirements. The 

FAA believes the audits would have to 

occur on a recurrent basis (as many 

times as necessary), and whenever the 

FAA provides notice of noncompliance 

or of potential noncompliance, to ensure 

and demonstrate the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or the 

remote identification broadcast module 

meets the requirements of subpart F. A 

producer submitting a declaration of 

compliance for FAA acceptance must 

make certain assurances and meet 

certain requirements regarding 

inspections, audits, product support and 

notification, and instructions. Failure to 

comply with any of these requirements 

is grounds for rescission of the FAA’s 

acceptance of the declaration of 

compliance, which directly impacts 

where the unmanned aircraft can be 

operated. An unmanned aircraft listed 

under a declaration of compliance that 

has been rescinded is only able to 

operate at an FAA-recognized 

identification area. Similarly, a remote 

identification broadcast module listed 

under a declaration of compliance that 

has been rescinded cannot be used to 

meet the remote identification 

requirements. 

Comments: Various commenters 

questioned the ability of the FAA to 

enforce the requirements of subpart F, 

especially when anyone can modify a 

UAS after it has been produced. 

FAA Response: The production 

requirements of subpart F apply when a 

person produces a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast 

modules. The production requirements 

do not apply to third parties who 

subsequently modify the standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or the remote identification broadcast 

module. However, these modifications 

could render the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

non-compliant for purposes of meeting 

the requirements of subpart B. 

Comments: The NTSB expressed 

concerns with the declaration of 

compliance process and mentioned that 

it would be unlikely for producers 

under subpart F to conduct robust 

failure analysis equal to the level 

required for certified aircraft under part 

21. The NTSB mentioned that an 

unforeseen combination of factors could 

affect an aircraft in flight and cause a 

fly-away or other hazardous events. The 

NTSB urged the FAA to consider 

potential unintended consequences of 

the proposed requirements. 

FAA Response: As stated earlier, the 

FAA adopts the regulatory framework 

for remote identification with 

performance-based requirements rather 

than prescriptive ones to provide a 

flexible regulation The FAA appreciates 

the NTSB’s concerns but believes they 

are addressed because the minimum 

performance requirements include a 

specific requirement that the remote 

identification equipment must not 

interfere with any other system or 

equipment installed on the unmanned 

aircraft, and must not interfere with the 

remote identification equipment. In 

addition, though the declaration of 

compliance process is simpler than the 

aircraft certification process of part 21, 

it provides the basic information 

necessary for the FAA to determine that 

a producer has complied with all 

applicable requirements and can 

produce standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules that 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4461 

meet all of the minimum performance 

and production requirements for remote 

identification. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

asked the FAA to adopt a risk-based 

approach to certification where the type 

of certification required (e.g., selfcertification, 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 selfcertification 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 selfcertification process and does not confer 

airworthiness. An FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance is not a type 

certificate or an airworthiness 

certificate. The process is simpler than 

the aircraft certification process of part 

21 because it provides the basic 

information necessary for the FAA to 

determine that a producer has complied 

with all applicable requirements and 

can produce standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast modules 

that meet all of the minimum 

performance and production 

requirements for remote identification. 

Comments: The NAAA and others 

indicated that all UAS with remote 

identification and component pieces 

should be subject to the airworthiness 

certification process. Wingcopter 

indicated that part 21 includes design 

and production requirements for 

certificated aircraft. They asked the FAA 

to clarify whether subpart F applies to 

all UAS or only those produced without 

design approval or production approval 

issued under part 21. The commenter 

also suggested that the FAA should 

revise part 21 to include remote 

identification requirements and 

mentioned that UAS certificated under 

part 21 should not be subject to the 

declaration of compliance process in 

subpart F. 

FAA Response: The production of 

unmanned aircraft under the part 89 

declaration of compliance process is not 

a type certification or airworthiness 

certification process. The FAA 

considered Wingcopter’s request to add 

remote identification requirements to 

part 21 and to clarify that unmanned 

aircraft certificated under part 21 are not 

subject to the declaration of compliance 

process in subpart F of part 89. The 

FAA has determined that it does not 

need to add remote identification 

requirements to part 21. Remote 

identification requirements are included 

in part 89. As previously discussed, the 

Agency revised subpart F of part 89 of 

this rule to clarify which design and 

production requirements apply to 

unmanned aircraft under a design 

approval or production approval issued 

under part 21. The revisions also clarify 

that the requirements in §§ 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 addon equipment that can be installed on 

UAS manufactured without remote 

identification capabilities. Commenters 

indicated that not doing so would place 

a significant burden on small and new 

producers. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

commenters and has modified this rule 

by incorporating the remote 

identification broadcast module 

concept. The production requirements 

for remote identification broadcast 

modules are included in § 89.520 of this 

rule. Remote identification broadcast 

modules must also comply with the 

serial number, labeling, and record 

retention requirements in subpart F. The 

processes related to the submission, 

rescission, reconsideration, and record 

retention in subpart F also apply to the 

remote identification broadcast module. 

The costs related to the incorporation of 

the remote identification broadcast 

module are justified by the benefits that 

will result from the rule, and both costs 

and benefits are discussed in the 

Regulatory Evaluation section of this 

rule and in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

ii. Information Required for a 

Declaration of Compliance 

Comments: Northeast UAS Airspace 

recommended that producers list the 

UAS model number in the declaration 

of compliance along with the compliant 

firmware or software version instead of 

the serial number. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with the recommendation to 

revise the requirements so that 

producers have to list the unmanned 

aircraft model number in the declaration 

of compliance along with the compliant 

firmware or software version instead of 

the serial number. Besides the make and 

model, a producer must list in the 

declaration of compliance all of the 

serial numbers that will be assigned to 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast modules under 

the declaration of compliance. Each 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast module 

produced under a declaration of 

compliance must be assigned a unique 

serial number to allow it to be 

distinguished from other standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

modules. 

Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, 

senseFly, DJI Technology, Inc. and 

many individuals indicated that the 

requirement to list the serial number of 

every UAS produced under a 

declaration of compliance is overly 

restrictive. DJI Technology, Inc. believed 

the requirement for the producer to list 

the serial numbers of all UAS 

manufactured under a declaration of 

compliance is unnecessary because 

under the proposed revisions to the 

registration requirements, the owner of 

a UAS would have to include the serial 

number when registering the unmanned 

aircraft. Some commenters mentioned 

that for foreign manufactured UAS, the 

serial numbers should be provided at 

the time the UAS are declared in a 

customs form by an import agent rather 

than at the time of production. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with the commenters. The Agency 

has determined the serial number is 

necessary to establish the unique 

identity of the unmanned aircraft. 

Because the declaration of compliance 

establishes that the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or the 

remote identification broadcast module 

meets the minimum performance 

requirements, the consolidated list of all 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast modules 

produced under a declaration of 

compliance is necessary to facilitate 

recognition of unmanned aircraft and 

broadcast modules that meet the 

requirements. Lastly, the serial numbers 

must be listed because under the 

operating requirements in subpart B, an 

4462 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

operator may only operate a standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

module outside an FAA-recognized 

identification area if its serial number is 

listed under an FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance. 

Comments: Unifly and other 

commenters believe a manufacturer 

should be able to update the list of serial 

numbers listed under an FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance without it 

being considered a change to the 

declaration of compliance. Some 

commenters suggested that UAS serial 

numbers be ‘‘submitted to the FAA by 

the customs agent upon entry into the 

United States’’ and noted that listing all 

relevant serial numbers in the 

declaration of compliance will increase 

the cost of production management 

because the serial number is generated 

and introduced to the UAS flight 

controller during the factory production 

process, and therefore UAS meant to be 

sold in the United States would have to 

be identified and distinguished from 

UAS meant to be sold in other 

jurisdictions. Commenters suggested 

that an alternate method to address this 

issue would be to submit the declaration 

of compliance after production is 

complete and the UAS that are going to 

be sent to the United States for sale have 

been identified. Commenters mentioned 

that this alternative could create a delay 

in delivering UAS because the UAS 

could not be sent to the United States 

until after the declaration of compliance 

has been accepted by the FAA. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with these comments. The 

producer is the party responsible for 

designing and producing standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

and remote identification broadcast 

modules for operation in the United 

States and ensuring they meet the 

remote identification requirements of 

part 89. Therefore, the FAA has 

determined that the producer is 

responsible for all requirements under 

subpart F, including the filing and 

amendment of serial numbers. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

request to allow designers and 

producers of remote identification 

unmanned aircraft to be able to update 

the list of serial numbers listed under an 

FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance without following the 

amendment process for a declaration of 

compliance. An amendment is 

submitted to modify any aspect of an 

FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance. Reasons for submitting an 

amendment include, but are not limited 

to: Resolving a safety or non-compliance 

issue (e.g., replacing a means of 

compliance); updating or correcting 

information (e.g., the name of the 

responsible person or contact 

information); or including new serial 

numbers. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

how the FAA intends to enforce the 

requirements, particularly with regards 

to international manufacturers of prefabricated 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 FAAaccepted declaration of compliance 

authorizing the production of standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

modules for use in the airspace of the 

United States. Failure to comply with 

any of the requirements constitutes 

grounds for the FAA to rescind its 

acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance. Any standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

listed under the rescinded declaration of 

compliance would not be able to operate 

outside of an FAA-recognized 

identification area. 

This rule establishes production and 

operating requirements for remote 

identification. The rule does not 

preclude the sale of unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification nor does 

it prohibit someone from buying and 

importing foreign-made unmanned 

aircraft. However, the operating rules of 

part 89 continue to apply to all persons 

operating unmanned aircraft in the 

airspace of the United States, including 

persons operating foreign-made 

unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification. 

Comments: Many commenters asked 

the FAA to revise the regulation so that 

the producers of UAS do not have to file 

declarations of compliance. 

FAA Response: As previously 

mentioned, the producer is the party 

responsible for designing and producing 

unmanned aircraft and broadcast 

modules for operation in the airspace of 

the United States and ensuring the 

unmanned aircraft and broadcast 

modules meet the remote identification 

requirements of subpart F. The FAA has 

determined the declaration of 

compliance must be submitted by the 

producers because it is a condition 

precedent to being able to produce 

unmanned aircraft and broadcast 

modules used in the airspace of the 

United States. 

H. Acceptance of a Declaration of 

Compliance 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

Section 89.535 prescribes the 

requirements for the acceptance of 

declarations of compliance. The 

Administrator will evaluate a 

declaration of compliance that is 

submitted to the FAA and may request 

additional information or 

documentation, as needed, to 

supplement the declaration of 

compliance. If the Administrator 

determines that the submitter has 

demonstrated compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart, the FAA 

will notify the submitter that the 

Administrator has accepted the 

declaration of compliance. 

The FAA adopts the requirements for 

the acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance as proposed. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, 

AiRXOS, and numerous others asked 

the FAA to provide more information 

about the design and production 

requirements, and how the Agency 

would assess compliance to issue an 

acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance. For example, they asked 

the Agency to define routine 

maintenance and to list all requirements 

that must be met to obtain the FAA’s 

approval of a declaration of compliance. 

They also asked if FAA will require 

validation for each producer. Various 

commenters asked the FAA to provide 

a list of all FAA-accepted declarations 

of compliance on the FAA website to 

notify the public of which declarations 

of compliance are valid. 

FAA Response: The design and 

production requirements for remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft are 

covered in subpart F. Any person, 

whether in the United States or a foreign 

country, producing such unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast module must file a 

declaration of compliance, provide 

certain information, and agree to abide 

by the production requirements and 

certain terms and conditions (e.g., 

inspection, audit, product support and 

notification, instructions). The FAA will 

evaluate a declaration of compliance 

that is submitted to the FAA to 

determine that the submitter has 

demonstrated compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart, the FAA 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4463 

will notify the submitter that the 

Administrator has accepted the 

declaration of compliance. With the 

exception of including the FCC 

identifier of the 47 CFR part 15- 

compliant radio frequency equipment 

used and integrated into the standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or the remote identification broadcast 

module, the FAA adopts § 89.530, the 

required information for submitting a 

declaration of compliance for FAA 

acceptance, as proposed. The FAA will 

publish the list of FAA-accepted 

declarations of compliance at https://

www.faa.gov. 

The FAA is establishing an advisory 

circular on the declaration of 

compliance process for remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft. 

This advisory circular provides 

guidance on the declaration of 

compliance process described in part 

89, and outlines the required 

information for submitting a declaration 

of compliance. This guidance material is 

also available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Comments: Aerospace Industries 

Association (AIA) and many other 

commenters questioned whether the 

Agency had the necessary resources to 

process all declarations of compliance 

submitted for acceptance in a timely 

manner. The commenters also 

questioned whether the FAA had the 

proper oversight and enforcement 

mechanisms. This commenter added 

that as the UAS industry continues to 

grow, there will be an increase in 

declaration of compliance submissions, 

which would require a huge investment 

from the FAA, and other governmental 

stakeholders, to keep up with the 

demand. Various commenters asked the 

Agency to commit to a timeline for 

review of a declaration of compliance. 

For example, DJI proposed a 30-day 

review period; Skydio proposed a 90- 

day period to provide a decision to the 

producers. 

FAA Response: The FAA is 

committed to the implementation of this 

rule and is developing internal 

processes and identifying and allocating 

the appropriate resources to facilitate all 

processes required under subpart F of 

part 89. The FAA is committed to 

working with internal and external 

stakeholders to ensure that the process 

of submitting and obtaining FAAacceptance of a declaration of 

compliance is implemented in an 

effective and timely manner. That being 

said, the FAA cannot commit to a 

specific timeline to review and approve 

the declarations of compliance because 

the response time will vary based on the 

complexity of the application, the 

technology, and a wide variety of use 

cases. The Administrator might have a 

need to request additional information 

(e.g., test results, etc.) or documentation, 

as needed, to supplement the 

declaration of compliance and to ensure 

completeness and compliance with the 

requirements of § 89.530 of this rule. 

Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, 

senseFly, DJI Technology, Inc., and 

many individuals believe that the 

process would increase the 

administrative and compliance burden 

for manufacturers, operators, and the 

FAA. They also said the process would 

delay the introduction of new UAS into 

the market because producers would 

have to wait for the FAA to accept their 

declarations of compliance. They 

believe the acceptance process will 

likely create a backlog. 

FAA Response: The declaration of 

compliance process does not impose a 

burden on operators of unmanned 

aircraft because the requirements of 

subpart F only apply to producers of 

unmanned aircraft. As previously 

explained, the declaration of 

compliance process is an essential part 

of the remote identification framework 

and is a condition precedent for 

someone to be able to produce standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

modules. The FAA has determined the 

process is in the interest of safety and 

security of the airspace of the United 

States because it ensures that producers 

produce unmanned aircraft and 

broadcast modules that meet the 

minimum performance requirements for 

remote identification in the United 

States. The costs related to the process 

are justified by the benefits that will 

result from the rule, and both costs and 

benefits are discussed in the Regulatory 

Evaluation section of this rule and in 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Comments: Theia and other 

commenters asked the FAA to provide 

a streamlined declaration of compliance 

process with lower costs and less 

stringent requirements for persons or 

entities that build, operate, and insure 

their own UAS. The Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems 

International (AUVSI), Skydio, DJI 

Technology Inc., and other commenters 

asked the FAA to allow a producer to 

file a single declaration of compliance 

that covers multiple makes and models 

of UAS, rather than have to file an 

individual declaration of compliance for 

each make and model. 

FAA Response: The FAA determined 

that the declaration of compliance 

process is simple, straightforward, and 

applies to all designers or producers of 

non-certificated unmanned aircraft. The 

FAA also determined that the 

declaration of compliance process 

provides the basic information 

necessary to assess compliance with the 

remote identification requirements. The 

information and assessment is necessary 

for all aircraft, and the FAA has 

determined it should not vary based on 

the number of aircraft manufactured by 

a person or the fact that person 

manufactures the unmanned aircraft for 

his or her own use. 

A declaration of compliance needs to 

contain a single producer, make, and 

model and serial number(s) to uniquely 

identify the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module. 

I. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a 

Declaration of Compliance 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

Section 89.540 establishes the 

grounds and procedures related to the 

rescission of the FAA’s acceptance of a 

declaration of compliance and a petition 

for reconsideration of such decision. 

The Administrator may rescind an 

accepted declaration of compliance if a 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast module listed 

under the declaration of compliance 

does not meet the minimum 

performance requirements of the rule; if 

the declaration of compliance does not 

meet a requirement of subpart F; or if 

the FAA rescinds acceptance of the 

means of compliance listed in the 

declaration of compliance. 

The Administrator may provide a 

reasonable period of time for the person 

who submitted the declaration of 

compliance to remediate the 

noncompliance. 

Notice of a rescission will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

i. Rescission of a Declaration of 

Compliance 

Comments: Commenters asked the 

FAA to publish a list of declarations of 

compliance that have been rescinded to 

notify the public of which declarations 

of compliance are no longer valid. 

FAA Response: As explained in the 

NPRM and adopted in this rule, the 

FAA will notify the submitter of its 

rescission and will publish a list of 

declarations of compliance that are no 

longer accepted at https://www.faa.gov. 

4464 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

ii. Petition To Reconsider the Rescission 

of FAA Acceptance of a Declaration of 

Compliance 

Comments: PRENAV and multiple 

individuals asked the FAA to remove 

the 60-day limit to petition the Agency 

to reconsider its decision to rescind a 

previously accepted declaration of 

compliance because, they argued, issues 

typically take time to identify and 

resolve. Therefore, they believed there 

should be no time limit on a 

manufacturer’s ability to petition for 

reconsideration of the rescission of the 

FAA’s acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance. 

FAA Response: If the FAA determines 

it is in the public interest, prior to 

rescission, it will provide a reasonable 

period of time for the person holding 

the declaration of compliance to 

remediate the issue of non-compliance. 

If the person does not take appropriate 

action to resolve the issue promptly, the 

Agency would proceed with the 

rescission. The FAA has determined the 

term is appropriate because it grants 

sufficient time after the rescission for 

the producer to request for 

reconsideration of the decision. Prior to 

the rescission, the FAA would grant 

producers reasonable time to take action 

to resolve the defects or conditions. The 

FAA would proceed with the rescission 

after it has determined that no action 

can be taken, that the producer did not 

act within a reasonable time, or that the 

producer is unwilling or unable to 

resolve the defect or condition. 

J. Record Retention 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA adopts § 89.545 as proposed, 

except that it is deleting references to 

the limited remote identification UAS 

concept and replacing them with the 

remote identification broadcast module 

concept. According to the requirements, 

a person must retain the following 

information for as long as the standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

module listed on that declaration of 

compliance is produced plus an 

additional 24 calendar months, and 

must make it available for inspection by 

the Administrator: (a) The means of 

compliance, all documentation, and 

substantiating data related to the means 

of compliance used; (b) records of all 

test results; and (c) any other 

information necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with the means of 

compliance so that the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

meets the remote identification 

requirements and the design and 

production requirements of part 89. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Some commenters 

mentioned that UAS manufacturers 

could have difficulties complying with 

the record retention requirements 

because certain components of the UAS 

(e.g., beacons or transmitters), could be 

procured from other persons (e.g., 

component manufacturers) and used in 

the UAS produced by the manufacturer. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with these commenters. The 

unmanned aircraft producer can obtain 

the data and documentation necessary 

for compliance as a part of its 

procurement process. 

Comments: The Small UAV Coalition 

and others expressed concerns about the 

proposed requirement to retain ‘‘all test 

results’’ and requested clarification of 

what tests were covered by the 

requirement. 

FAA Response: The record retention 

requirements in § 89.545 of this rule 

apply to the production of standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

and remote identification broadcast 

modules. Designers and producers of 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

must retain records of all test results 

showing that the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or the 

remote identification broadcast module 

meet the minimum performance 

requirements in subpart D of part 89 and 

all production and design requirements 

in subpart F of part 89. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

expressed concerns that a person who 

does not comply with the requirements 

of subpart F could face legal liability. 

FAA Response: No person may 

produce a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast module 

unless the person complies with all 

design and production requirements in 

subpart F and obtains the FAA’s 

acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance. Failure to comply with any 

of the requirements—including the 

record keeping requirements— 

constitutes a ground for the FAA to 

rescind its acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance. The rescission would mean 

that the person would not be 

authorized, under that declaration of 

compliance, to produce standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

remote identification broadcast modules 

for use in the airspace of the United 

States. Any standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or 

unmanned aircraft with a remote 

identification broadcast module listed 

in a rescinded declaration of 

compliance would be restricted to 

operating in an FAA-recognized 

identification area. 

Comments: Various individuals 

expressed concerns that the record 

retention requirements could prove 

costly for manufacturers. Western 

Michigan University, Drone Delivery 

Systems, and others indicated that the 

administrative costs and record keeping 

requirements might prevent the home 

building of recreational UAS. 

FAA Response: In accordance with 

§ 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. 

XV. Registration 

The FAA proposed that persons 

operating unmanned aircraft registered 

or required to be registered under part 

47 or 48 would have to comply with the 

remote identification requirements of 

proposed part 89. The FAA proposed to 

tie the remote identification 

requirements to the registration of 

unmanned aircraft because the FAA and 

law enforcement agencies need the 

ability to correlate remote identification 

information with registration data to 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4465 

28Foreign civil aircraft remain subject to the 

requirements of 14 CFR part 375 and, to the extent 

applicable, 14 CFR 48.125. 

29The 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. 

obtain more complete information 

regarding the ownership of unmanned 

aircraft operating in the airspace of the 

United States. 

Aircraft registration requirements 

serve the dual purposes of both 

identifying aircraft and promoting 

accountability and the safe and efficient 

use of the airspace of the United States 

by both manned and unmanned aircraft. 

With limited exceptions, most 

unmanned aircraft are required to be 

registered under part 47 or 48; therefore, 

nearly all unmanned aircraft operating 

in the airspace of the United States will 

have to comply with the remote 

identification requirements. Foreign 

civil unmanned aircraft operating in the 

airspace of the United States will also be 

required to comply with the remote 

identification requirements. This will 

enhance the overall safety and 

efficiency of the airspace of the United 

States. 

Under the current registration 

requirements, no person may operate an 

unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the 

United States unless the unmanned 

aircraft has been registered by its owner 

under part 47 or 48, or unless the 

aircraft is excepted from registration. 

There are two exceptions to the 

registration requirements for unmanned 

aircraft: (1) Unmanned aircraft of the 

Armed Forces of the United States; and 

(2) most unmanned aircraft weighing 

0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, 

including everything that is on board or 

otherwise attached to the aircraft. Small 

unmanned aircraft operating under 14 

CFR part 91, 107, or 135, or any other 

operating part are required to register 

under part 47 or 48 regardless of 

weight.28

U.S. owners of small unmanned 

aircraft used in civil operations 

(including commercial operations), 

limited recreational operations, or 

public aircraft operations, among others, 

are eligible to register the unmanned 

aircraft under part 48 in one of two 

ways: (1) Under an individual 

registration number issued to each 

unmanned aircraft; or (2) under a single 

registration number issued to an owner 

of multiple unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively for limited recreational 

operations. The FAA’s existing 

registration requirements were 

implemented through the Registration 

and Marking Requirements for Small 

Unmanned Aircraft interim final rule 

(Registration Rule), published on 

December 15, 2016. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

changes to those registration 

requirements to meet the objectives and 

intent of remote identification of UAS. 

Specifically, the FAA proposed to 

require all unmanned aircraft, including 

those used for limited recreational 

operations, to obtain a unique 

registration number. The FAA also 

proposed requiring owners to submit 

the unmanned aircraft’s serial number 

and other information as a part of the 

application process. 

The FAA adopts the requirement 

tying remote identification requirements 

to registration requirements and the 

requirements to submit the unmanned 

aircraft’s serial number and other 

information. After reviewing comments 

and further consideration, the FAA 

decided not to adopt the requirement 

that all unmanned aircraft, including 

those used for limited recreational 

operations, obtain a unique registration 

number. Those changes are described in 

the sections that follow. 

A. Aircraft Registration Requirements 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The Registration Rule implemented 

separate registration requirements for 

‘‘small unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively as model aircraft’’ and 

‘‘small unmanned aircraft used as other 

than model aircraft.’’ The Registration 

Rule required small unmanned aircraft 

used as other than model aircraft to be 

registered with a separate Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration issued for each 

individual aircraft. The Registration 

Rule required small unmanned aircraft 

used exclusively as model aircraft to be 

registered with a single Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration issued to the 

aircraft owner for all aircraft owned by 

that person. 

In the Remote Identification of 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM, the 

FAA explained that the lack of aircraftspecific data for unmanned aircraft 

registered under part 48 could inhibit 

the FAA and law enforcement agencies 

from correlating the remote 

identification data with data stored in 

the Aircraft Registry. Thus, the FAA 

proposed to revise part 48 to require the 

individual registration of all small 

unmanned aircraft and the provision of 

additional aircraft-specific data. The 

FAA proposed that owners of small 

unmanned aircraft would have to 

complete the registration application by 

providing aircraft-specific information 

in addition to basic contact information. 

After reviewing comments submitted 

in response to both the Registration Rule 

and the Remote Identification NPRM, 

and after further consideration, the FAA 

decided not to adopt this proposed 

change to part 48. The FAA will 

maintain the current registration options 

and will no longer revise part 48 to 

require the individual registration of all 

small unmanned aircraft. Owners 

intending to operate all their small 

unmanned aircraft exclusively in 

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 may 

register once for all unmanned aircraft 

meeting that description.29

The FAA proposed to revise the 

registration framework to require each 

unmanned aircraft to be registered 

under part 48. However, after 

considering comments and 

incorporating the remote identification 

broadcast module concept, the FAA 

determined that the current framework 

for small unmanned aircraft registration 

in part 48 is sufficient for remote 

identification and for statutory 

compliance with the FAA’s authority for 

aircraft registration. By maintaining the 

current framework, the intent of the 

statutory requirement for aircraft 

registration is achieved without being 

overly burdensome, particularly 

considering the mitigation of cost for 

those individuals specifically flying 

multiple aircraft exclusively in 

compliance with section 44809. The 

FAA therefore will retain the current 

part 48 registration framework. 

Corresponding updates are applied to 

part 48 to reflect the inclusion of the 

current statutory requirement for 

limited recreational operations and to 

incorporate information relevant to 

remote identification. Owners 

registering as exclusively compliant 

with section 44809 will be required to 

submit the aircraft manufacturer and 

model name of small unmanned aircraft 

associated with the registration number 

provided by the Registry. Owners of 

aircraft operated exclusively in 

compliance with section 44809 would 

be required to obtain unique certificates 

of aircraft registration for any aircraft 

that are ever operated outside of the 

statutory framework set forth in section 

44809, such as under part 107. 

The FAA is clarifying that owners 

registering as exclusively compliant 

with section 44809 may include more 

than one serial number—of either a 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or a remote 

identification broadcast module—on a 

single Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration. Serial numbers of both 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

4466 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 through 

48.115 to maximize regulatory clarity 

and also revises §§ 48.100 through 

48.110 to amend statutory references for 

49 U.S.C. 44809 and to reflect the 

inclusion of remote identification 

broadcast module serial number 

information in the registration 

application. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Registration Rule Comments: The 

FAA received a comment from the 

University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, which urged the FAA to 

utilize the same system for recreational 

and commercial UAS, contending that 

there are no mechanical differences 

between the two groups and that having 

separate systems would likely lead to 

confusion. ALPA supported the efforts 

to minimize the burden of registering 

multiple small unmanned aircraft that 

are operated for hobby or recreational 

purposes. Some commenters supported 

registration of remote pilots instead of 

individual aircraft. Several commenters 

suggested that though the FAA has the 

authority to register aircraft, it does not 

have the authority to register pilots. A 

few individual commenters raised 

concerns about a single Certificate of 

Registration for multiple small 

unmanned aircraft owned by one 

operator. 

Remote Identification NPRM 

Comments: A number of organizations 

supported the FAA’s proposal that all 

aircraft, regardless of use, must be 

individually registered. The National 

Association of Tower Erectors stated its 

belief that public safety demands that 

recreational users be subject to the same 

remote identification requirements as 

commercial users. A number of 

commenters supported unique 

registration of each unmanned aircraft 

in the interest of safety and 

accountability and because it is more 

consistent with other aviation 

registration requirements. The American 

Association of Airport Executives 

(AAAE) supported the proposal to 

require unique registration for each 

unmanned aircraft because it would 

enable the FAA to trace each unmanned 

aircraft back to its owner while also 

helping the FAA and industry to assess 

the total number of unmanned aircraft 

in the airspace of the United States. 

In contrast, a significant number of 

organizations and numerous individual 

commenters noted that many owners of 

aircraft used for limited recreational 

operations have large numbers of fixed 

wing model aircraft. The Chairperson of 

the Academy of Model Aeronautics 

(AMA) Advanced Flight System 

Committee proposed instead that remote 

identification modules be movable from 

aircraft to aircraft and that the modules 

themselves be registered instead of the 

aircraft. Many commenters mentioned 

that requiring pilots to register may be 

a better option than requiring every 

aircraft to register, particularly with 

regard to the hobby class of UAS 

because students and young persons 

could freely fly various models. Other 

commenters stated the FAA presented 

no evidence that requiring registration 

of each unmanned aircraft would result 

in lower risk than applying one 

registration number to multiple aircraft. 

The New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation (NHDOT) suggested 

instead that UAS owners be allowed to 

submit to the FAA a list of the 

unmanned aircraft that they own. 

NHDOT added that the proposed 

changes to registration requirements do 

not address current non-compliance 

with registration requirements, and that 

the FAA should focus instead on 

increasing compliance. Numerous 

commenters stated they own dozens of 

aircraft and requiring them to register 

each one separately would be 

economically burdensome. Some of the 

commenters who own aircraft used for 

limited recreational operations noted 

they build the aircraft but rarely—if 

ever—fly them. Other commenters 

discussed that owners of these aircraft 

frequently disassemble these aircraft 

and switch out aircraft parts, creating 

several new combinations of aircraft, 

and asked which specific component of 

the aircraft needs to be registered. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

about the costs to FAA of keeping track 

of ‘‘hundreds of millions’’ of 

registrations and serial numbers. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the requirement to register each 

unmanned aircraft is discriminatory 

against modelers because some manned 

aircraft such as ultralights are not 

required to be registered. Many 

commenters objected to the proposal on 

the grounds that it is impracticable and 

costly for hobbyists, especially for 

handmade and kit-built aircraft, and 

that adopting the proposed rule will 

‘‘destroy the RC aircraft hobby.’’ 

Other commenters believed that 

registering every unmanned aircraft is 

redundant and unnecessary, asserting 

that only one aircraft can be in the air 

at one time. Commenters also 

mentioned that if an unmanned aircraft 

is flown exclusively at an FAArecognized identification area, the 

aircraft should not be required to be 

registered because information gathered 

from the registration process would 

serve no purpose for remote 

identification. Several commenters 

suggested the FAA should make a 

distinction between those operating 

commercially and those operating 

recreationally. 

The AMA stated that registration is 

unnecessary for operators flying within 

visual line of sight because the operators 

are not far from the aircraft and can 

easily be located. The AMA objected to 

what they estimated would be a total 

collective burden of $8.1 million in 

registration costs borne by their 

members. The AMA added that its 

calculation of $8.1 million should be 

included in FAA’s economic burden 

estimates and that the Regulatory 

Impact Assessment should be updated 

accordingly. Multiple individual 

commenters cited this same figure ($8.1 

million), and asserted that it is 

excessively burdensome on AMA 

members and other hobbyists. The 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA) echoed the AMA’s $8.1 million 

estimate, and opposed the proposal to 

require registration of each small 

unmanned aircraft. In addition, AOPA 

expressed its opposition to registration 

requirements for aircraft that will 

operate exclusively in FAA-recognized 

identification areas. 

One commenter asked whether the 

FAA was prepared to certify hundreds 

of thousands of UAS annually as may be 

required given the current market for 

home-built and out-of-the-box UAS. 

One commenter supported registering 

both commercial unmanned aircraft 

operating within the UTM and 

unmanned aircraft flown BVLOS with 

the serial number of each UAS, because 

the owner and UAS may be widely 

separated from one another at the time 

of an incident. 

Many commenters believed that only 

certain types of aircraft should be 

required to be registered. Some of these 

commenters believed that only 

rotorcraft, including ‘‘quadcopters’’ and 

other ‘‘drones’’ should be required to 

register. Other commenters emphasized 

their use of sailplanes and stated their 

belief that those aircraft should not be 

required to register. Still other 

commenters believed that only those 

aircraft used for commercial purposes 

should be required to register. 

The FAA received several comments 

regarding the weight requirement for 

small unmanned aircraft as it relates to 

registration. Commenters expressed 

support for removing a weight 

requirement entirely, rewriting the 

registration weight thresholds, and 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4467 

30 14 CFR 47.17(a). 

31Section 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. 

maintaining the current exclusion for 

aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less 

used for limited recreational operations 

under section 44809. The Small UAV 

Coalition supported exempting 

unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 

pounds or less from registration 

requirements, unless those UAS are 

used for commercial purposes or 

BVLOS. 

Digital Aerolus, Inc. suggested that 

the FAA clarify that registration and 

identification requirements are not 

applicable below ground or indoors. 

ALPA, along with numerous 

individuals, suggested that the FAA 

should require registration at the pointof-sale. In the case of home-made 

models, ALPA recommended that the 

FAA require that such aircraft be 

registered prior to its first use outdoors. 

Numerous commenters suggested that 

the FAA facilitate the deregistration of 

UAS, in the case of destruction or theft, 

and clarify the registration requirements 

when a UAS is sold or transferred. The 

Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating 

Office suggested that the FAA make the 

UAS aircraft registration database 

searchable, like the current aircraft 

registry. ALPA commented that the rule 

should clarify that registration 

information will be available only to 

law enforcement or the FAA. 

FAA Response: For the reasons 

described above, the FAA agrees with 

the commenters who suggested that it 

was not necessary to register each 

individual unmanned aircraft operated 

for limited recreational purposes and 

does not adopt the proposed change in 

this rule. 

In addition, as the FAA discussed in 

the Registration Rule, the FAA has 

consistently recognized that the term 

‘‘small unmanned aircraft’’ includes 

both fixed wing and rotary aircraft, and 

has the same definition as the colloquial 

term ‘‘drone.’’ The same is true for all 

unmanned aircraft. All unmanned 

aircraft that fall within the applicability 

of this regulation, not just those 

popularly referred to as ‘‘drones,’’ are 

required to register. 

With respect to comments regarding 

the minimum weight for small 

unmanned aircraft registration, this 

rulemaking clarifies the regulatory 

requirement with respect to operations 

under part 107. That threshold was not 

at issue in this rulemaking, and 

accordingly, comments requesting a 

change to the weight threshold are out 

of scope of this rule. 

The FAA clarifies, as it did in the 

Registration Rule, that operations in the 

airspace of the United States only 

include operations out-of-doors and 

above the surface of the Earth. With 

respect to comments regarding point-ofsale 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 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 48, which includes payment of the 

fee. The fee for small unmanned aircraft 

registration under part 48 must be 

submitted through the web-based 

registration application process. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Registration Rule Comments: The 

Small UAV Coalition and a number of 

individual commenters objected to the 

imposition of a registration fee. The 

Small UAV Coalition said the FAA 

should not impose a registration fee of 

any amount for small unmanned aircraft 

‘‘to promote broad participation in the 

program.’’ Some commenters referred to 

the $5 fee as a ‘‘tax.’’ 

A number of commenters objected to 

the requirement to pay the registration 

fee via the web-based system using 

credit or debit cards due to perceived 

privacy and security implications. 

Another questioned why the registration 

system requires a renewal fee every 3 

years, when small manned-aircraft 

pilots are only charged a one-time fee. 

Remote Identification NPRM 

Comments: A number of commenters 

objected to the size of the fee, as well 

as the requirement to pay to register 

each aircraft individually. DJI and many 

other commenters suggested that the $5 

fee per aircraft is too high, and that the 

FAA should maintain the current $5- 

per-three-year fee per registrant, not per 

aircraft. 

The District of Columbia office of the 

Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and 

Justice recommended imposing a 

4468 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

32The 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. 

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 searchand-rescue operations be exempt from 

the proposed registration fee. 

One commenter noted that a 

registration fee could cause a lower 

level of overall compliance, added 

expense, and negative privacy 

implications, while adding that charging 

more than $5 per person contradicts the 

FAA’s 2015 Registration Task Force 

recommendations. 

FAA Response: As a result of the 

FAA’s decision to maintain the current 

registration framework, owners of 

aircraft operated exclusively in 

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must 

only create one registration for all 

aircraft meeting that description. 

Comments received on the use of credit 

card payment are not within the scope 

of this rule. See the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis available in the docket for 

more information on the costs 

associated with the registration 

framework for this rule. 

C. Information Included in the 

Application for Registration 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

In the Registration Rule, the FAA 

amended 14 CFR part 47 and created 

part 48 to require individuals intending 

to use a small unmanned aircraft 

exclusively as model aircraft to provide 

only basic contact information (name, 

address, and email address) for the 

small unmanned aircraft owner. For 

individuals intending to use a small 

unmanned aircraft as other than a model 

aircraft, in addition to the same basic 

contact information required for model 

aircraft, the Registration Rule also 

required the individual to provide 

aircraft-specific information 

(manufacturer and model name, and a 

serial number for each aircraft being 

registered).32

The FAA adopts these requirements 

with one change. Applicants registering 

aircraft as limited recreational 

operations under 44809 must provide 

manufacturer and model information 

but not a unique serial number for each 

aircraft being registered. 

In addition, the FAA proposed to 

update registration information 

requirements to require one or more 

telephone number(s) for the applicant. 

As the FAA explained in the NPRM, 

requiring owners of unmanned aircraft 

to provide their telephone number(s) as 

part of the registration process would 

assist FAA and law enforcement to 

disseminate safety and security-related 

information to the registrant in near 

real-time. This additional information 

will be retained by the FAA and only 

disclosed as needed to authorized law 

enforcement or Federal agencies. The 

FAA adopts this requirement as 

proposed. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Registration Rule Comments: The 

Small UAV Coalition recommended that 

the information the FAA requires of 

registrants ‘‘be no more than is 

necessary to provide the FAA and law 

enforcement and national security 

agencies with the ability to ensure 

proper and prompt accountability in the 

event of an accident or incident.’’ The 

Small UAV Coalition also said that the 

regulatory responsibility to register an 

unmanned aircraft should rest with the 

owner of the aircraft, as it is with the 

current FAA Aircraft Registry, and as set 

forth in Chapter 441 of 49 U.S.C. and 

part 47 of 14 CFR. The Small UAV 

Coalition noted that in most instances 

the owner and operator will be the same 

person, but if the unmanned aircraft is 

leased to another person, then the 

owner-lessor should remain the 

registrant. 

A few individual commenters said 

that for registration to be useful, the 

FAA should require additional 

information about the individual 

aircraft; specifically, to include the 

serial number of ready-to-fly aircraft and 

the serial number of electronic 

components used to construct homebuilt aircraft. 

Remote Identification NPRM 

Comments: The Southern Company, 

along with Edison Electric Institute, the 

American Public Power Association, 

and the National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association, commenting 

jointly, supported the proposal to 

require telephone numbers to be 

included as part of the registration 

process. However, both commenters 

suggested that only a company 

telephone should be required for 

commercial operations, rather than 

individual telephone numbers for 

company operations. Both commenters 

sought clarification of this point in the 

final rule. 

McInflight Aerospace, LLC, supported 

the proposed requirement, as it would 

permit an operator to be contacted 

immediately if an unmanned aircraft 

entered restricted airspace. 

One commenter worried that 

registrants’ phone numbers might be 

made available to bad actors if there is 

a failure in data security. 

FAA Response: As discussed in the 

Registration Rule, the registration 

database complies with all Federal 

requirements for data security. The FAA 

does not specify what sort of telephone 

number must be included, beyond that 

it must be a way that the applicant can 

be reached. The FAA considered all 

comments received and believes the 

information required is the minimum 

information required to ensure 

accountability from the aircraft owner. 

D. Proposed Changes to the Registration 

Requirements To Require a Serial 

Number as Part of the Registration 

Process 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to require a 

unique identifier as part of the message 

elements used to identify remotely UAS. 

The proposed revision of part 48 would 

require the provision of an unmanned 

aircraft’s serial number at the time of 

registration. 

As the FAA explained in the NPRM, 

the serial number requirement enables 

the FAA to correlate the data broadcast 

or transmitted by the UAS with the 

registration data in the Aircraft Registry 

to associate an unmanned aircraft with 

its registered owner. The requirement 

also allows the FAA to associate an 

aircraft with its owner while operating 

in the airspace of the United States and 

facilitates the identification of nonregistered 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4469 

unmanned aircraft to list in the 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration the 

serial number issued by the producer of 

the unmanned aircraft in accordance 

with the production requirements of 

part 89. Per the production 

requirements in proposed § 89.505, such 

serial number would have to comply 

with the ANSI/CTA–2063–A serial 

number standard. 

In the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged 

that some unmanned aircraft may not 

have serial numbers that comply with 

the ANSI/CTA–2063–A serial number 

standard. Some examples include 

unmanned aircraft manufactured prior 

to the compliance date of a final rule 

(assuming the producer of the 

unmanned aircraft is unable to modify 

the aircraft or upgrade the software to 

assign an ANSI/CTA–2063–A compliant 

serial number), some amateur-built 

unmanned aircraft, and foreign-built 

unmanned aircraft with no serial 

numbers or with serial numbers that do 

not comply with ANSI/CTA–2063–A. 

Since these unmanned aircraft would 

not comply with the remote 

identification requirements for standard 

remote identification UAS or limited 

remote identification UAS, the FAA 

proposed to restrict their operation to 

FAA-recognized identification areas. 

Accordingly, the FAA did not impose a 

requirement for the owners of such 

unmanned aircraft to obtain an ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A compliant serial number 

and to list it in the application for a 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration or the 

notice of identification. The FAA sought 

detailed comments on whether and why 

it should require the owners of UAS 

without remote identification to obtain 

an ANSI/CTA–2063–A compliant serial 

number and to list it in the application 

for a Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

or the notice of identification and 

whether there would be any costs 

associated with obtaining a compliant 

serial number. The FAA also sought 

comments on whether the Agency 

should issue ANSI/CTA–2063–A 

compliant serial numbers to such 

aircraft when registered or re-registered 

by their owners. 

The FAA adopts the requirement that 

owners of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast modules 

must provide an ANSI/CTA–2063A 

compliant serial number on their 

application for registration. After review 

of comments and further consideration, 

the FAA determined not to require 

owners of unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification to provide a serial 

number during registration. 

For unmanned aircraft registered 

individually and operated under part 

91, 107, or 135, or any other operating 

part, the FAA clarifies that the serial 

number used to register a standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

module may only be associated with 

one registration application. The FAA 

will not accept duplicate submissions of 

serial numbers under part 47 or 48. This 

means that a person may not move the 

remote identification broadcast module 

amongst aircraft required to be 

registered individually without 

removing the serial number from one 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration before 

adding it to another. Alternatively, the 

owner of such aircraft may obtain a 

unique remote identification broadcast 

module (with a unique serial number 

that complies with the ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A serial number standard) and 

include it with the registration of each 

unmanned aircraft registered 

individually and operated under part 

91, 107, or 135, or any other operating 

part. 

For owners operating exclusively in 

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809, the 

remote identification broadcast module 

may be used for all unmanned aircraft 

for which the owner is registered, but 

only one of those aircraft may be 

operated at a time. An owner may 

submit multiple remote identification 

broadcast module serial numbers for 

operation of multiple aircraft 

simultaneously at a one-to-one aircraftto-operator ratio, as long as those 

operations would be compliant with 

section 44809. If an owner includes a 

serial number associated with a 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft in the registration 

application for operations exclusively in 

compliance with section 44809, he or 

she may also include a serial number for 

a remote identification broadcast 

module linked to other unmanned 

aircraft registered under his or her 

registration for operations exclusively in 

compliance with section 44809. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: A number of commenters 

believed that requiring an individual to 

obtain and assign an ANSI/CTA–2063– 

A serial number imposed an 

unreasonable burden. Many stated that 

it would be impossible for those with 

amateur-built aircraft to comply with 

this requirement, as those aircraft do not 

come with serial numbers. 

FAA Response: In response to 

comments regarding whether 

compliance with the serial number 

requirements is too burdensome for 

owners of model aircraft, the FAA notes 

that the revised requirements for remote 

identification offer increased flexibility 

for individuals who are equipping their 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification broadcast modules or 

operating exclusively in FAArecognized 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. 

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 

4470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

33Producers 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. 

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 serialnumber requirement apply just to a 

remote identification module, rather 

than the entire aircraft. Another 

commenter predicted that ‘‘hobby 

companies’’ would be unable to afford 

to submit declarations of compliance 

that contain compliant serial numbers. 

A commenter suggested the FAA 

implement a waiver process for the 

operation of model aircraft outside of 

FAA-recognized identification areas. 

The Edison Electric Institute, the 

American Public Power Association, 

and the National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association, commenting 

jointly, supported the serial-number 

requirement, adding that aircraft 

registration requirements are the 

foundation for both identifying aircraft 

and promoting accountability. One 

commenter stated the serial number 

requirement, along with other changes 

proposed in the NPRM, is reasonable 

and would not pose an undue burden. 

Another agreed and added the inclusion 

of a serial number could aid first 

responders in the event of an accident. 

The District of Columbia office of the 

Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and 

Justice also supported the requirement, 

as it would aid in law enforcement and 

in determining whether or not a UAS is 

operating in restricted airspace. 

However, the District of Columbia office 

of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety 

and Justice added that the serial number 

should be issued by the FAA, to reduce 

costs to users. 

FAA Response: With respect to 

comments agreeing with the FAA’s 

proposed approach, the FAA believes 

that the revised final rule requirement 

still provides sufficient information to 

ensure accountability of unmanned 

aircraft owners operating in the airspace 

of the United States. As of the 

publication of this rule, the ANSI/CTA– 

2063–A standard is available for 

viewing and download free of charge. 

While ANSI/CTA–2063–A was 

specifically developed to provide a 

serial number format for small UAS 

serial numbers, the FAA has determined 

that ANSI/CTA–2063–A is appropriate 

to issue serial numbers under this rule 

regardless of the size of the unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast module because it 

enables the issuance of unique serial 

numbers, and promotes worldwide 

standardization of unmanned aircraft 

remote identification requirements. The 

use of ANSI/CTA–2063–A would 

provide a single accepted format for 

serial numbers, helping to ensure 

consistency in the transmission of this 

message element. 

Subpart F of part 89 does not apply 

to unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification manufactured prior to the 

compliance date of the production 

requirement of this rule. The serial 

number requirement in § 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 

process; or (2) the small unmanned 

aircraft serial number, if authorized by 

the Administrator and provided with 

the application for Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration. 

In the NPRM, the FAA emphasized 

that small unmanned aircraft owners are 

not required to affix the serial number 

to the exterior of the aircraft, though 

nothing would preclude them from 

doing so. The FAA sought specific 

comments on whether UAS producers 

should be required to affix the serial 

number to the exterior of all standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

and limited remote identification 

unmanned aircraft. 

After review of comments and further 

consideration, the FAA decided not to 

impose such a requirement. The current 

registration marking requirements 

already require the registration number 

be marked on an external surface of the 

unmanned aircraft; this information 

allows the FAA to tie the aircraft to the 

FAA registration information including 

the serial number of the unmanned 

aircraft or broadcast module. 

See section XIV.C of this preamble for 

a discussion of the serial number 

requirements of this rule. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Many commenters did not 

think it is necessary to display the serial 

number on the exterior of the unmanned 

aircraft, and many noted that the current 

requirement to display the registration 

number is sufficient. Some commenters, 

including Wingcopter, mentioned their 

support for external marking of 

unmanned aircraft with a serial number. 

FAA Response: The FAA considered 

the above comments and is not prepared 

to permit serial number marking in lieu 

of registration identifier marking at this 

time. The NPRM proposal remains 

unchanged. The Administrator reserves 

the ability to permit serial number 

marking in the future. Comments 

regarding the external marking 

requirement are out of scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4471 

34Foreign civil unmanned aircraft that are not 

registered in their home country are not eligible to 

file a notice of identification. Because such aircraft 

may not be able to register under part 47 or 48 and 

cannot file a notice of identification, they may be 

unable to meet the operating requirements of 

§§ 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. 

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 foreignregistered civil unmanned aircraft in the 

United States only if the person submits 

a notice of identification to the 

Administrator that includes certain 

information that allows the FAA to 

associate the foreign civil unmanned 

aircraft to a responsible person. The 

FAA explained that after a person 

submits a notice of identification, the 

Agency would issue a confirmation of 

identification. The Agency also clarified 

that the notice of identification and the 

confirmation of identification did not 

constitute, nor had the effect of, a 

United States aircraft registration. 

After review of comments and further 

consideration, the FAA revised 

§ 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 

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 foreignregistered unmanned aircraft in the 

airspace of the United States has to 

maintain the confirmation of 

identification at the unmanned aircraft 

control station, and has to produce it 

when requested by the FAA or a law 

enforcement officer. The holder of a 

confirmation of identification must 

ensure that the information provided 

remains accurate and must update the 

information prior to operating a foreignregistered 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 foreignregistered 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 foreignVerDate Sep<11>2014 05:54 Jan 15, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR4.SGM 15JAR4
4472 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

registered civil unmanned aircraft to the 

operator, as the responsible person for 

the operation of the unmanned aircraft. 

Recognizing the differences in 

registration regimes, the FAA is revising 

§ 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. Another 

commenter asked whether foreignregistered 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 reregister in the United States. However, 

the operators of foreign-registered UAS 

must ensure they comply with all 

applicable regulations and obtain the 

appropriate safety authority issued by 

the FAA and economic authority issued 

by the Department of Transportation, as 

applicable, prior to operating in the 

airspace of the United States. 

FAA regulations do not prohibit the 

sale of unmanned aircraft without 

remote identification in the United 

States. The regulations do regulate the 

manufacturing of unmanned aircraft 

produced for operation in the airspace 

of the United States and the operation 

of all unmanned aircraft in the airspace 

of the United States, as further 

described in this rule. 

XVII. ADS–B Out and Transponders for 

Remote Identification 

A. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed to prohibit the use 

of ADS–B Out equipment as a form of 

remote identification of UAS under part 

89. The FAA also proposed changes to 

parts 91 and 107 to generally prohibit 

the use of ADS–B Out and transponders 

on UAS, unless otherwise authorized. 

The FAA adopts § 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 altitudereporting 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 

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 twoway 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4473 

operations near commercial airports and 

manned aircraft. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

commenters that supported prohibiting 

ADS–B Out on most UAS due to the 

likelihood that the high density of UAS 

operations compared to manned aircraft 

may generate signal saturation and 

create a safety hazard for manned 

aircraft. The FAA notes that unmanned 

aircraft remote identification equipment 

broadcasting in the frequency bands 

allowed under 47 CFR part 15 is 

prohibited by FCC regulations from 

interfering with existing, licensed 

frequencies used by existing 

surveillance technologies. 

Comments: Many commenters also 

supported limited exceptions permitting 

ADS–B Out on larger UAS operating at 

higher altitudes and participating in 

ATC services. Some commenters 

challenged the FAA to justify remote 

identification requirements for 

unmanned aircraft that fly at higher 

altitudes. Boeing and other commenters 

recommended permitting ADS–B Out in 

lieu of remote identification for UAS 

operating primarily above 400 feet and 

not operating under 14 CFR part 107 

(e.g., part 91, part 135). AERO 

Corporation recommended permitting 

the use of ADS–B Out on UAS operating 

above 400 feet under 14 CFR part 91, 

107, or 135. The General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association 

recommended allowing ADS–B Out or 

transponder use for UAS of sufficient 

gross weight, based on the operations 

being performed. 

The National Business Aviation 

Association agreed with prohibiting 

ADS–B Out and transponders on low 

altitude UAS such as those operating 

under 14 CFR part 107, but 

recommended clarifying the regulations 

to ensure UAS are not operating at 

higher altitudes typically used by 

manned aircraft while transmitting 

remote identification that is not directly 

available to manned aircraft. They 

recommended the FAA consider 

specifying UAS operations that are 

permitted or required to use ADS–B Out 

or a transponder instead of authorizing 

by exception, such as for UAS operating 

at higher altitudes, under a flight plan, 

or in communication with Air Traffic 

Control. Johns Hopkins University 

Applied Physics Lab asked the FAA to 

clarify that use of ‘‘ADS–B Out’’ in this 

proposal specifically refers to current 

use of 978 and 1090 MHz and does not 

preclude potential future systems on 

alternate frequencies that may meet 

remote identification requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

commenters that recommended 

permitting use of ADS–B Out instead of 

remote identification equipment by 

unmanned aircraft that are participating 

in ATC services and are likely to be 

integrated with manned aircraft, or by 

limited exception. For this reason, 

persons operating unmanned aircraft 

equipped with ADS–B Out, when 

operating under a flight plan and where 

the operator is in communication with 

ATC, do not have to meet the remote 

identification requirements in part 89. 

This is consistent with a 

recommendation by the UAS–ID ARC. 

Unmanned aircraft not operated in this 

specific manner must be equipped with 

remote identification unless authorized 

by the Administrator as permitted by 

§ 89.105, which is being finalized to 

permit such exceptions on a case-bycase 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 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 

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 

4474 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 declines to require the use of ADS– 

B Out to identify an FAA-recognized 

identification area because it was not 

intended to be used to identify physical 

locations where UAS may be operating 

without remote identification. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

concern about the volume of UAS users 

that will be transmitting on Wi-Fi 

frequencies as well as range and altitude 

coverage on these frequencies. 

A commenter was concerned about 

future expansion of manned aircraft 

operations if ADS–B Out radio 

frequency spectrum could be saturated 

by UAS, and suggested the ADS–B Out 

system be upgraded to support UAS 

operations as well. Another commenter 

suggested requiring ADS–B Out in 

remote, uncontrolled airspace where is 

it unlikely to cause frequency 

saturation, and requiring network 

remote identification in controlled and 

urban airspace where data and cellular 

coverage is readily available. 

FAA Response: Regarding broadcast 

on Wi-Fi frequencies, the FAA notes 

that, by FCC rule, 47 CFR part 15 

devices, including those used for the 

remote identification broadcast, may not 

cause harmful interference and must 

accept any interference received. In 

addition, remote identification 

equipment may not cause harmful 

interference to the unmanned aircraft 

command and control datalink or 

otherwise be in violation of FCC 

regulations. Unmanned aircraft remote 

identification equipment broadcasting 

in the 47 CFR part 15 radio frequency 

spectrum is also prohibited from 

interfering with existing, licensed 

frequencies used by existing 

surveillance technologies. With regard 

to the use of ADS–B Out in less dense 

environments where signal saturation 

would not be as likely a hazard, the 

FAA emphasizes that the ADS–B 

message set does not provide an 

indication of the control station location 

which is one of the reasons that ADS– 

B is not a suitable alternative. 

Comments: Some commenters, 

including the Aviators Code Initiative, 

suggested that UAS operating under part 

91 and future Urban Air Mobility 

(UAM) operations be required to use 

ADS–B Out unless future frequency 

saturation issues develop or remote 

identification is proven to be an 

adequate substitute for these operations. 

FAA Response: The FAA partially 

agrees with comments that suggest 

ADS–B use is appropriate for unmanned 

aircraft operating under part 91 and 

UAM operations, and adopts the 

requirements necessary for unmanned 

aircraft to operate with ADS–B Out 

instead of remote identification. The 

FAA believes that the performancebased requirements in this rule provide 

multiple technical solutions for 

unmanned aircraft remote identification 

and support the evolution of remote 

identification solutions as UAS 

technology evolves. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

challenged the FAA to justify its 

position that ADS–B functionality as a 

whole would be adversely impacted by 

a sharp increase in ADS–B users. 

uAvionix noted that radio frequency 

spectrum studies to date have focused 

on UAS operating in high traffic density 

below 400 feet AGL, but there are no 

studies at higher altitudes. uAvionix 

and Sagetech Avionics stated the part 91 

prohibition introduces the possibility of 

non-cooperative part 91 UAS unless 

otherwise required to equip with remote 

identification (or ‘‘otherwise authorized 

by the Administrator’’ to use ADS–B 

Out or transponders). uAvionix, 

McInflight Aerospace, Sagetech 

Avionics, and NBAA recommended 

considering alternatives such as ADS–B 

Out. They also noted these licensed 

frequencies would be more reliable than 

47 CFR part 15, Remote Identification 

Frequencies. 

FAA Response: In the NPRM, the FAA 

referenced a study titled ‘‘ADS–B 

Surveillance System Performance with 

Small UAS at Low Altitudes’’ as the 

basis for proposing that an ADS–B Out 

solution for unmanned aircraft remote 

identification would cause adverse 

impacts to the existing ADS–B 

surveillance system. The FAA agrees 

with the analysis and information 

contained in this study. Related 

comments suggesting that lower-power 

ADS–B Out transmitters could be 

developed to meet remote identification 

requirements, accompanied by 

additional receiver sites and software 

patches to limit ATC display clutter, 

were found to be impractical, both in 

terms of the time and the cost necessary 

to develop them. The FAA agrees with 

commenters concerned about the 

possibility of non-cooperative 

unmanned aircraft in areas where 

remote identification is required, and 

notes that in accordance with § 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 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4475 

FAA notes that ADS–B In is not 

required equipment for aircraft 

operations under part 91, and any 

changes to require ADS–B In for 

manned or unmanned aircraft are 

outside the scope of this rule. 

XVIII. Environmental Analysis 

A. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The FAA received several 

comments addressing the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed rule. Commenters 

expressed concerns with the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

the disposal for UAS that would 

potentially become obsolete under the 

rule requirements. 

Some commenters suggested that 

additional analysis should be done 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act, particularly in the areas of 

historic or socioeconomic impacts of the 

proposed rule. Other commenters 

indicated that the rule would increase 

the number of UAS operations with 

resulting impacts on noise and quality 

of life, wildlife, birds, light and visual 

impacts, and other similar 

environmental impacts. 

FAA Response: The FAA believes the 

changes in this final rule compared to 

the NPRM provide the flexibility 

necessary for recreational unmanned 

aircraft designers, producers, and 

operators to continue to operate safely 

in the airspace of the United States. 

Specifically, this rule allows for the 

retrofit of existing unmanned aircraft 

and home-built unmanned aircraft and 

increases the availability of FAArecognized identification areas where 

operations may occur without remote 

identification. For these reasons, FAA 

does not anticipate that this rule would 

result in an increase in unmanned 

aircraft disposal. The FAA notes that a 

discarded unmanned aircraft can be 

disassembled into the following parts: 

Carbon (frame, frame parts), plastic, 

metal parts (screws, standoffs), wire, 

electronics (flight controller, ESC, 

motors, camera, VTX, RX), and batteries. 

Recycling centers and online vendors 

can assist with the proper management 

of used unmanned aircraft parts. In 

addition, parts in good working 

condition could potentially be reused. 

The FAA considers that though this 

rulemaking action establishes 

requirements for the remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft, it 

does not, by itself, enable routine 

expanded operations, affect the 

frequency of UAS operations in the 

airspace of the United States, or 

authorize additional UAS operations. 

Nor does the rule open up new areas of 

airspace to UAS. With regard to the 

specific comments on impacts to birds, 

the FAA’s experience has been that 

current levels of UAS operations do not 

produce negative impacts to Endangered 

Species Act-covered species or other 

migratory birds. The FAA also 

emphasizes that this rule does not 

relieve operators from other legal 

obligations that may be applicable to 

them, such as ones imposed by the 

Endangered Species Act or the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For these 

reasons, the FAA has determined that it 

is appropriate to apply a categorical 

exclusion to this rule and that it does 

not require preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

XIX. Effective and Compliance Dates 

A. Effective Date of This Rule 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

As with most new regulations, the 

FAA recognized that some elements of 

the NPRM would take time to 

implement fully. The FAA also 

recognized it would need to implement 

requirements that address ongoing 

safety and security needs quickly. 

Therefore, the FAA proposed that the 

effective date of remote identification 

requirements would be the first day of 

the calendar month following 60 days 

from the date of publication of a final 

rule. The FAA also proposed the 

production compliance date would be 2 

years after the proposed effective date, 

and the operational compliance date 

would be 3 years after the proposed 

effective date. 

However, given the changes in policy 

concepts since the publication of the 

NPRM, the FAA has instead decided to 

change the effective date of this rule to 

60 days from the date of publication— 

with the exception of subpart C 

concerning FAA-recognized 

identification areas, which becomes 

effective 18 months following the 60 

day effective date. The FAA also adopts 

the production compliance date as 18 

months after the rule’s effective date, 

and the operational compliance date as 

30 months after the rule’s effective date. 

The FAA decided not to adopt the 

proposed requirement for owners of 

small unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively for limited recreational 

operations to register each aircraft 

individually. The FAA decided to 

maintain the current registration 

options, and will no longer revise part 

48 to require individual aircraft 

registration as proposed. Therefore, it is 

no longer necessary for the final rule to 

be effective on the first day of a calendar 

month following 60 days after the 

publication date. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: Several commenters 

objected to mandating the use of 

technologies for remote identification of 

UAS and Remote ID USS, which do not 

exist and may not be developed by the 

proposed effective date, and noted that 

it is very difficult to estimate costs for 

operators accurately without existing 

technology. An individual commenter 

found it hard to envision third party 

companies completing implementation 

of an airspace-wide UAS equivalent to 

the current ATC system by the proposed 

effective date. Another commenter who 

also had issues with the proposed date 

recommended phasing in requirements 

initially in small geographic areas with 

limited technical requirements and then 

gradually expand to national use, 

adding additional technical 

requirements upon successful 

completion of each phase. 

FAA Response: The FAA notes that 

technologies for unmanned aircraft 

remote identification are not required to 

be developed or available on the rule 

effective date, but rather this date 

establishes a starting point for the 18- 

month production compliance date. 

Producers will have to comply with the 

rule’s requirements by the production 

compliance date, which is 18 months 

after the effective date. Operators will 

have to comply with the rule’s 

requirements by the operational 

compliance date, which is 30 months 

after the effective date. 

Comments expressing concern about 

the readiness of Remote ID USS and the 

USS network by the rule effective date 

are no longer applicable because the 

FAA is no longer adopting those 

proposed requirements. 

The FAA received many comments 

regarding the proposed timeline for 

accepting FAA-recognized identification 

areas applications, and how that policy 

would impact the rule. Those public 

comments and FAA responses are 

discussed in section XII of this 

preamble. Section XII.C of this preamble 

also discusses the FAA rationale for 

eliminating the 12-month deadline, and 

the impact of that elimination on the 

effectivity of subpart C of part 89. 

B. Production Requirements 

Compliance Date 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed a 24-month 

compliance date for the production of 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft. The FAA discussed how 

persons responsible for the production 

4476 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

of unmanned aircraft would not be able 

to submit declarations of compliance 

until the FAA accepts at least one 

means of compliance. Once a means of 

compliance is accepted by the FAA, 

persons responsible for the production 

of unmanned aircraft would need time 

to design, develop, and test unmanned 

aircraft using that means of compliance. 

For that reason, the FAA proposed a 24- 

month period before compliance with 

the production requirements would be 

required. As proposed, the 24-month 

period would have provided time for 

the development and deployment of 

Remote ID USS to support the 

requirements of the proposed rule. Prior 

to the 24-month compliance date, the 

FAA proposed that the rule would allow 

for the production and operation of both 

unmanned aircraft with and without 

remote identification. 

As being finalized, this rule requires 

persons producing standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft for 

operation in the airspace of the United 

States to comply with the requirements 

of subpart F by September 16, 2022. The 

compliance date has been reduced by 6 

months and now begins 18 months after 

the effective date of this rule. The 

change from the proposed 24-month 

production compliance date for 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft is supported by the 

removal of the requirement for the 

unmanned aircraft to connect to the 

internet and transmit information to a 

Remote ID USS. The change is also 

supported by the elimination of any 

schedule or technical risks associated 

with the development and deployment 

of a Remote ID USS network. The FAA 

also considered the maturity of existing 

standards for unmanned aircraft remote 

identification, such as ASTM F3411–19, 

and notes that the UAS–ID ARC 

suggested that industry consensus 

standards could be updated in as little 

as 6 months. For these reasons, this rule 

establishes an 18-month compliance 

date for the production of standard 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft. 

As promulgated, this rule also 

requires persons producing remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

comply with the requirements of 

subpart F by March 16, 2021. This 

requirement is because of the 

introduction of the remote identification 

broadcast module concept that replaces 

the proposed limited remote 

identification UAS concept, as further 

discussed throughout this rule. The 

requirement will support early adoption 

of remote identification. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: A few commenters 

supported the 24-month production 

compliance date, as proposed, including 

Zipline International and Airlines for 

America. An individual commenter 

supported the 2-year production 

timeline if the remote identification 

requirements were changed to 

‘‘broadcast or network’’ but not both. 

This commenter believed this change 

would simplify the complexity of UAS 

and support faster development. 

Another individual stated that while the 

2-year production compliance date is 

appropriate for ‘‘mass produced 

commercial UAS,’’ it should not apply 

to any recreational UAS. Similarly, 

another individual commenter noted it 

will be hard to incorporate remote 

identification on fixed wing model 

aircraft and suggested that additional 

time should be allowed for model 

aircraft. 

Many commenters stated the 24- 

month compliance date for production 

of UAS with remote identification is not 

long enough for the introduction of a 

new technology like UAS remote 

identification. Some of these 

commenters provided specific 

recommendations for a different 

compliance date, while others stated 

their disagreement without providing a 

recommendation. An individual 

commenter suggested that because 

remote identification is a new 

technology, introduction should happen 

slowly, and UAS with remote 

identification should be available before 

the rule is adopted. Another commenter 

noted that ADS–B technology was being 

developed and tested before the ADS–B 

rule was adopted, and that 10 years was 

provided for manned aircraft to equip 

with ADS–B technology. This 

commenter raised the concern that UAS 

remote identification technology has not 

been developed and tested, yet the FAA 

still intends to finalize the rule. Some 

commenters wanted the FAA to provide 

further guidance to allow adequate time 

for UAS service operators to replace, 

update, or upgrade hardware to meet 

any new requirement. 

Droneport Texas LLC recommended a 

3-year production compliance date 

because ‘‘the time required for rule 

assessment, engineering, testing, 

manufacturing and marketing to provide 

remote ID unit consumption at levels 

that allow for economies of scale to 

become practical is estimated to begin at 

a minimum of 36 months.’’ A separate 

individual commenter recommended a 

production compliance period of 48 

months because the commenter believed 

it is unlikely that the infrastructure 

necessary to enable remote 

identification will be ready in 2 years. 

In contrast to commenters who 

recommended a longer production 

compliance period, commenters that 

supported a production period shorter 

than the 2 years proposed include the 

Small UAV Coalition, American 

Association of Airport Executives, and 

Verizon/Skyward. The Small UAV 

Coalition stated the production 

compliance date should be shortened by 

1 year on the basis that the ASTM F38 

UAS Remote Identification standard has 

been published and the 1-year allocated 

to development and acceptance of a 

means of compliance can be eliminated. 

The American Association of Airport 

Executives also supported a 1-year 

production compliance period, stating 

that ‘‘this is a more reasonable balance 

between the needs of airports and many 

other stakeholders, and the time needed 

to implement the proposed framework.’’ 

Verizon and Skyward noted that ‘‘USS 

Remote ID compliance is technically 

feasible today for a very high percentage 

of existing UAS through software 

upgrades and for manufacturers with 

minimal changes’’ and suggested a 

production compliance date of 10 

months after the rule’s effective date. 

An individual commenter suggested 

that the FAA should allow for a 1-year 

vendor proposal period where UAS 

producers would compete to 

manufacture a system that meets FAA 

requirements, at which point the FAA 

should approve the qualified bidder 

with the lowest cost. The Consumer 

Technology Association and other 

commenters said that the FAA should 

permit producers to continue selling 

non-compliant UAS if retrofit modules 

were available to bring the aircraft into 

compliance with the remote 

identification requirements. 

FAA Response: As stated above, the 

FAA is no longer requiring standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

to connect to the internet and transmit 

information to a Remote ID USS. As a 

result, any schedule or technical risks 

associated with the development and 

deployment of a Remote ID USS 

network are no longer applicable. Since 

FAA is adopting a broadcast-only 

remote identification requirement, the 

decision to eliminate the network 

requirement for remote identification at 

this time supports a reduction of the 

production compliance date from 24 

months to 18 months. 

The FAA acknowledges that though 

persons responsible for the production 

of unmanned aircraft will not be able to 

submit declarations of compliance until 

the FAA accepts at least one means of 

compliance, the FAA anticipates an 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4477 

expedited revision to the ASTM F3411– 

19 Standard Specification for Remote ID 

and Tracking to occur after publication 

of this final rule. Once the standard is 

revised to meet the minimum 

performance requirements, it could be 

submitted for consideration as an FAAaccepted 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 FAAaccepted means of compliance. 

C. Operational Requirements 

Compliance Date 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA proposed that the 

requirements for the operation of 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification would begin 36 months 

after the effective date of a final rule. 

This 36-month period would run 

concurrently with the proposed 24- 

month period provided for the 

development of means of compliance, 

and for the design and production of 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification. The FAA explained in 

the NPRM that once unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification become 

widely available, this rule would allow 

an additional 1-year time period for 

unmanned aircraft owners and operators 

to purchase and transition to operations 

of unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification. 

As promulgated, this rule requires 

persons operating unmanned aircraft in 

the airspace of the United States to 

comply with the operational rules in 

subpart B by September 16, 2023. The 

compliance date has been reduced by 6 

months and now begins 30 months after 

the effective date of this rule as 

compared to the proposed 36-month 

compliance date in the NPRM. The FAA 

notes that the 30-month operational 

compliance date is still 1 year later than 

the 18-month production compliance 

date, so the difference between the two 

dates has been maintained in this final 

rule compared to the NPRM. The FAA 

believes that an operational compliance 

date that is 1 year after the production 

compliance date provides adequate time 

for unmanned aircraft operators to 

acquire standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft. 

In addition, because there is no 

production compliance date for remote 

identification broadcast modules, the 

FAA anticipates that a means of 

compliance may be developed and 

submitted to the FAA for consideration 

soon after the rule is effective, 

potentially resulting in broadcast 

modules being available well in advance 

of the 30-month operational compliance 

date. The FAA believes that a 30-month 

operational compliance date is 

appropriate for operators of standard 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft, as well as unmanned aircraft 

equipped with remote identification 

broadcast modules. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: The FAA received some 

comments that supported the 

operational compliance date as 

proposed, including comments from the 

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and 

Transportation District, and various 

individuals that noted a 3-year phase-in 

period is reasonable for developing 

initial solutions. However, many 

commenters did not agree with the 

FAA’s proposed 3-year operational 

compliance date, of which some 

suggested alternative time periods that 

are longer or shorter than the proposed 

operational compliance date. 

Many commenters raised the concern 

that there is only 1 year between the 

production and operational compliance 

dates, resulting in some UAS being 

ineligible to operate after only 1 year of 

ownership. Instead, an individual 

commenter suggested that a 3-year 

operational compliance date, after the 

manufacturing compliance date, would 

be preferable and would preclude 

having to throw away or discontinue 

using UAS purchased only a year prior 

to the operational compliance date. 

Many individual commenters, however, 

stated the FAA’s belief that a typical 

UAS would reach the end of its useful 

life in 3 years is incorrect, and therefore 

opposed the proposed operational 

compliance date of 3 years after the 

effective date of the rule. An individual 

stated that while a ‘‘commercial 

quadcopter (drone)’’ may have a 

lifespan of 3 years, certain R/C model 

aircraft can have a lifespan of 30–40 

years or more. Another commenter 

stated that with proper care and 

maintenance, the lifespan of a UAS can 

be extended past 3 years. An individual 

suggested the government pay for the 

loss of use of UAS equipment that lasts 

for greater than 3 years. Another 

individual recommended that 

additional time be provided to allow the 

price of UAS with remote identification 

to come down. This commenter also 

noted that its existing fleet of UAS 

without remote identification will have 

no resale value 

In contrast to the commenters that 

requested additional time to comply 

with the operational compliance period, 

others suggested an operational 

compliance date shorter than the 

proposed 3 years. Organizations 

including: Amazon, AUVSI, the 

National Sheriff’s Association, Zipline 

International, sports organizations (NFL, 

MLB, NASCAR, and NCAA), U.S. Rail 

Operating Subsidiaries of the Canadian 

National Railway Company, FlyGuys, 

Inc., Tampa International Airport/ 

Hillsborough County Aviation 

Authority, and UPS, all supported the 

expeditious implementation of the rule. 

These commenters generally opposed an 

operational compliance date longer than 

3 years. Verizon and Skyward stated the 

operational compliance date could be as 

soon as 12 months after the rule’s 

effective date. The U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce supported 18 months for the 

operational compliance date, and 

suggested that the FAA follow the 

recommendations of the Drone Advisory 

Committee (DAC) related to early 

compliance with remote identification 

requirements. The Small UAV Coalition 

supported an operational compliance 

period of 18 to 24 months. 

DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety 

Alliance, Airlines for America, 

International Association of Fire 

Fighters, Medina County EMA, 

American Association of Airport 

Executives, and Motorola Solutions, Inc. 

supported a 2-year operational 

compliance date while generally 

agreeing that shortening the operational 

compliance date serves to expedite the 

safety and security benefits of the rule. 

An individual believed that UAS 

manufacturers would have sufficient 

time to incorporate remote 

identification into their UAS, and that 

the operational compliance date should 

be reduced to a time period of 1 year to 

18 months. Another individual 

commenter recommended shortening 

the operational compliance date because 

of existing UAS operations that are in 

violation of the regulations. 

Kittyhawk stated the 3-year 

compliance date is too long because the 

FAA has made it clear that ‘‘routine (i.e., 

waiverless) advanced operations like 

those beyond visual line of sight, 

operations over people, or operations at 

night, require Remote ID.’’ Kittyhawk 

supports a tiered approach for 

establishing compliance dates, which 

would allow some operations to be 

conducted with remote identification 

4478 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

immediately upon the rule effective 

date. The National Association of Tower 

Erectors (NATE) suggested reducing the 

3-year operational compliance period 

both to enhance safety and enable 

earlier expanded operations such as 

BVLOS. The National Agricultural 

Aviation Association stated they do not 

believe it should take 3 years to 

implement the rule, but did not provide 

a specific alternative timeline. AirMap, 

Aerospace Industries Association, and 

the Commercial Drone Alliance 

supported an immediate 

implementation of the rule compared to 

the proposed 3-year compliance date. 

WhiteFox Defense Technologies 

supported a shorter operational 

compliance period if the rule was 

modified to allow retrofit modules for 

existing UAS. 

Several individual commenters 

recommended a 5-year timeline for the 

operational compliance date because 

they believed it would better align with 

the typical lifespan of UAS, and allow 

time for the technology to be widely 

available. The Academy of Model 

Aeronautics supported a ‘‘more 

reasonable timeline,’’ including 

incentives similar to those that were 

provided for the general aviation 

community to equip with ADS–B. 

Several individual commenters 

referenced the 10-year operational 

compliance period in the ADS–B rule as 

justification for extending the proposed 

3-year operational compliance date; 

most of these commenters suggested an 

operational compliance date between 5 

and 10 years from the rule’s publication 

date. Other commenters recommended 

additional time, ranging from 10–15 

years, for the operational compliance 

date because remote identification 

technology does not exist. Several 

individual commenters recommended a 

5–7 year operational compliance date, 

and for the FAA to not rush the 

implementation of remote 

identification. 

To simplify compliance, multiple 

individuals supported the idea of an 

FAA ‘‘grandfathering’’ provision that 

would not require existing UAS to 

comply with the rules for remote 

identification for 10 years. A commenter 

suggested grandfathering all existing 

recreational UAS, with remote 

identification required for recreational 

UAS only if they are new. This 

commenter recommended a 5-year 

operational compliance date for part 107 

operators. Another commenter noted 

that many recreational UAS operators 

are still not registered, and asked why 

the FAA thinks these unregistered 

operators will comply with a 3-year 

operational compliance period. San 

Diego County Water requested that 

additional 3-year waivers be available 

for operators that are not able to comply 

with the 3-year remote identification 

operational compliance date. 

Rather than requiring a fixed time 

period, an individual suggested that the 

operational compliance date be based 

on the availability of remote 

identification technology. Another 

individual suggested a phased approach 

for operational compliance dates, with 

UAS conducting higher risk operations 

having an earlier date than those 

conducing low risk operations. Utah 

Public Lands policy recommended that 

‘‘the FAA should initiate a pilot 

program, working with UAS developers, 

USS suppliers, and UAS operators, to 

better understand how these various 

components can be successfully brought 

together and proven and, only then, 

determine an implementation or 

compliance period accompanied with 

known costs and technology solutions.’’ 

Another individual asked how the 3- 

year operational compliance date would 

apply to existing UAS. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

agree with grandfathering or broadly 

excepting existing unmanned aircraft 

from meeting remote identification 

requirements. However, after 

considering the comments received, the 

FAA has updated this rule to permit less 

complex, cost-effective solutions to 

prevent obsolescence of existing 

unmanned aircraft, and support 

continued unmanned aircraft operations 

in compliance with remote 

identification requirements. Removing 

the requirements to transmit remote 

identification information to a Remote 

ID USS will make it more 

straightforward for manufacturers to 

upgrade or retrofit existing unmanned 

aircraft to meet the broadcast remote 

identification requirements, or to 

upgrade unmanned aircraft which are 

produced before the production 

compliance date. Most unmanned 

aircraft produced without remote 

identification will be able to equip with 

a remote identification broadcast 

module, or will be able to operate in an 

FAA-recognized identification area. The 

FAA anticipates this rule, which 

permits additional organizations to 

apply for an FAA-recognized 

identification area, with no deadline for 

submitting an application, will result in 

an increased number of FAA-recognized 

identification areas for operators 

without remote identification. 

Though the finalized remote 

identification requirements support 

reducing the production compliance 

date by 6 months, the FAA does not 

agree with commenters that suggested 

further shortening the operational 

compliance date. A 1-year time period, 

as originally proposed in the NPRM, is 

necessary for unmanned aircraft owners 

and operators to purchase new 

unmanned aircraft, upgrade or retrofit 

existing unmanned aircraft, and 

transition to operations of those 

unmanned aircraft which meet remote 

identification requirements. Therefore, 

the FAA is adopting a 30-month 

operational compliance period which 

runs concurrently with the amended 18- 

month production compliance date. 

Requirements that prohibit operation of 

UAS without remote identification 

would begin 30 months after the 

effective date of the rule. This 30-month 

period provides sufficient time for the 

development of means of compliance 

for the design and production of 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification, and time for operators to 

procure standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast modules to 

comply with the operating requirements 

of this rule. 

Comments: Commenters, including 

Unifly and the District of Columbia 

government, believed that UAS 

operating under a waiver should still be 

required to have remote identification. 

These operations include nighttime 

operations, operations over people, or 

BVLOS operations. In contrast, an 

individual member of the FPVFC 

suggested that if the UAS has remote 

identification, operations over people 

and at night should be allowed without 

a waiver. This individual added that if 

the UAS has LAANC authorization, then 

no remote identification equipment 

should be required for operating over 

people or at night. Other commenters 

also referenced similar 

recommendations made by the DAC, 

and stated that UAS that meet the 

remote identification requirements 

should not be required to seek a waiver 

for small UAS operations at night or 

over people. 

FAA Response: The unmanned 

aircraft remote identification 

requirements in this rule are separate 

from, and in addition to, the UAS 

operating rules as well as any waivers 

or exemptions issued from those 

operating rules. The FAA agrees that all 

UAS operations, including those subject 

to waiver or exemption, must meet the 

unmanned aircraft remote identification 

requirements in part 89. The FAA does 

not agree with commenters who suggest 

equipping an unmanned aircraft with 

remote identification is a basis for 

operating without a waiver when a 

waiver would otherwise be required. 

Having remote identification equipment 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4479 

35October 17, 2019 Drone Advisory Committee 

(DAC) Meeting Materials, https://www.faa.gov/uas/ 

programs_partnerships/drone_advisory_committee/ 

media/eBook_10172019_DAC_Meeting.pdf. 

does not address the operational safety 

issues associated with operating an 

unmanned aircraft at night or over 

people, and does not support relief from 

any existing operating requirements, 

including requirements for airspace 

authorizations. 

D. Incentives for Early Compliance 

1. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA explained that early 

compliance may benefit both industry 

and UAS operators, and encourages 

regulated parties to implement remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft 

sooner than the established compliance 

dates. The FAA requested comments on 

the NPRM providing specific proposals 

and ideas on how to build an early 

compliance framework into the 

regulation. The Agency stated it is 

interested in comments related to how 

an early compliance framework would 

work and how it would fit into the 

overarching remote identification 

framework proposed by the FAA. 

The FAA received many comments 

addressing incentives for early 

compliance. The FAA has reviewed the 

comments supporting an incentive for 

early compliance with remote 

identification, and views these 

incentives as part of the implementation 

methodology and not part of this rule. 

2. Public Comments and FAA Response 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

allowing operations in certain restricted 

airspace as an incentive for early 

compliance with the remote 

identification requirements. AUVSI, 

Small UAV Coalition, Consumer 

Technology Association, Aerospace 

Industries Association, and WhiteFox 

Defense Technologies expressed their 

support for incentivizing early 

compliance, including support of the 

DAC recommendations. AUVSI 

identified many possible incentives for 

early compliance with the remote 

identification requirements, such as 

permitting expanded operations through 

waivers and exemptions for operators 

who equip early, providing ‘‘preferential 

treatment’’ for UAS equipped with 

remote identification, increased access 

to airspace such as temporary flight 

restrictions, restricted areas, and 

controlled airspace, and various 

financial incentives. AiRXOS stated that 

‘‘early compliance with remote 

identification should be incentivized 

through applied use in advanced 

operational approvals.’’ Fortem 

Technologies supported expedited 

waiver approvals for operators that use 

UAS equipped with remote 

identification. 

FAA Response: The FAA commits to 

conducting an analysis of any waivers 

or exemptions that use remote 

identification industry consensus 

standards and communicating any 

additional information needed for the 

FAA to give credit for, as appropriate, 

using remote identification as part of a 

waiver application. This is how 

operators may take advantage of the 

availability of industry consensus 

standards prior to a final rule 

concerning remote identification. While 

voluntary adoption of remote 

identification will not equate to 

automatic waiver approval, the FAA’s 

evaluation of part 107 waiver 

applications may consider early 

adoption of remote identification prior 

to any required compliance date set 

forth by this rule. 

To be considered as a benefit for a 

particular operation, applicants will 

need to demonstrate in their waiver 

application that the unmanned aircraft 

are equipped with remote identification 

capability and will remain compliant 

with this rule during operations. The 

FAA will evaluate applicants’ ability to 

demonstrate early compliance with 

remote identification in their 

DroneZone applications. The FAA 

anticipates such updates will result in 

handling applications for waiver in an 

efficient manner. 

The FAA supports the proposition 

that remote identification will provide 

security benefits, which underlies the 

DAC’s recommendations regarding 

increasing access by unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification to airspace 

restricted for security reasons. The 

Agency is committed to working with 

interagency security partners to realize 

those benefits where appropriate, 

including using remote identification 

equipage as a positive consideration in 

authorizing access to airspace to which 

security instructions have been applied. 

Remote identification equipage will be, 

however, only one of many complex 

factors driving decisions made by the 

FAA to enable access by UAS to this 

sort of secured airspace. The FAA will 

continue to coordinate with security 

agencies, as well as industry, to 

determine how to best leverage the 

security benefits offered by remote 

identification. The FAA commits to 

considering the added safety and 

security benefits provided by remote 

identification equipage in development 

of future rules related to UAS and 

airspace access. 

Comments: Many commenters 

provided input and ideas that would 

allow for an early compliance 

framework into the regulation. Both 

AUVSI and SenseFly suggested the FAA 

follow the recommendations provided 

by the DAC35 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 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 

4480 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations and standards. To be fair 

and equitable, the FAA’s procurement 

processes do not enable preferential 

treatment for voluntary early adoption 

of equipment or compliance to 

regulations. 

Regarding early equipage, as stated in 

the FAA’s remote identification NPRM, 

the FAA will maintain an online 

database of designers and producers of 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

that have declared compliance with an 

industry consensus standard recognized 

by the FAA as a means of compliance 

with the remote identification rule. The 

FAA will begin this database with the 

first declaration of compliance. This 

online list will be linked to all 

applicable FAA apps, including 

B4UFLY, and on all relevant web pages. 

The FAA will endeavor to ensure 

information is disseminated as far as 

possible. 

As stated in the FAA’s remote 

identification NPRM, the FAA is willing 

to consider methods to offset the 

registration costs associated with final 

remote identification rule compliance. 

84 FR 72438, 72463 (Dec. 31, 2019) at 

Sec. IX.C. The FAA will consider 

opportunities for cost reduction and offsetting, 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-ofsight. The FAA recognizes that while 

this may not be a direct incentive for 

individual operators and recreational 

flyers, it should broadly incentivize the 

unmanned aircraft producer or designer 

community to produce aircraft in 

compliance with published industry 

consensus standards (e.g., the serial 

number standard) as early and quickly 

as possible. 

XX. Comments on the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis—Benefits and Costs 

A. General Comments About Cost 

Impacts of the Rule 

Comments: Many commenters stated 

the remote identification requirements 

as proposed would be too costly for 

many recreational operators and 

businesses, many of which are small, to 

comply. Commenters suggested that 

retail hobby businesses already operate 

on low margins. Any impact on these 

businesses would also have negative 

downstream effects on the community. 

The affected groups include retail hobby 

shops, designers and producers of UAS 

and suppliers of model aircraft, parts 

and equipment, and aerial 

photographers. The commenters 

suggested that many recreational 

operators and owners, especially those 

involved in flying and building remote 

controlled aircraft, would cease 

pursuing the hobby or business, because 

of the cost to either upgrade or replace 

existing aircraft to meet the proposed 

standard and the cost to subscribe to 

internet service. Many commenters 

expressed concern for the potential 

impact of the rule on businesses and 

consumers who cannot afford to retrofit 

or replace UAS at a low cost. 

Commenters suggested that there does 

not exist an off-the-shelf solution, such 

as software upgrades, to retrofit most 

recreational aircraft. One commenter 

provided an estimate of $12 billion in 

sales for the model aircraft industry for 

2021. Another commenter reported $1 

billion to $20 billion per year based on 

IBIS World’s 2020 Hobby and Toy Store 

industry. Commenters state that by 

requiring standard remote identification 

UAS to both broadcast and provide 

information over the internet, the FAA 

is violating the requirement of E.O. 

13563 to maximize net benefits and 

design regulations to impose the least 

burden. Allowing the option of remote 

broadcast alone would allow UAS 

owners to save the Remote ID USS 

subscription fee. The broadcast-only 

option would also not reduce demand 

from operators who do not want to send 

flight data to a Remote ID USS. Removal 

of the requirement for both kinds of 

transmission would also eliminate the 

need for ‘‘Limited’’ remote 

identification UAS and streamline the 

regulation. DJI Technology estimated a 

one-time cost of $2 or less per unit for 

a large quantity when manufacturing 

new UAS or a cost for existing UAS of 

$15 or less per unit for a large quantity 

without requiring screens, sim cards, 

internet connections, data plans, or 

centralized data aggregation like a 

network solution would require. A 

commenter states that the FAA neglects 

the increased cost of customer support 

because UASs will not be able to fly 

unless Remote ID USS is functional. The 

reason a UAS is not working will not 

always be clear, and designers and 

producers of remote identification UAS 

or sellers may need to provide support 

to determine the reason the UAS is not 

functioning. Using data on customer 

complaint rates for the 

telecommunications sector tracked by 

the Australian Communications and 

Media Authority (ACMA) on complaint 

rates and an estimate of the cost of a 

customer service call by the Harvard 

Business Review of $10 per call, the 

commenter estimates a 10-year cost of 

$80 million. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges that recreational and 

business operators of unmanned aircraft 

will incur out-of-pocket costs as a result 

of this rule. However, the FAA has 

attempted to alleviate complexity and 

costs of compliance for all operators of 

unmanned aircraft by removing the 

network requirement from this rule and 

allowing remote identification using a 

stand-alone broadcast module for the 

time being. The concept allows 

unmanned aircraft built without remote 

identification (e.g., existing unmanned 

aircraft fleet, home-built unmanned 

aircraft) to be operated outside of FAArecognized identification areas because 

the broadcast modules enable the 

unmanned aircraft to broadcast the 

remote identification message elements 

required by this rule. 

The FAA decided to incorporate this 

concept into this rule after reviewing 

public comments and considering the 

significant concerns raised with respect 

to the remote identification UAS 

framework. The FAA determined a 

remote identification broadcast module 

facilitates compliance with this rule and 

meets the safety and security needs of 

the FAA, national security agencies, and 

law enforcement. The concept is 

broadcast-based and does not require a 

person to connect to the internet to 

identify remotely, as the limited remote 

identification UAS proposal did. This 

shift allows unmanned aircraft with 

remote identification broadcast modules 

to operate in areas where the internet is 

unavailable. In addition, by making this 

a broadcast solution, the FAA has 

determined that the 400-foot range 

limitation included in the proposed 

requirements for limited remote 

identification UAS is no longer 

warranted and has removed the design 

constraint. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

expressed concern with displacing 

hobbyists, recreational operators and 

amateur builders in favor of creating 

opportunities for new commercial 

operations. In particular, one 

commenter believed that the FAA’s 

proposed approach highly favors 

current monolithic vendors and delivery 

fleet operators of UAS (DJI, Amazon, 

Google, UPS, etc.), and would harm or 

eliminate small UAS integrator-owners 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4481 

by forcing UAS owners to purchase 

them only from a limited number of 

commercial corporations. Thus, the rule 

would severely limit or eliminate 

independent UAS electronic vendors. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 

that this rule places a burden on all 

operators of unmanned aircraft, and has 

eliminated the internet connectivity 

requirement to reduce the negative 

impact to independent UAS electronic 

vendors and the hobby industry. The 

FAA does not agree that it favors 

creating opportunities for new 

commercial operations at the expense of 

hobbyists, recreational operators and 

home-builders. While recreational users 

of unmanned aircraft have been 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States for decades, commercial 

operations of unmanned aircraft are in 

their infancy. Commercial operations of 

unmanned aircraft are creating 

economic opportunities and facilitating 

safer operating environments by 

substituting unmanned aircraft for 

manned operations. The evolution of 

this nascent industry has spawned 

educational programs from elementary 

school through college, which in turn 

could produce a new generation of 

model aircraft enthusiasts and 

recreational operators. 

Comments: Many commenters 

suggested that designers and producers 

of remote identification UAS are likely 

to pass on the costs of additional parts, 

equipment, and software necessary to 

meet the proposed standard to 

consumers in the form of higher prices 

for aircraft. One commenter stated the 

cost of implementing the proposed 

nationwide infrastructure, broadcasting 

and monitoring system of UAS will be 

paid by consumers including UAS 

manufacturers’ new costs that would be 

passed on to UAS buyers. Commenters 

suggested that the additional cost of 

UAS production and operation would 

also result in fewer designers and 

producers of remote identification UAS 

and near elimination of the hobby 

market. One commenter expressed 

concern that the remote identification 

requirements would limit competition 

and innovation in UAS technologies 

leading to adverse impacts on 

employment and the United States 

economy. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

designers and producers of remote 

identification unmanned aircraft will 

likely pass the costs of producing 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft to consumers, though 

the elimination of the network 

requirement at this time should reduce 

consumer costs. As well, the 

infrastructure required to receive 

broadcast messages would be borne by 

the entity requiring access to the 

information, and not the consumer. In 

addition, in its preliminary regulatory 

impact analysis, FAA acknowledged 

uncertainties regarding direct or indirect 

effects of the rule on the small toy 

unmanned aircraft market. Producers of 

toy unmanned aircraft where the 

unmanned aircraft currently weigh more 

than 0.55 pounds would need to make 

a business decision weighing the costs 

and practicality of producing small toy 

unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification using an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance. As a result, the 

market for small toy unmanned aircraft 

where the unmanned aircraft weighs 

more than 0.55 pounds may be 

negatively affected by the rule, while 

the market for unmanned aircraft 

weighing 0.55 pounds or less may be 

positively affected. Nonetheless, the 

UAS industry is evolving rapidly as 

demonstrated by the success of beyond 

visual line of sight operations and 

small-cargo delivery operations 

occurring on a limited basis in the 

airspace of the United States, and 

therefore, the FAA does not believe this 

rule would limit innovation in the 

technologies supporting integration of 

UAS into the airspace of the United 

States. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed concern with the option of 

flying within designated fields (FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area near 

home. Commenters expressed concern 

that the rule will devalue current 

equipment and end the recreational 

UAS photography hobby. 

FAA Response: The FAA concedes 

that the proposed rule imposed 

opportunity costs and out-of-pocket 

costs for individuals that would only be 

able to comply with the proposed rule 

by travelling to an FAA-recognized 

identification area. This rule allows 

operators to equip their unmanned 

aircraft with remote identification 

broadcast modules, which would enable 

affected individuals to operate at 

locations other than FAA-recognized 

identification areas so long as a remote 

identification broadcast module is 

securely installed into their aircraft. The 

FAA acknowledges that these 

individuals will incur a cost for 

purchase of the broadcast module, and 

anticipates that owners of UAS without 

remote identification would prefer to 

incur this cost in exchange for the 

freedom to fly at locations other than 

FAA-recognized identification areas. 

Comments: Commenters stated the 

FAA underestimated the time and 

resource cost burden for the CBOs to 

complete FAA-recognized identification 

area requests. A commenter asserted 

that the burden threatens the viability of 

CBOs. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

it could have underestimated the time 

and resource cost burden for CBOs to 

complete FAA-recognized identification 

area requests. However, to revise the 

estimates, the FAA requires a cost for 

the time and resource burden, with 

documentation supporting the estimate. 

The FAA expects that submitting an 

FAA-recognized identification area 

requests could become automated at 

some point, alleviating some of the 

burden on CBOs to complete the FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 noncompliance 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 

4482 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

36https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/ 

community_engagement/. 

network connectivity requirement has 

been removed at this time, and (2) the 

proposed requirement to register each 

aircraft individually is not adopted. The 

FAA does not agree that there will be a 

high-level of non-compliance by 

recreational operators. The FAA is 

continually engaging the recreational 

community regarding safely operating in 

the airspace of the United States, and 

asserts that this community is, by and 

large, aware that FAA regulations lead 

to a safer, more secure operating 

environment for all (users and non-users 

alike).36

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed concern with the potential 

obsolescence of existing aircraft 

equipment and their financial impact. 

DJI noted that no manufacturer would 

be willing to certify that retrofits comply 

with remote identification requirements 

because previously sold models are no 

longer in their control. The 

manufacturer certification requirement 

therefore reduces the retrofit rate to 

zero. Commenters provided examples of 

equipment that may become obsolete, 

including UAS camera platforms with 

retail value of $3,000 and UASs with 

values of $10,000 or more. Another 

commenter noted that many hobbyists 

own dozens of UAS, some of which are 

nearly 50 years old, some of which are 

unique and difficult or impossible to 

replace, and some of which cost over 

$15,000. Commenters asserted a wide 

variation in retail values of existing 

UAS and accessories, including 

transmitters and ground control 

stations. Investments in equipment and 

licenses range from hundreds to 

hundreds of thousands or even millions 

of dollars. One commenter provided an 

estimate of $880 as the average UAS 

priced based on a survey of members of 

the First Person View Freedom 

Coalition. In addition to obsolescence of 

equipment, another commenter stated 

there would be obsolescence in terms of 

training based on existing equipment for 

some UAS operators. 

FAA Response: First, the FAA 

appreciates the estimate of $880 as the 

average UAS price based on a survey of 

First Person View Freedom Coalition 

members. Second, this rule will allow 

pilots to attach a remote identification 

broadcast module to unmanned aircraft 

that will make the aircraft remote 

identification compliant. The FAA 

acknowledges that the relief provided in 

this rule will still be considered a 

burden by some operators. Nonetheless, 

the rule will create a safe and secure 

airspace and is a stepping stone toward 

integration of increasingly complex 

UAS operations. 

Comments: Commenters expressed 

concerns with the costs associated with 

a Remote ID USS, suggesting that the 

FAA underestimated subscription costs 

in the regulatory evaluation. The 

commenters also suggest that businesses 

would not be able to incur the cost of 

a data plan, which would adversely 

affect their ability to continue 

operations. Some estimates ranged from 

$25 to $100 per month for subscription 

fees. Multiple commenters expressed 

concern with the purchase of cellular 

service or a data plan for the purposes 

of transmitting remote identification 

information from their UAS. 

Commenters were also concerned about 

the cost to switch to data plans with 

better coverage for those with cellular 

service plans. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges the complexity of 

creating Remote ID USS and requiring 

network connectivity by operators to a 

Remote ID USS. The requirement that 

the remote identification UAS connect 

to the internet and transmit remote 

identification message elements through 

the internet to a Remote ID USS is not 

adopted at this time. 

Comments: A commenter stated the 

FAA incorrectly assumes that there may 

be no price charged for USS 

subscriptions and therefore no societal 

cost. The commenter stated that no 

matter what pricing strategy a USS 

provider selects, it must recover the real 

resource cost of designing, building and 

maintaining the system. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 

that if Remote ID USS were to exist, 

they would do so with intent to recover 

the cost of designing, building, and 

maintaining the system. However, the 

FAA acknowledges the complexity of 

designing a Remote ID USS and did not 

adopt the proposed network 

connectivity requirement at this time. 

Comments: Many commenters stated 

the costs of the proposed rule include 

additional unmanned aircraft 

registration fees as well as subscription 

fees for remote identification service 

providers. These fees would increase 

barriers to entry and reduce the 

accessibility of UAS to lower income 

individuals while shifting the market to 

larger corporations that can sell the 

remote identification hardware and 

software. Droneport Texas noted that 

the costs of Remote ID USS 

subscriptions were not included in the 

FAA-recognized identification area 

analysis but is required for remote 

identification UAS operating in an FAArecognized identification area as 

proposed. The International Association 

of Fire Fighters and the Coconino 

County Sheriff’s Office noted the 

increased cost for emergency response 

organizations to comply with the 

proposed rule. One commenter 

suggested Remote ID USS subscriptions 

should be provided free if it is required 

for emergency service operators. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

registration and subscription fees could 

reduce the accessibility of unmanned 

aircraft to lower income individuals and 

notes that the proposed requirement 

that recreational operators register each 

aircraft individually is not adopted. In 

addition, the proposed network 

connectivity requirement is not adopted 

at this time, and thus subscription fees 

are eliminated. Instead, this rule 

requires that small unmanned aircraft 

operating beyond the boundaries of an 

FAA-recognized identification area do 

so with either standard remote 

identification or with a remote 

identification broadcast module. 

Comments: One commenter stated the 

FAA should not have included the cost 

of obsolescence for UAS purchased in 

the first year of the rule implementation. 

The commenter also asserted that the 

FAA incorrectly applied an 80 percent 

retrofit rate in the calculation of 

obsolescence cost, inconsistent with the 

stated assumption of a 20 percent 

retrofit rate. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates 

the commenter’s observations regarding 

the cost of obsolescence. FAA has 

carefully reviewed the obsolescence 

section of the regulatory impact analysis 

and provides clarity to the commenter. 

On page 75 of the analysis, it is stated 

that 20 percent of the recreational fleet 

purchased during year 1 could be 

retrofit. Based on the assumption that 20 

percent of the recreational fleet 

purchased during year 1 could be 

retrofit, the FAA determined that the 

remaining 80 percent of the fleet could 

become obsolete prior to the end of its 

lifespan. 

To estimate the size of the fleet that 

would become obsolete, the FAA spread 

the estimated sales of recreational 

aircraft that could not be retrofit equally 

over a 12-month period during year 1. 

Based on the assumption that a small 

unmanned aircraft has a 3-year lifespan 

(36 months), those unmanned aircraft 

purchased during the earlier part of year 

1 would have less loss of use compared 

to those aircraft purchased near the end 

of year 1. For calculating obsolescence, 

sales of unmanned aircraft were 

presumed to occur on the first day of the 

month. Therefore, units sold in January 

of year 1 of the analysis period are fully 

depreciated by December of year 3, and 

thus there is no loss of useful life; units 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4483 

37Producers 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. 

38https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/ 

aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_

Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. Pages 41–63. 

sold in February of year 1 lose one 

month of useful life (which is January 

of year 4); units sold in March of year 

1 lose two months of useful life (which 

are January–February of year 4); units 

sold in April of year 1 lose three months 

of useful life (which are January–March 

of year 4); etc. This calculation is shown 

on Appendix G of the regulatory impact 

analysis. 

Comments: Commenters stated that 

many areas in which UAS operations 

take place, such as for aerial 

photography, inspections, or survey 

mapping, tend to be rural locations or 

coastlines where internet connection 

and cellular service does not exist. The 

requirement to transmit via internet 

would therefore create geographic 

limitations for many businesses. It 

would prevent operators from providing 

services in those areas without cellular 

service. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 

the complexities and nuances of a 

remote identification rule that requires 

network connectivity, including the 

geographic limitations it creates for 

many businesses. The proposed 

requirement to transmit via internet is 

not part of this rule at this time. Instead, 

this rule requires that small unmanned 

aircraft operating beyond the boundaries 

of an FAA-recognized identification 

area do so with either standard remote 

identification or with a remote 

identification broadcast module. 

Comments: Commenters provided 

alternative estimates of the number of 

Academy of Model Aeronautics 

members ranging from 180,000 to 

195,000 with 9 to 10 as the average 

number of aircraft owned by AMA 

members. Based on these estimates of 

membership and aircraft ownership, 

commenters develop an estimated cost 

of $8.1 million to $9.75 million 

associated with registration. Multiple 

commenters expressed concern with the 

burden associated with the registration 

process and fee for each owned aircraft. 

Many commenters opposed having to 

register each aircraft. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates 

information provided by AMA regarding 

the number of its members and the 

average number of aircraft owned by 

each member. The proposal to require 

recreational operators register each 

aircraft individually is not adopted. By 

maintaining the current framework, the 

intent of the statutory requirement for 

aircraft registration is achieved without 

being overly burdensome, particularly 

considering the mitigation of cost for 

those individuals specifically flying 

multiple aircraft exclusively in 

compliance with section 44809. The 

FAA therefore will retain the current 

part 48 registration framework. 

Corresponding updates are applied to 

part 48 to reflect the inclusion of the 

current statutory requirement for 

limited recreational operations and to 

incorporate information relevant to 

remote identification. Owners 

registering as exclusively compliant 

with section 44809 will be required to 

submit the aircraft manufacturer and 

model name. 

Comments: A commenter stated 

requiring one control station for each 

aircraft would increase costs 

substantially. Another commenter stated 

the cost of replacing a commercial fleet 

due to the lack of serial numbers would 

be cost-prohibitive for many small 

businesses. 

FAA Response: The FAA notes that 

the serial number requirement in 

§ 89.505 applies to standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft and 

remote identification broadcast modules 

produced after the effective date of this 

rule. This rule does not require 

designers and producers of remote 

identification unmanned aircraft to 

assign a serial number to any unmanned 

aircraft produced prior to the 

compliance date of the design and 

production requirements. The 

requirements also do not make the 

existing unmanned aircraft fleet 

obsolete because operators can continue 

to operate existing unmanned aircraft 

subject to the operating rules in subpart 

B of this rule.37 This rule does not 

require any person to assign an ANSI/ 

CTA–2063–A compliant serial number 

to any existing unmanned aircraft 

produced prior to the compliance date 

of the design and production 

requirements. In addition, the rule 

neither requires serial numbers to be 

assigned to control stations nor prevents 

operators from swapping out control 

stations. The serial number 

requirements are specific to the 

unmanned aircraft, not to the entire 

UAS. 

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 $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 

4484 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

39The 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. 

40The 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. 

41https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public_

records/uas_sightings_report/. 

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 noncompliant operations. The FAA does 

not place any requirements on local law 

enforcement; to the contrary, the 

purpose is to make a resource available 

so that they can use it in the discharge 

of their responsibilities. The FAA 

assumes that security and law 

enforcement entities would incur costs 

relative to the scope of their needs (e.g., 

scaled to national, regional and locality 

needs, based on the level of UAS 

operations). 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed concerns that the rule would 

adversely impact UAS manufactured in 

the United States, causing 

manufacturing to move offshore as the 

Western products and products in the 

United States become less competitive. 

One commenter gave examples of 

certain companies that supply radio 

systems that have abandoned their 

markets and cut back on their research 

and development because foreign 

companies have copied their 

technologies and undercut their 

manufacturing costs. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges that at the time of this 

rulemaking, foreign companies produce 

a majority of the unmanned aircraft 

already being operated in the United 

States. Accordingly, the FAA does not 

expect this rule to negatively impact 

United States designers and producers 

of remote identification unmanned 

aircraft at a greater rate than their 

foreign counterparts. 

Comments: A commenter asserted the 

FAA incorrectly neglects the value of 

lost UAS sales due to the cost of the 

rule. The commenter stated the FAA 

implicitly and incorrectly assumes that 

the UAS elasticity of demand is zero 

and that designers and producers of 

remote identification UAS will pass all 

costs to consumers, but that the quantity 

demanded will be unaffected. The 

commenter argued that the other 

possible assumption is that the 

manufacturer will absorb all costs, but 

the market is competitive so this will 

not happen. The commenter provided 

an estimate based on a survey that the 

demand for new UAS would decline by 

10.6 percent due to the increase in cost. 

The commenter further asserted that 

demand may decrease because of the 

loss of privacy from the requirement to 

disclose location and flight data to the 

government and the public. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates 

these comments, and recognizes that the 

final rule could change consumer 

behavior and result in reduced demand 

for unmanned aircraft. However, for 

purposes of the regulatory impact 

analysis, three scenarios were 

considered—a base scenario (which is 

the preliminary estimate), a low case 

scenario, and a high case scenario. The 

low case scenario is reflective of a 

reduced demand for unmanned aircraft. 

B. Comments on Benefits and Cost 

Savings 

Comments: Commenters did not agree 

that the cost of conducting 

investigations would decrease under the 

remote identification requirement. Some 

commenters suggested remote 

identification will increase the total cost 

of investigating UAS incidents. 

Commenters argued that by increasing 

the amount of available data from 

remote identification, there would be an 

increase in the number of incidents 

requiring investigations. Commenters 

also argued that there would be an 

increase in the cost of investigations due 

to potential non-compliance among 

amateur flyers or hobbyists. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 

the commenters concerns and notes that 

since Fiscal Year 2017, the number of 

UAS investigations conducted by the 

FAA has declined.39 The FAA 

continually conducts community 

outreach with the recreational and part 

107 communities regarding safe 

operation of UAS in the airspace of the 

United States. Similarly, part 107 

remote pilots must pass recurrent 

knowledge testing every 24 calendar 

months on topics related to operating 

safely and complying with 

regulations.40 The FAA believes that a 

vast majority of pilots in each of the 

communities are compliant with 

regulations and operate safely. 

For purposes of the regulatory impact 

analysis the FAA presents a range for 

estimating the FAA costs of UAS 

investigations using three scenarios 

based on UAS fleet size. The regulatory 

impact analysis also acknowledges 

security partners and law enforcement 

communities incur costs investigating 

UAS incidents, and discusses them 

qualitatively in the regulatory impact 

analysis for the final rule. 

Comments: Commenters asserted that 

because of the safety record of limited 

recreational aircraft and first-person 

view quadcopter operators, there are no 

incremental safety or security benefits 

from applying the remote identification 

requirements to recreational flyers. The 

rule would not necessarily prevent 

malicious actors from building their 

own unmanned aircraft without 

complying. 

FAA Response: FAA agrees with 

commenters that the final rule for the 

remote identification of unmanned 

aircraft would not prevent malicious 

actors from building their own 

unmanned aircraft that do not comply 

with the requirements of this rule. 

However, as discussed earlier in this 

preamble, an unmanned aircraft flying 

in violation of this rule would be a data 

point that law enforcement could use in 

deciding what action to take in response 

to that aircraft. In addition, broadcast 

remote identification does not rely on 

internet availability, and is a secure 

method which is less susceptible to 

widespread failure caused by malicious 

actors or systems outages. The FAA has 

determined that a requirement for 

unmanned aircraft to broadcast remote 

identification information will provide 

the FAA, law enforcement, the general 

public, and other parts of the aviation 

community with real-time information 

about unmanned aircraft operations in 

any area in which broadcast signals can 

be received. The broadcast will permit 

detection of unmanned aircraft and will 

permit law enforcement and the general 

public who receive those broadcasted 

message elements to have information 

about the aircraft location as well as 

information about the control station or 

takeoff location. 

Comments: Commenters asserted that 

the FAA should make the data on UAS 

incidents available to the public to 

assess the level of safety benefits. 

FAA Response: The FAA values the 

commenters concern. At this time, the 

FAA does not report on UAS 

investigations. The FAA does publish a 

quarterly UAS sightings report, however 

the FAA acknowledges that reported 

UAS sightings do not necessarily 

involve the violation of regulations or 

unsafe conditions.41

Comments: A commenter stated the 

FAA incorrectly includes benefits of 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4485 

42The 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. 

extended operations though the 

proposed rule does not enable flight at 

night, operations over people, or flights 

beyond visual line of sight. The 

commenter asserted that it is incorrect 

to include the benefits from future rules 

in the analysis. In addition, there is no 

evidence that remote identification is 

necessary to expand UAS operations. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges that the reader of the 

regulatory impact analysis may have the 

impression that the benefits of extended 

operations were included in its 

estimates of the proposed rule, however, 

they were not and it was not the FAA’s 

intent to mislead the reader. The FAA 

provided estimated cost savings due to 

a reduction in waiver processing for 

operations over people and night 

operations in Appendix C of its 

preliminary regulatory impact analysis 

(page 162), however these cost savings 

were not used for the proposed rule’s 

estimated net costs. 

C. Comments on Data and Assumptions 

Comments: Many commenters argued 

the FAA substantially underestimated 

the current UAS fleet size and UAS 

sales. Commenters did not agree with 

the assumptions regarding the average 

number of aircraft owned, suggesting 

that the FAA underestimated the 

number of affected aircraft. The AMA 

stated their members own on average of 

at least nine model aircraft and many 

AMA members own 100 to 200 aircraft. 

Recreational flyers of model aircraft 

frequently buy, sell, and trade aircraft. 

The requirement to register an aircraft 

every time ownership changes is 

impractical and costly. Some 

recreational flyers replace aircraft more 

frequently than the three-year lifespan 

assumed by the FAA. Some hobbyists 

frequently exchange and recombine 

aircraft components making it difficult 

to identify distinct aircraft. One 

commenter provided an average 

estimate of 15 UAS owned, based on a 

survey of members from the First-Person 

View Freedom Coalition. One 

commenter suggested it will take 15 

minutes to complete an aircraft 

registration because of the additional 

complexity of the proposed 

requirement. 

FAA Response: The FAA values the 

response on the average number of 

aircraft owned by recreational flyers. 

The FAA recognizes its fleet forecast for 

recreational unmanned aircraft is most 

likely underestimated, and is pursuing 

resources to assist with developing a 

forecast that accurately reflects the 

number of aircraft in the fleet. In the 

NPRM, the FAA explained that the lack 

of aircraft-specific data for unmanned 

aircraft registered under part 48 could 

inhibit the FAA and law enforcement 

agencies from correlating the remote 

identification data with data stored in 

the FAA’s Aircraft Registry. Thus, the 

Agency proposed to revise part 48 to 

require the individual registration of all 

small unmanned aircraft and the 

provision of additional aircraft-specific 

data. The FAA proposed that owners of 

small unmanned aircraft would have to 

complete the registration application by 

providing aircraft specific information 

in addition to basic contact information. 

After evaluating the comments and 

incorporating the new remote 

identification broadcast module option 

for part 89 compliance, the FAA 

determined it will maintain the current 

registration framework and will no 

longer revise part 48 to require the 

individual registration of all small 

unmanned aircraft. Owners intending to 

operate all their small unmanned 

aircraft exclusively in compliance with 

49 U.S.C. 44809 may maintain one 

registration for all unmanned aircraft 

meeting that description.42

Comments: A commenter suggested 

the regulatory impact analysis should 

include the cost of cell phones and data 

plans because not all recreational flyers 

own cell phones. Commenters also 

expressed concern that some flyers may 

incur costs of switching to data plans 

with better coverage. A commenter 

stated the FAA overestimated the 

percentage of UAS that are already 

connected to the internet, but did not 

provide an alternative estimate. Many 

commenters did not agree with the FAA 

assumption that most unmanned aircraft 

would only need a software upgrade to 

comply. Compliance would require the 

addition of hardware that would add 

weight and cost. In some cases, 

retrofitting aircraft to connect to the 

internet is not technically feasible, 

especially for small aircraft. The weight 

of additional equipment would 

adversely impact the performance of 

UAS, especially in speed, safety, 

endurance and races. A commenter 

stated that the regulatory evaluation 

omitted or underestimated the cost of 

service to retrofit the aircraft for 

connection to the internet. Commenters 

stated that the FAA’s assumption of 

monthly Remote ID USS subscription 

fee per aircraft based on LAANC fees 

underestimates the actual cost. The 

commenter suggested that the median 

monthly fee would be approximately 

$10 per month based on internet pet and 

car location and tracking services. A 

commenter did not agree with the 

FAA’s assumption that all LAANC 

providers will become Remote ID USS 

and stated the FAA did not provide data 

to support its estimate of the number of 

USS providers. Another commenter 

asserted that the FAA does not have 

sufficient resources to monitor the USS 

network and enforce the proposed 

requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates 

that comments received on the 

regulatory impact analysis for the rule. 

The NPRM proposed requiring both 

standard remote identification and 

limited remote identification UAS to 

transmit the remote identification 

message elements through an internet 

connection to a Remote ID USS. After 

careful consideration of public 

comments on the implementation 

challenges associated with this 

requirement, the FAA decided to 

eliminate this requirement. Without the 

requirement to transmit remote 

identification through the internet, 

limited remote identification UAS is no 

longer a viable concept. In its place, the 

FAA incorporates a modified regulatory 

framework under which persons can 

retrofit an unmanned aircraft with a 

remote identification broadcast module 

to satisfy the remote identification 

requirements of this rule. While the 

FAA recognizes that there are potential 

benefits associated with establishing a 

network of Remote ID USS, the FAA 

believes that, for the time being and 

given the types of unmanned aircraft 

operations that are currently allowed, 

the broadcast remote identification 

solution fulfills agency and law 

enforcement needs to maintain the 

safety and security of the airspace of the 

United States. 

In addition, FAA acknowledges that 

the weight of additional equipment to 

an unmanned aircraft adversely impacts 

its performance and discusses this cost 

of the rule qualitatively in the regulatory 

impact analysis for the final rule. 

Comments: Some recreational flyers 

did not agree with the assumption that 

all modelers belong to the AMA. 

Commenters also stated the FAA 

incorrectly assumed that most AMA 

members operate exclusively at flight 

sites and that only 10 percent of 

members will be displaced due to 

denials of FAA-recognized 

identification area requests. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates 

the comments on the composition of the 

recreational flyer population. The FAA 

is aware that not all recreational flyers 

belong to the AMA, and provides clarity 

on this point in the regulatory impact 

4486 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

43https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/ 

aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_

Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. Pages 41–63. 

analysis of the final rule. The regulatory 

impact analysis for the final rule 

acknowledges that AMA members do 

not operate exclusively at flight sights. 

The regulatory impact analysis will 

reflect that all recreational flyers 

belonging to a community-based 

organization will choose to purchase a 

remote identification broadcast module 

to equip their unmanned aircraft to be 

in compliance with the final rule when 

operating outside of the boundaries of 

an FAA-recognized identification area. 

Lastly, the FAA acknowledges 

comments which state that over 10 

percent of AMA members would be 

displaced from flight sites due to 

denials of FAA-recognized 

identification area requests. The FAA 

acknowledges that the public may have 

access to information or data that would 

enable the FAA to estimate costs with 

greater accuracy, and encourages the 

public to provide such information with 

supporting documentation. 

Comments: Commenters stated that 

the FAA underestimated the average 

lifespan of UAS, asserting that some 

aircraft have decades of useful life 

rather than an average of three years. 

Commenters requested that the data 

used to estimate the lifespan of UAS be 

available to the public for review. A 

commenter provided an estimated 

average lifespan of 6 years based on a 

survey of members in the First Person 

View Freedom Coalition. Other 

commenters contended that the average 

lifespan of recreational UAS is much 

lower than 3 years due to accidents. 

FAA Response: The FAA values the 

information provided by commenters 

touching on the lifespan assumption 

used for the regulatory impact analysis. 

The 3-year lifespan is not an assumption 

created specifically to analyze the costs 

and benefits of the remote identification 

rulemaking. Rather, the lifespan is one 

element used to forecast the unmanned 

aircraft fleet, which is available to the 

public in a document titled FAA 

Aerospace Forecast 2020–2040.43 The 

FAA continues to seek resources and 

information that inform unmanned 

aircraft lifespan assumptions. 

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 FAAapproved application to register preflight model and location to ‘‘check-out’’ 

airspace. Some commenters proposed a 

government buy-back program to 

compensate for the loss of use for 

aircraft that cannot comply through 

software upgrades or government 

subsidization. Many commenters 

suggested the FAA should compensate 

or reimburse UAS owners for aircraft 

rendered obsolete by the rule. One 

commenter suggested the use of network 

publishing utilizing a network 

connection to transmit remote 

identification as an alternative to 

broadcasting which would require 

equipment upgrades. The commenter 

noted that the proposed solution was 

recommended by the UAS Identification 

and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee in its final report. 

Commenters express concern that the 

compliance deadline of 1 year is too 

soon. The proposed compliance period 

would benefit designers and producers 

of remote identification UAS by 

increasing sales at the expense of UAS 

owners who have to purchase new 

equipment to comply. 

FAA Response: The FAA values the 

abundance of commenter suggestions 

for reducing the burden of the 

rulemaking on operators of unmanned 

aircraft, and will not adopt the network 

requirement as proposed for the time 

being. Instead, operators of unmanned 

aircraft can comply with the final rule 

in one of three ways, which include: (1) 

Operating standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft, or (2) 

attaching a remote identification 

broadcast module to an unmanned 

aircraft that is not able to otherwise 

broadcast, or (3) operating unmanned 

aircraft within the boundaries of an 

FAA-recognized identification area. 

The FAA decided to incorporate this 

concept after reviewing public 

comments and considering the 

significant concerns raised with respect 

to the remote identification UAS 

framework. The FAA determined a 

remote identification broadcast module 

facilitates compliance with this rule and 

meets the safety and security needs of 

the FAA, national security agencies, and 

law enforcement. The concept is 

broadcast based and does not require a 

person to connect to the internet to 

identify remotely, as the limited remote 

identification UAS proposal did. This 

shift allows unmanned aircraft with 

remote identification broadcast modules 

to operate in areas where the internet is 

unavailable. In addition, by making this 

a broadcast solution, the FAA has 

determined that the 400-foot range 

limitation included in the proposed 

requirements for limited remote 

identification UAS is no longer 

warranted and has removed the design 

constraint. 

E. Miscellaneous Comments 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed concern that the existing 4G 

and LTE cellular networks will be 

adversely affected by the potential 

increase in usage due to UAS 

surveillance and monitoring. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges the concern that existing 

4G and LTE cellular networks would be 

adversely affected by the potential 

increase in usage due to UAS 

surveillance and monitoring, and did 

not adopt the proposed requirement for 

network connectivity at this time. 

Comments: The Fourth Branch Project 

of the Mercatus Center at George Mason 

University suggested that the FAA had 

not established how much risk a UAS 

without remote identification poses to 

manned aircraft when operating in Class 

G airspace and away from airports and 

heliports, and noted that increased costs 

of network remote identification as well 

as dependence on Remote ID USS and 

internet connectivity is likely excessive 

considering that risk is likely very low. 

Many other comments also noted that 

given the safety record of UAS 

operators, the safety benefits would be 

minimal. Some also noted that the FAA 

did not produce data to support the 

claim of safety benefits. DJI also noted 

that some of the improvements in safety 

may have occurred even without the 

remote identification rule. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges the comments related to 

risk, and notes that this rule will play 

a critical role in threat discrimination by 

law enforcement and national security 

entities, similar to radar data for 

manned aircraft and license plates on 

road vehicles. Law enforcement officials 

have made clear that it can be very 

difficult to make a decision about the 

risk posed by a person manipulating the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4487 

44The 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. 

45OMB Circular A–4, Regulatory Analysis (2003), 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/ 

files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 

46FAA 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 

flight controls of the UAS with the 

limited information available from 

visually observing an unmanned 

aircraft. Remote identification 

information will enable better threat 

discrimination, an immediate and 

appropriate law enforcement response, 

and an effective follow-on investigation. 

This is because remote identification 

information can be correlated with 

unmanned aircraft registry information 

to inform law enforcement officers 

about the registered owner. This 

information, along with the real-time 

location of the UAS operator, provide 

critical input to a law enforcement 

officer’s decision on whether 

intervention is appropriate. In addition, 

a careless or clueless operator may be 

introducing unnecessary risk into the 

airspace of the United States without 

realizing it. Remote identification 

allows appropriate authorities to 

identify the operator for follow up or 

education on how to operate safely and 

in compliance with the FAA’s rules. 

XXI. Guidance Documents 

The FAA is promulgating several 

guidance documents to supplement the 

requirements in this rule. Copies of the 

guidance documents are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

The FAA is establishing an advisory 

circular on the means of compliance 

process for remote identification of 

unmanned aircraft systems. This 

advisory circular provides guidance on 

the means of compliance process 

described in part 89. This AC outlines 

the required information for submitting 

a means of compliance. 

The FAA is establishing an advisory 

circular on the declaration of 

compliance process for remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft 

systems. This advisory circular provides 

guidance on the declaration of 

compliance process described in part 

89. This AC outlines the required 

information for submitting a declaration 

of compliance. 

The FAA is revising AC 107–2, Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems, to describe 

the requirements of remote 

identification. The advisory circular 

also describes where the various small 

UAS are permitted to operate. 

The FAA is establishing a new 

advisory circular for FAA-recognized 

identification areas. This advisory 

circular provides guidance to persons 

requesting the establishment of an FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). The FAA has 

provided a detailed Regulatory Impact 

Analysis in the docket of this 

rulemaking. This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this rule: (1) Has 

benefits that justify its costs; (2) is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866; (3) is ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s general rulemaking 

procedures at 49 CFR 5.13(a)(1); (4) will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities; 

(4) will not create unnecessary obstacles 

to the foreign commerce of the United 

States; and (5) will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

1. Key Assumptions and Data Sources 

The analysis of the rule is based on 

findings from the Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Identification and Tracking 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAS– 

ID ARC), as well as data and 

information from the FAA and industry 

stakeholders. The analysis for the 

regulatory evaluation is based on the 

following assumptions and data sources. 

• The analysis uses 2020 constant 

dollars. Year 1 of the period of analysis, 

which would correlate with the effective 

date of the final rule, is used as the base 

year. 

• The FAA uses a 10-year time period 

of analysis to capture the effects of the 

compliance period and recurring effects 

of the rule.44

• 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 

4488 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

47https://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. 

48Based on analysis of the Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) 

Unmanned Systems & Robotics Database. 

49Based on analysis of the Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) 

Unmanned Systems & Robotics Database. 

50Time 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). 

51https://www.modelaircraft.org/club-finder. 

Accessed August 26, 2020. The FAA notes that a 

subset of AMA clubs has flying sites. 

52http://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-StatisticsUPDATED-15-July-2019.pdf. P. 18. Accessed 

August 26, 2020. 

53The 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. 

54The FAA received company proprietary 

information from potential U.S. manufacturers of a 

broadcast module that may meet remote 

identification requirements. One U.S. manufacturer 

estimated a cost of $50 for a self-contained module 

with its own power and GPS, with a decrease in 

cost as production volume increases. Another U.S. 

manufacturer stated an estimate would not be 

available until the rule’s final requirements were 

published. Commercially available modules that 

comply with French remote identification laws 

range from 40 euros (equivalent to $47.48 US 

dollars on 9/14/2020), and up. 

the primary estimate of net impacts of 

the rule to be the base scenario. 

• 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. 

• 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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 

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 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 FAArecognized 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4489 

requests to establish FAA-recognized 

identification areas; FAA approving 

means of compliance, declarations of 

compliance, and requests for designated 

flying fields, and developing 

information technology in support of 

the rule. The cost savings of this rule 

include relief provided to the FAA from 

avoided aviation safety inspector costs 

resulting from a reduction in hours 

expended on UAS investigations. 

The FAA bases the analysis of this 

rule on a fleet forecast for small 

unmanned aircraft that includes base, 

low, and high scenarios. Accordingly, 

this analysis provides a range of net 

impacts from low to high based on these 

forecast scenarios. The FAA considers 

the base scenario as the primary 

estimate of net impacts of this rule. For 

the primary estimate, over a 10 year 

period of analysis this rule will result in 

present value net costs of $227.1 million 

at a three percent discount rate, with 

annualized net costs of $26.6 million. At 

a seven percent discount rate, this rule 

will result in present value net costs of 

$186.5 million, with annualized net 

costs of $26.6 million. The following 

table summarizes the quantified costs 

and cost savings of this rule for the three 

forecast scenarios. 

TABLE 2—NET COSTS OF FINAL RULE ($MILLIONS) * 

[Base scenario—Primary estimate] 

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 

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. 

4490 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 FAArecognized identification area is 36.9 

percent of the rule’s total costs. 

The FAA expects this rule will also 

provide important unquantified savings 

and efficiencies from reduced 

operational costs. The ability to identify 

and locate UAS provides additional 

situational awareness to manned and 

unmanned aircraft and critical 

information to law enforcement and 

other government officials. This will 

become increasingly important as the 

number of UAS operations in all classes 

of airspace grow. The following table 

summarizes unquantified savings from 

the final rule. 

TABLE 6—UNQUANTIFIED SAVINGS

Savings Summary 

Reduced obsolescence of 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4491 

4. Alternatives Considered 

The FAA considered both higher and 

lower cost alternatives for the final rule. 

The alternatives and the FAA’s reasons 

for rejecting those alternatives are 

discussed below. 

i. Alternative Compliance Periods— 

Producers 

The chosen compliance period to 

estimate producer costs is 18 months 

beyond the effective date of the final 

rule. The FAA proposed a 2-year 

compliance date in the NPRM, and 

considered it for the final rule as well. 

The reduction in the producer 

compliance period by 6 months reflects 

that the final rule removes the network 

requirement which alleviates technical 

complexities for producers of 

unmanned aircraft. Though no FAAaccepted means of compliance is 

currently available for producers to 

build to, there is an ASTM Standard 

Specification for Remote ID and 

Tracking available. Accordingly, the 

FAA believes it is practical for this 

industry consensus standard to be 

modified and submitted for acceptance 

as a means of compliance 6 months after 

the effective date of the final rule, 

allowing an additional year for 

producers to design, build, and test 

unmanned aircraft that meet the 

standard. 

The final rule does not preclude 

earlier producer compliance, and there 

potentially could be economic incentive 

to comply earlier. 

ii. Alternative Operational Compliance 

Period 

The FAA considered allowing 3 years 

beyond the effective date of the final 

rule for owners and operators to comply 

with the remote identification 

requirements of this rule. However, the 

FAA determined that period of time was 

less preferable because it prolonged 

safety and security risks to air traffic 

and airports by delaying the ability of 

law enforcement personnel to identify 

unauthorized UAS operations. To 

reduce the delay in implementing 

remote identification, the owner/ 

operator compliance period was 

reduced from 3 years after the effective 

date of the final rule to 30 months after 

the effective date of the final rule. For 

UAS purchased prior to the final rule or 

after the final rule is published, a 

broadcast module could be purchased to 

continue operating the unmanned 

aircraft for the entirety of its lifespan. In 

addition, the adopted alternative is 

more likely to reduce uncertainty of 

adverse impacts to producers with 

inventories of UAS produced before the 

compliance date that would likely not 

meet the remote identification 

provisions of the proposal. 

iii. Requiring ADS–B Out 

The FAA could have required 

transponders or ADS–B Out for 

unmanned aircraft as a means to 

identify those aircraft remotely. The 

FAA is prohibiting the use of 

transponders or ADS–B Out for remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft 

operations, with limited exceptions, for 

two primary reasons. First, the FAA 

expects that, due to the volume of 

unmanned aircraft operations projected, 

the additional radio frequency signals 

would saturate the available spectrum 

and degrade the overall cooperative 

surveillance system. Second, 

transponders and ADS–B Out do not 

provide any information about the 

location of control stations or takeoff 

locations, as these systems were 

designed for manned aircraft. For these 

reasons, the FAA has determined that 

existing cooperative surveillance 

systems are incapable of supporting 

unmanned aircraft remote 

identification. In addition, there would 

be a higher cost to equip under this 

alternative compared to the rule. The 

cost to equip unmanned aircraft with 

transponders and ADS–B Out would be 

$3,999 per aircraft. 

iv. UAS Service Suppliers 

The final rule considered a network 

solution that would require Remote ID 

USS to come forward to offer remote 

identification services to individuals 

operating UAS in the airspace of the 

United States. Throughout its 

integration of UAS into the airspace of 

the United States, the FAA has taken a 

phased, incremental approach that 

fosters industry innovation while 

meeting the safety and security concerns 

presented by the operations. The FAA 

believes this should be the case with 

remote identification of unmanned 

aircraft as well and has carefully 

considered the intent of the remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft. 

Though the FAA continues to work 

toward full integration of UAS into the 

airspace of the United States, the FAA 

believes that the most appropriate step, 

at this time, is to establish a broadcast 

based remote identification system that 

provides for immediate awareness of 

unmanned aircraft in the widest variety 

of settings. The FAA is not adopting the 

requirement to transmit message 

elements through the internet to a 

Remote ID USS in this rule. The FAA 

believes broadcast alone is sufficient for 

the time being, given the types of 

unmanned aircraft operations that are 

currently allowed, to maintain the safety 

and security of the airspace of the 

United States. 

v. Require Network Connectivity and 

Broadcast Capability 

The FAA considered requiring 

network connectivity through a USS 

and a broadcast requirement for the 

final rule, but as adopted the rule 

contains only a broadcast requirement at 

this time. The FAA recognized concerns 

about an internet connectivity 

requirement including internet 

availability or connectivity issues, and 

increased costs for UAS upgrades, 

internet data plans, and Remote ID USS 

subscriptions. The FAA acknowledges 

that the ability to connect to the internet 

is dependent on a variety of factors 

including geographic coverage of 

cellular internet networks, wide-scale 

network disruptions, or natural 

disasters. 

The FAA notes that many current 

UAS are capable of broadcast but may 

have difficulty with the potential 

complexity and cost of integrating 

network capabilities to meet the 

standard remote identification 

requirements proposed in the NPRM. By 

shifting to the broadcast-only 

requirement, the dependency on an 

internet connection as the sole means of 

providing remote identification 

information is removed and allows the 

unmanned aircraft to operate in areas 

where the internet is unavailable. In 

addition, by incorporating a broadcast 

requirement, the FAA has determined 

that the 400-foot range limitation is no 

longer warranted and has removed this 

design constraint. 

vi. Requiring Separate Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration for Each Section 

44809 Unmanned Aircraft 

This rule retains the requirement for 

small unmanned aircraft owners to pay 

a $5 registration fee and a $5 renewal 

fee, but this final rule differs from the 

proposal which required a separate 

registration for each individual aircraft. 

As a result of the FAA’s decision to 

maintain the current registration 

framework, owners of aircraft operated 

exclusively in compliance with 49 

U.S.C. 44809 must only register once 

every 3 years for all aircraft meeting that 

description. Therefore, those owners 

would pay the $5 fee one time every 3 

years, and not a $5 fee for each aircraft 

registered. 

vii. Open FAA-Recognized 

Identification Areas to Entities Other 

Than CBOs 

The FAA considered allowing 

educational institutions and State and 

4492 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

local governments to request FAArecognized identification areas. The 

intent for allowing FAA-recognized 

identification areas is to minimize the 

regulatory burden for operators of 

existing unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively for educational purposes or 

by State and local government that do 

not have remote identification 

equipment, while still meeting the 

intent of the rule. 

By identifying a defined location 

where operations of unmanned aircraft 

without remote identification would be 

occurring, the FAA-recognized 

identification area itself becomes the 

form of identification. Though the FAA 

considers that FAA-recognized 

identification areas may not be 

necessary for the majority of unmanned 

aircraft operators under this rule with 

the addition of the remote identification 

broadcast module option, the FAA 

recognizes an ongoing need for some 

operators such as educational science, 

technology, engineering, and math 

programs to have an option for flying 

their unmanned aircraft without remote 

identification. To support science, 

technology, engineering, and math 

programs and encourage participation in 

aviation for educational purposes, this 

rule will expand eligibility to 

educational institutions including 

institutions of primary and secondary 

education, trade schools, colleges, and 

universities. As adopted, communitybased 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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas. 

The FAA also considered expanding 

eligibility for FAA-recognized 

identification areas to State and local 

governments. The FAA considers that 

expanding eligibility to CBOs and 

educational institutions at all levels is 

sufficient, and declines to expand 

eligibility to State and local 

governments. With the addition of the 

remote identification broadcast module 

option, the FAA considers there is now 

an available option for unmanned 

aircraft operators to retrofit their 

unmanned aircraft produced prior to the 

production compliance date. Expanding 

eligibility to State and local 

governments could expand the scope of 

FAA-recognized identification areas to 

an extent that would undermine the 

effectiveness of remote identification. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the Agency determines that it will, 

section 604 of the Act requires agencies 

to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis describing the impact of final 

rules on small entities. 

The FAA has determined this rule 

will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Therefore, under the 

requirements in section 604 of the RFA, 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

must address: 

• A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

• A statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement of the 

assessment of the Agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

• The response of the Agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

• A description of and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities that will be subject to the 

requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the 

report or record; and 

• A description of the steps the 

Agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the Agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

1. A Statement of the Need for, and 

Objectives of, the Rule 

The remote identification of 

unmanned aircraft is necessary to 

ensure public safety and the safety and 

efficiency of the airspace of the United 

States. The remote identification 

framework provides unmanned aircraftspecific data, which could be used in 

tandem with new technologies and 

infrastructure to facilitate advanced 

operational capabilities (such as detectand-avoid and aircraft-to-aircraft 

communications that support beyond 

visual line of sight operations). Remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft will 

allow the FAA, national security 

agencies, and law enforcement entities, 

to discern compliant airspace users from 

those potentially posing a safety or 

security risk. 

Current rules for registration and 

marking of unmanned aircraft facilitate 

the identification of the owners of 

unmanned aircraft, but normally only 

upon physical examination of the 

aircraft. Existing electronic surveillance 

technologies, like transponders and 

ADS–B, were considered as potential 

solutions for the remote identification of 

unmanned aircraft but were determined 

to be unsuitable due to the lack of 

infrastructure for these technologies at 

lower altitudes and potential saturation 

of available radio frequency spectrum. 

Currently, the lack of real-time data 

regarding unmanned aircraft operations 

affects the ability of the FAA to oversee 

the safety and security of the airspace of 

the United States, creates challenges for 

national security agencies and law 

enforcement entities in identifying 

threats, and impedes the further 

integration of UAS into the airspace of 

the United States. The FAA addresses 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4493 

55Consult http://www.faa.gov/uas for additional 

information regarding UAS operations. 

56 81 FR 42064. 

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 realtime access to remote identification 

information will also assist Federal 

security partners in threat 

discrimination—allowing them to 

identify an operator and make an 

informed decision regarding the need to 

take actions to mitigate a perceived 

security or safety risk. The final rule 

enhances the FAA’s ability to monitor 

compliance with applicable regulations; 

contributes to the FAA’s ability to 

undertake compliance, enforcement, 

and educational actions required to 

mitigate safety risks; and incrementally 

advances the safe and secure integration 

of UAS into the airspace of the United 

States. 

Statement of the legal basis. The FAA 

promulgates this rulemaking pursuant 

to various authorities. First, under 49 

U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and (2), the FAA is 

directed to issue regulations: (1) To 

ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace; and (2) to 

govern the flight of aircraft for purposes 

of navigating, protecting and identifying 

aircraft, and protecting individuals and 

property on the ground. 

Second, under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), 

the FAA must promote safe flight of 

civil aircraft by prescribing regulations 

the FAA finds necessary for safety in air 

commerce and national security. 

Third, under section 2202 of Public 

Law 114–190, the Administrator must 

convene industry stakeholders to 

facilitate the development of consensus 

standards for remotely identifying 

operators and owners of UAS and 

associated unmanned aircraft and to 

issue regulations or guidance based on 

any standards developed. 

Fourth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805, the 

Administrator must establish a process 

for, among other things, accepting riskbased consensus safety standards 

related to the design and production of 

small UAS. 

Fifth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805(b)(7), the 

Administrator must take into account 

any consensus identification standard 

regarding remote identification of 

unmanned aircraft developed pursuant 

to section 2202 of Public Law 114–190. 

Sixth, under 49 U.S.C. 44809(f), the 

Administrator is not prohibited from 

promulgating rules generally applicable 

to unmanned aircraft, including those 

unmanned aircraft eligible for the 

exception for limited recreational 

operations of UAS. Among other things, 

this authority extends to rules relating 

to the registration and marking of 

unmanned aircraft and the standards for 

remotely identifying owners and 

operators of UAS and associated 

unmanned aircraft. 

Seventh, the FAA has authority to 

regulate registration of aircraft under 49 

U.S.C. 44101–44106 and 44110–44113, 

which require aircraft to be registered as 

a condition of operation and establish 

registration requirements and 

registration processes. 

Lastly, this rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which 

establishes the authority of the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

and rules, and 49 U.S.C. 40101(d), 

which authorizes the FAA to consider 

in the public interest, among other 

things, the enhancement of safety and 

security as the highest priorities in air 

commerce, the regulation of civil and 

military operations in the interest of 

safety and efficiency, and assistance to 

law enforcement agencies in the 

enforcement of laws related to 

regulation of controlled substances, to 

the extent consistent with aviation 

safety. 

Objectives for the final rule. The FAA 

is integrating UAS operations into the 

airspace of the United States through a 

phased, incremental, and risk-based 

approach.55 On June 28, 2016, the FAA 

achieved a major step towards UAS 

integration when it issued the final rule 

for Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems.56 This was 

one of multiple UAS-related regulatory 

actions taken by the FAA to enable the 

safe integration of UAS into the airspace 

of the United States. As technology 

progresses and the utility of UAS 

increases, the FAA anticipates a need 

for further rulemaking to continue to 

foster the safe, secure, and efficient use 

of the airspace of the United States. The 

FAA believes that the next step in the 

regulatory process involves the 

enactment of regulatory requirements to 

enable the remote identification of UAS 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. 

This action would implement 

requirements for the remote 

identification of UAS. The remote 

identification of UAS in the airspace of 

the United States would address safety, 

security, and law enforcement concerns 

regarding the further integration of these 

aircraft into the airspace. 

2. A Statement of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result 

of Such Comments 

FAA is not aware of any comments 

specific to the regulatory flexibility 

analysis; however, many commenters 

stated that small businesses would be 

adversely affected. Commenters that 

stated that compliance with the remote 

identification requirements as proposed 

would be too costly for many 

recreational operators and businesses, 

many of which are small. The 

commenters suggested that many 

recreational operators and owners, 

especially those involved in flying and 

building remote controlled aircraft, 

would cease pursuing the hobby or 

business, because of the cost to either 

upgrade or replace existing aircraft to 

meet the proposed standard and the cost 

to subscribe to internet service. 

Commenters suggested that there does 

not exist an off-the-shelf solution, such 

as software upgrades, to retrofit most 

recreational aircraft. 

The FAA has attempted to alleviate 

complexity and costs of compliance for 

all operators of unmanned aircraft by 

removing the network requirement from 

the final rule and allowing remote 

identification using a stand-alone 

broadcast module at this time. The 

concept allows unmanned aircraft built 

without remote identification (e.g., 

existing unmanned aircraft fleet, homebuilt unmanned aircraft) to be operated 

outside of FAA-recognized 

identification areas because the 

broadcast modules enable the 

unmanned aircraft to broadcast the 

remote identification message elements 

required by this rule. 

The FAA decided to incorporate this 

new concept into this rule after 

reviewing public comments and 

considering the significant concerns 

raised with respect to the remote 

identification UAS framework. The FAA 

determined a remote identification 

broadcast module facilitates compliance 

with this rule and meets the safety and 

security needs under this rule of the 

4494 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

57AUVSI Air Platform Database. Accessed July 

2020. 

58This 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. 

60Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), http:// 

www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/whatisama.aspx; 

more than 2,500 AMA clubs. 

61http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/ 

2020/02/AMA-Letter-to-Sec-Chao-on-Remote-IDHobbyist-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. 

FAA, national security agencies, and 

law enforcement. The concept is 

broadcast-based and does not require a 

person to connect to the internet to 

identify remotely, as the limited remote 

identification UAS proposal did. This 

shift allows unmanned aircraft 

equipped with remote identification 

broadcast modules to operate in areas 

where the internet is unavailable. In 

addition, by making this a broadcast 

solution, the FAA has determined that 

the 400-foot range limitation included 

in the proposed requirements for 

limited remote identification UAS is no 

longer warranted and has removed the 

design constraint. 

3. The Response of the Agency to Any 

Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in Response to the 

Proposed Rule, and a Detailed 

Statement of Any Change Made to the 

Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a 

Result of the Comments 

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the Small Business did not submit 

comments to the proposed rule. 

4. A Description of and an Estimate of 

the Number of Small Entities to Which 

the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation 

of Why No Such Estimate is Available 

The rule could apply to three 

communities of small entities: 

Producers of unmanned aircraft, entities 

that either own or operate UAS, and 

community-based organizations. 

For purposes of this rulemaking, the 

FAA estimates that there are 

approximately 188 United States 

entities that produce small unmanned 

aircraft.57 Out of these 188 United States 

entities, data on entity size, as defined 

by number of employees, was available 

for 157 of the entities. Out of these 157, 

132 are categorized as small, 11 are 

categorized as medium, and 12 are 

categorized as large.58 Data for the 

remaining entities was not available and 

thus the categorization by entity size 

could not be determined, however a 

majority of these entities are believed to 

be small. NAICS code 336411 is titled 

‘‘Miscellaneous Aircraft 

Manufacturing,’’ and includes the 

manufacture of unmanned and robotic 

aircraft. The SBA defines industries 

within this code to be small if they 

employ 1,500 employees or less. 

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 FAArecognized identification area, these 

organizations would be required to 

submit a request to the FAA. Based on 

an AMA (Academy of Model 

Aeronautics) membership of 180,000,61

it is estimated that each flying club has, 

on average, 82 members.62 For NAICS 

code 713990 ‘‘All Other Amusement 

and Recreation Activities’’ the SBA 

standard for small entity size is less 

than $7.5 million in annual receipts. 

Financial records for these individual 

community-based organizations are not 

public information, but it is believed 

that none have receipts totaling $7.5 

million, and thus each is considered a 

small entity. 

The FAA determines that a majority 

of entities impacted by this proposed 

rule are small. Therefore, the FAA 

determines this proposed rule would 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

5. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Classes of 

Small Entities That Will Be Subject to 

the Requirement and the Type of 

Professional Skills Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

This rule imposes recordkeeping 

requirements. The FAA proposed 

changes to the registration requirements 

for all unmanned aircraft, including 

small unmanned aircraft, in the NPRM. 

While the FAA is not finalizing all of 

the registration changes proposed, this 

final rule finalizes certain requirements 

for all persons registering unmanned 

aircraft. As of the effective date of this 

final rule, an applicant requesting 

registration of an unmanned aircraft is 

required to submit the following 

information: The applicant’s name, 

physical address, email address, and 

telephone number(s); the aircraft 

manufacturer and model name; the 

serial number of the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft or the 

serial number of the remote 

identification broadcast module; and 

other information as required by the 

Administrator. 

Next, the FAA requires persons who 

develop standards that the FAA may 

accept as a means of compliance to 

submit those standards for review and 

acceptance by the FAA. A person who 

submits a means of compliance is 

required to retain the data for as long as 

the means of compliance is accepted, 

plus an additional 24 calendar months. 

The FAA is requiring persons who 

produce unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification to meet the minimum 

performance requirements of the rule 

using an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. To demonstrate the 

unmanned aircraft has been produced to 

meet the minimum performance 

requirements using an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance, persons 

responsible for the production of 

unmanned aircraft would be required to 

submit to the FAA a declaration of 

compliance. A person who submits a 

declaration of compliance is required to 

retain the data submitted for 24 calendar 

months after the cessation of production 

of the unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification. 

The rule requires a producer to label 

the unmanned aircraft to show that it 

was produced with remote 

identification technology capable of 

meeting the rule. The labeling 

requirement would inform the operator 

that the unmanned aircraft is eligible to 

conduct operations within the airspace 

of the United States. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4495 

Standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and unmanned 

aircraft equipped with a remote 

identification broadcast module must be 

designed and produced to broadcast 

certain message elements using 

unlicensed radio frequency spectrum. 

The disclosure of this information in the 

form of message elements is necessary 

to comply with the statutory 

requirement to develop standards for 

remotely identifying operators and 

owners of UAS and associated 

unmanned aircraft. Remote 

identification of unmanned aircraft 

would provide airspace awareness to 

the FAA, national security agencies, law 

enforcement entities, and other 

government officials which could be 

used to distinguish compliant airspace 

users from those potentially posing a 

safety or security risk. 

Authorized representatives of CBOs 

and educational institutions may 

request the establishment of an FAArecognized identification area by 

submitting an application in a form and 

manner acceptable to the Administrator. 

The application will collect certain 

information regarding the location and 

requirements of the flying site, and 

require the CBO representative to 

confirm certain information regarding 

the site. 

6. A Description of the Steps the Agency 

Has Taken To Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes, Including a 

Statement of the Factual, Policy, and 

Legal Reasons for Selecting the 

Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule 

and Why Each One of the Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Considered by the Agency Which Affect 

the Impact on Small Entities Was 

Rejected 

The FAA considered both higher and 

lower cost alternatives as part of the 

proposed rule because the RFA requires 

the Agency to consider significant 

regulatory alternatives that meet the 

Agency’s statutory objectives and 

minimize the costs to small entities. The 

FAA rejected the costlier alternatives 

due to policy considerations and the 

undue burden imposed on small 

unmanned aircraft operators. The less 

costly alternatives and the FAA’s 

reasons for either rejecting those 

alternatives, or adopting them for the 

final rule, are discussed below. 

i. Alternative Compliance Periods— 

Producers 

The chosen compliance period to 

estimate producer costs is 18 months 

beyond the effective date of the final 

rule. The FAA proposed a 2-year 

compliance date in the NPRM, and 

considered it for the final rule as well. 

The reduction in the producer 

compliance period by 6 months reflects 

that the final rule removes the network 

requirement for the time being, which 

alleviates technical complexities for 

producers of unmanned aircraft. Though 

no FAA-accepted means of compliance 

is currently available for producers to 

build to, there is an ASTM Standard 

Specification for remote identification 

and tracking available. Accordingly, the 

FAA believes it is practical for this 

industry consensus standard to be 

modified and submitted for acceptance 

as a means of compliance 6 months after 

the effective date of the final rule, 

allowing an additional year for 

producers to design, build, and test 

unmanned aircraft that meet the 

standard. 

The FAA has not identified or 

analyzed an alternative based on the 

final rule’s requirements. The rule does 

not preclude earlier producer 

compliance, and there potentially could 

be economic incentive to comply 

earlier. 

ii. Alternative Operational Compliance 

Periods 

The FAA considered allowing 3 years 

beyond the effective date of the final 

rule for owners and operators to comply 

with the remote identification 

requirements of this rule. However, the 

FAA determined that period of time was 

less preferable because it prolonged 

safety and security risks to air traffic 

and airports by delaying the ability of 

law enforcement personnel to identify 

unauthorized UAS operations. To 

reduce the delay in implementing 

remote identification, the owner/ 

operator compliance period was 

reduced from 3 years after the effective 

date of the final rule to 30 months after 

the effective date of the final rule. For 

UAS purchased prior to the final rule or 

after the final rule is published, a standalone broadcast module could be 

purchased to continue operating the 

unmanned aircraft for its natural 

lifespan. Permitting stand-alone 

broadcast modules is a simple and 

minimally burdensome solution that 

lowers the cost for existing 

manufactured and amateur-built 

unmanned aircraft to meet the remote 

identification requirements via 

broadcast. In addition, this alternative is 

likely to reduce uncertainty of adverse 

impacts to producers with inventories of 

unmanned aircraft produced before the 

compliance date that would likely not 

meet the remote identification 

provisions of the proposal. 

iii. Require Network Connectivity and 

Broadcast Capability 

The FAA considered requiring 

network connectivity through a USS in 

addition to the broadcast requirement 

that the final rule adopts. However, the 

FAA recognized concerns about an 

internet connectivity requirement 

including internet availability or 

connectivity issues; increased costs for 

unmanned aircraft upgrades, internet 

data plans, and Remote ID USS 

subscriptions; and reduced air and 

ground risk when operating in remote 

areas with less air traffic and lower 

population density. The FAA 

acknowledges that the ability to connect 

to the internet is dependent on a variety 

of factors including geographic coverage 

of cellular internet networks, wide-scale 

network disruptions, or natural 

disasters. 

There are some remote areas where an 

operator cannot connect to the internet, 

such as locations where cellular or other 

internet signals are not available or 

sufficient to establish and maintain a 

connection to a Remote ID USS. While 

loss of the broadcast capability is an 

indication of a remote identification 

equipment failure, loss of connectivity 

to the internet or a Remote ID USS 

could be attributed to a lack of internet 

availability that is outside the control of 

the UAS operator. A functioning 

broadcast capability is necessary for 

remote identification information to be 

available in areas that do not have 

internet availability. Therefore, the 

proposed regulations have been updated 

to reflect that the required remote 

identification message elements must be 

broadcast from the unmanned aircraft, 

with no internet connectivity or Remote 

ID USS transmission requirements. 

The FAA notes that many current 

unmanned aircraft are capable of 

broadcasting information but may have 

difficulty with the potential complexity 

and cost of integrating network 

capabilities to meet proposed standard 

remote identification requirements. By 

incorporating the broadcast-only 

requirement, the dependency on an 

internet connection as the sole means of 

providing remote identification 

information is removed, and allows the 

unmanned aircraft to operate in areas 

where the internet is unavailable. In 

addition, by incorporating a broadcast 

requirement, the FAA has determined 

that the 400-foot range limitation is no 

longer warranted and has removed this 

design constraint. The previously 

proposed limited remote identification 

UAS concept is being replaced with the 

remote identification broadcast module 

to provide a simpler, cost-effective 

4496 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

method for existing and amateur-built 

unmanned aircraft to meet the remote 

identification requirements. 

iv. Requiring Separate Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration for Each Section 

44809 Unmanned Aircraft 

This rule retains the requirement for 

small unmanned aircraft owners to pay 

a $5 registration fee and a $5 renewal 

fee, though this rule differs from the 

proposal in the NPRM to require a 

separate registration for each individual 

aircraft. As a result of the FAA’s 

decision to maintain the current 

registration framework, owners of 

aircraft operated exclusively in 

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must 

only register once for all aircraft meeting 

that description. Therefore, those 

owners would pay the $5 fee one time 

every 3 years, and not a $5 fee for each 

aircraft registered. 

v. Open FAA-Recognized Identification 

Areas to Entities Other Than CBOs 

The FAA considered allowing 

educational institutions and State and 

local governments to request FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification areas. The 

FAA believes that extending the ability 

to request establishment of FAArecognized identification areas to 

educational institutions will provide 

more convenient locations for those 

operations and reduce costs associated 

with travel time to FAA-recognized 

identification areas. 

The FAA also considered expanding 

eligibility for FAA-recognized 

identification areas to State and local 

governments. The FAA considers that 

expanding eligibility to CBOs and 

educational institutions at all levels is 

sufficient, and declines to expand 

eligibility to State and local 

governments. With the addition of the 

remote identification broadcast module 

option, the FAA considers there is now 

an available option for operators to 

retrofit their unmanned aircraft 

produced prior to the production 

compliance date. Expanding eligibility 

to State and local governments could 

expand the scope of FAA-recognized 

identification areas to an extent that 

would undermine the effectiveness of 

remote identification. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

United States standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this rule and determined that 

it ensures the safety of the American 

public and does not exclude imports 

that meet this objective. As a result, the 

FAA does not consider this final rule as 

creating an unnecessary obstacle to 

foreign commerce. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any 1 year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of about 

$155 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA sought public comments on all of 

the information collections being 

established or revised in this rule. The 

FAA did not receive any comments 

specific to the information collectionrelated aspects of the proposed rule. The 

FAA is implementing these collections 

based on the requirements of this rule 

as published in the NPRM. 

Five new information collections are 

established as part of this rule. 

1. New Information Collection: 2120– 

0785: Additional Elements for Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Registration System 

This rule finalizes several changes to 

the registration requirements for small 

unmanned aircraft registering under 

part 48. Specifically, the FAA is 

establishing a new information 

collection to add the following 

information to the list of information 

collected upon registration or 

registration renewal of small unmanned 

aircraft under information collection 

2120–0765, Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Registration System: 

(1) Applicant’s telephone number(s) 

and, for an applicant other than an 

individual, the telephone number(s) of 

the authorized representative. 

(2) For any standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft, the 

serial number issued by the 

manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft 

in accordance with the design and 

production requirements of part 89. The 

serial number provided in this 

application must not be listed on more 

than one Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration at the same time. 

(3) For any unmanned aircraft 

equipped with a remote identification 

broadcast module, the serial number 

issued by the manufacturer of the 

remote identification broadcast module 

in accordance with the design and 

production requirements of part 89. An 

applicant may submit the serial number 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4497 

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 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 ForeignRegistered Civil Unmanned Aircraft 

Operating in the Airspace of the United 

States 

The FAA is extending the operational 

requirements of part 89 to persons 

operating foreign civil unmanned 

aircraft in the United States. These 

persons must comply with the remote 

identification requirements, which 

means that these persons are required to 

operate foreign civil unmanned aircraft 

that qualify as standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft, 

unmanned aircraft equipped with a 

remote identification broadcast module, 

or that have no remote identification 

equipment, but are operated within an 

FAA-recognized identification area. 

The FAA will allow a person to 

operate foreign-registered civil 

unmanned aircraft in the United States 

only if the person submits a notice of 

identification to the Administrator. The 

notice is required to have the following 

information to allow FAA to associate 

an unmanned aircraft to a responsible 

person: 

(1) The name of the person operating 

the foreign registered civil unmanned 

aircraft in the United States, and, if 

applicable, the person’s authorized 

representative. 

(2) The physical address of the person 

operating the foreign registered civil 

unmanned aircraft in the United States, 

and, if applicable, the physical address 

for the person’s authorized 

representative. If the operator or 

authorized representative does not 

receive mail at the physical address, a 

mailing address must also be provided. 

(3) The telephone number(s) where 

the person operating the foreign 

registered civil unmanned aircraft in the 

United States, and, if applicable, the 

person’s authorized representative can 

be reached while in the United States. 

(4) The email address of the person 

operating the foreign registered civil 

unmanned aircraft in the United States, 

and, if applicable, the email address of 

the person’s authorized representative. 

(5) The unmanned aircraft 

manufacturer and model name. 

(6) The serial number of the 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast module. 

(7) The country of registration of the 

unmanned aircraft. 

(8) The registration number. 

Once a person submits a notice of 

identification, the FAA will issue a 

confirmation of identification. A person 

operating a foreign-registered civil 

unmanned aircraft in the United States 

will have to maintain the confirmation 

of identification at the unmanned 

aircraft’ control station, and will have to 

produce it when requested by the FAA 

or a law enforcement officer. The holder 

of a confirmation of identification will 

have to ensure that the information 

provided remains accurate and is 

current prior to operating a foreignregistered civil unmanned aircraft in the 

United States. 

Use: The FAA uses information 

provided by operators of foreignregistered 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. 

4498 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

63https://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. 

64The hourly wage earned by part 107 operators 

is estimated to be $33.33 per hour. The fullyburdened 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. 

TABLE 8—NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION—Continued 

[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

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 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 Hours per 

page Total hours 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 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 FAAaccepted 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: 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ Will perform independent audits 

on a recurring basis, and whenever the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4499 

66As 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. 

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. 

Æ 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. 

• 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: 

Æ Can demonstrate that the broadcast 

module was designed and produced to 

meet the minimum performance 

requirements of remote identification 

broadcast modules by using an FAAaccepted means of compliance. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 

1 ............................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

2 ............................................................... 1,346.1 50 1 67,305 $83.79 $5.64 

3 ............................................................... 18.9 50 1 945 83.79 0.08 

Total .................................................. 1,365 ........................ ........................ 68,250 83.79 5.72 

Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding. 

iii. Labeling 

For standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft and remote 

identification broadcast modules, the 

rule requires the person responsible for 

production of the unmanned aircraft or 

broadcast module to label the 

unmanned aircraft or broadcast module 

to show that it was produced with 

remote identification technology that 

meets the requirements of the rule. The 

label would be in English and be legible, 

prominent, and permanently affixed to 

the unmanned aircraft or broadcast 

module. The proposed labeling 

4500 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

67See 49 U.S.C. 44809. 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4501 

(9) any other information required by 

the Administrator. 

Use: Applications permit communitybased 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 Hours 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 

Total ...................... 4,016 ........................ 16,064 ........................ 8,032 ........................ 0.47 

Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with United States 

obligations under the Convention on 

International Civil Aviation, it is FAA 

policy to conform to International Civil 

Aviation Organization Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the existing ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has determined that no Standards 

and Recommended Practices correspond 

to these regulations. The FAA regularly 

reaches out to its international partners 

on a bilateral and multilateral basis to 

harmonize regulations to the maximum 

extent possible. The FAA’s international 

outreach efforts include the following: 

• Discussions with the Switzerland 

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) 

regarding plans for use of remote 

identification to facilitate U-Space 

operations and plans to allow multiple 

UAS Service Suppliers to provide a 

range of services, similar in concept to 

current and future FAA USS plans. 

• Collaboration with the European 

Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

on the EASA U-Space Regulatory 

Framework. 

• Cooperation in the Joint Authorities 

for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems 

(JARUS) on UTM/U-Space and other 

regulatory recommendations under 

development. 

• Collaboration with the Transport 

Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) Remotely 

Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) Task 

Force on policy, rulemaking, regulatory, 

and research and development topics 

related to UAS and beyond visual line 

of sight operations. 

• The FAA hosted a workshop on 

Sharing Best Practices for Managing 

UAS with the Association of Southeast 

Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member States 

in Singapore. 

• Meetings with the Australia Civil 

Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to 

share best practices and lessons learned 

on UAS integration. 

• Shared the remote identification 

NPRM announcement with FAA 

international Regional Directors, and 

also shared the NPRM directly with 35 

civil aviation authorities, air navigation 

service providers, trade associations and 

embassies. 

• The FAA met with Transport 

Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), briefed 

them on the remote identification 

NPRM, and learned of TCCA plans to 

issue proposed BVLOS rulemaking with 

potential remote identification content 

by the end of 2020. 

• The FAA Associate Administrator 

for Aviation Safety gave a speech on the 

remote identification NPRM at the 

Singapore Airshow. 

• The FAA met with United Kingdom 

National Air Traffic Services 

organization to discuss UTM, including 

the status of the remote identification 

rulemaking and comments received to 

date. 

• The FAA Administrator met with 

the French Minister of Transportation in 

discussions that included the remote 

identification NPRM. 

• The FAA met with EASA to discuss 

comments received and the status of the 

respective U-Space rulemaking by 

EASA and remote identification 

rulemaking of the FAA, and learned that 

EASA had received approximately 2,600 

comments on their U-Space Opinion 

compared to the 53,000 comments 

received on the remote identification 

NPRM. 

• The FAA held webinars with 52 

countries, and representatives from the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) and the Latin 

American Civil Aviation Commission 

(LACAC), ICAO Regional Offices, and 

the Africa Civil Aviation Commission 

(AFCAC) to discuss the FAA UTM 

Concept of Operations, including its 

relationship to remote identification 

transmissions, answering questions on 

the status of remote identification 

rulemaking. 

In addition, the FAA has assessed the 

European Commission regulations for 

UAS remote identification and 

compared them to the requirements in 

this final rule. Similar to the proposed 

European Commission regulations, the 

FAA adopts a broadcast-only 

requirement for remote identification 

information. Other similarities include 

that the European regulation and the 

FAA’s rule both include the position of 

the unmanned aircraft and the control 

station as remote identification message 

elements. One difference is the 

proposed European regulation requires 

the broadcast of both the unmanned 

aircraft registration number and the 

serial number, whereas the FAA’s rule 

uses the unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast module serial 

number or a session ID as the unique 

identifier in the remote identification 

message set. Other differences include 

that the European regulation requires 

message elements for the route course 

and speed of the unmanned aircraft, 

while the FAA’s rule only includes 

velocity of the unmanned aircraft, and 

the FAA rule includes remote 

identification message elements for 

emergency status and a time mark, but 

the European regulation does not. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA determined that the 

categorical exclusion in FAA Order 

1050.1F, paragraph 5–6.6.f. applies to 

this action. The FAA has determined 

that none of the extraordinary 

circumstances in FAA Order 1050.1F, 

paragraph 5–2 exist. 

This rulemaking action provides a 

framework and establishes requirements 

for the remote identification of all UAS 

operating in the airspace of the United 

States. It will not alone enable routine 

expanded operations, affect the 

frequency of UAS operations in the 

4502 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

68 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

69FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), 

available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/ 

media/1210.pdf. 

70 81 FR 42064, 42189. 

71Federal Aviation Administration, UAS 

Integration Pilot Program (May 7, 2018), available 

at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/ 

uas_integration_pilot_program/. 

airspace of the United States, or 

authorize additional UAS operations. 

Nor does the rule by itself open up new 

areas of airspace to UAS. 

Subpart C provides the requirements 

for an applicant to request the 

establishment of an FAA-recognized 

identification area. At the time that FAA 

establishes any such area, the FAA will 

conduct any necessary environmental 

reviews. 

For these reasons, the FAA has 

reviewed the implementation of the 

rulemaking action and determined it is 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental review. Possible 

extraordinary circumstances that would 

preclude the use of a categorical 

exclusion have been examined and the 

FAA has determined that no such 

circumstances exist. After careful and 

thorough consideration of the 

rulemaking action, the FAA finds that it 

does not require preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations, and FAA Order 

1050.1F. 

XXIII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency 

has determined that this action would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,68 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,69 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to have substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes; or to 

affect uniquely or significantly their 

respective Tribes. 

One tribe, the Choctaw Nation, 

provided comments on the proposed 

rule. See Comment ID FAA–2019–1100– 

34477. In these comments, the Choctaw 

Nation expressed that remote 

identification would help expand 

unmanned aircraft operations and build 

confidence in local communities. It also 

requested that FAA be mindful of issues 

facing rural communities in 

development of the final rule, including 

the potential for unique broadband and 

communication issues. 

At this point, the FAA has not 

identified any substantial direct effects 

or any unique or significant effects on 

tribes resulting from this rule. 

The FAA continues to develop its 

involvement with tribes within the 

broader UAS integration effort.70 In 

particular, the FAA has partnered with 

the Choctaw Nation in a pilot program 

under which State, local, and tribal 

governments test and evaluate the 

integration of civil and public UAS 

operations into the low-altitude airspace 

of the United States to promote the safe 

operation of UAS and enable the 

development of UAS technologies and 

their use in agriculture, commerce, 

emergency management, human 

transportation, and other sectors.71

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-togovernment consultation with tribes as 

appropriate, in accordance with 

Executive Orders and FAA guidance. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

Agency has determined that it would 

not be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ 

under the executive order and would 

not be likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. 

For significant regulations that the 

Agency identifies as having significant 

international impacts, the FAA has to 

consider, to the extent feasible, 

appropriate, and consistent with law, 

any regulatory approaches by a foreign 

government that the United States has 

agreed to consider under a regulatory 

cooperation council work plan. A 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 13609 has the same 

meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866. An international impact, 

as defined in Executive Order 13609, 

means ‘‘a direct effect that a proposed 

or final regulation is expected to have 

on international trade and investment, 

or that otherwise may be of significant 

interest to the trading partners of the 

United States.’’ 

As discussed in the International 

Compatibility and Cooperation section 

of this rule, in keeping with United 

States obligations under the Convention 

on International Civil Aviation, the FAA 

seeks to conform to International Civil 

Aviation Organization Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. In addition, the FAA 

regularly reaches out to its international 

partners on a bi-lateral and multi-lateral 

basis to harmonize regulations to the 

maximum extent possible. Thus, the 

FAA believes that the rule should have 

no effect on international regulatory 

cooperation. 

The FAA identified a direct effect that 

may be of significant interest to the 

trading partners of the United States. 

Even though a majority of the costs and 

the benefits of the rule are accrued by 

United States entities and United States 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4503 

72Thus, the FAA estimates that the primary 

impact of the rule will be on U.S. entities. 

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. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced above. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) requires the FAA to comply 

with small entity requests for 

information or advice about compliance 

with statutes and regulations within its 

jurisdiction. A small entity with 

questions regarding this document may 

contact its local FAA official, or the 

person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. To find out 

more about SBREFA on the internet, 

visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_

policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

14 CFR Part 11 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 47 

Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 48 

Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 89 

Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, 

Aviation safety, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Aviation safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

14 CFR Part 107 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Security measures. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 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 definition for 

‘‘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. 

* * * * * 

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(b) by adding the 

entry ‘‘Part 89’’ in numerical order 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 

No. 

*****

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; Pub. L. 108–297, 

118 Stat. 1095 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note, 49 

U.S.C. 44101 note); 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 

40113–40114, 44101–44108, 44110–44113, 

44703–44704, 44713, 44809(f), 45302, 45305, 

46104, 46301. 

■ 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 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. 

4504 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

* * * * * 

■ 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. 

* * * * * 

§ § 48.100, 48.105, 48.110, and 48.115 

[Redesignated as §§ 48.110, 48.115, 48.100, 

and 48.105] 

■ 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. 

(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) * * * 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 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: 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4505 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 

or to show compliance with regulations. 

89.125 Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS–B) Out prohibition. 

89.130 Confirmation of identification. 

Subpart C—[Reserved] 

Subpart D—Requirements for Standard 

Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft 

and Remote Identification Broadcast 

Modules 

89.301 Applicability. 

89.305 Minimum message elements 

broadcast by standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. 

89.310 Minimum performance 

requirements for standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft. 

89.315 Minimum message elements 

broadcast by remote identification 

broadcast modules. 

89.320 Minimum performance 

requirements for remote identification 

broadcast modules. 

Subpart E—Means of Compliance 

89.401 Applicability. 

89.405 Submission of a means of 

compliance for FAA acceptance. 

89.410 Acceptance of a means of 

compliance. 

89.415 Rescission. 

89.420 Record retention. 

Subpart F— Remote Identification Design 

and Production 

89.501 Applicability. 

89.505 Serial numbers. 

89.510 Production requirements for 

unmanned aircraft produced under a 

design approval or production approval 

issued under part 21 of this chapter. 

89.515 Production requirements for 

unmanned aircraft without design 

approval or production approval issued 

under part 21 of this chapter. 

89.520 Production requirements for remote 

identification broadcast modules. 

89.525 Labeling. 

89.530 Submission of a declaration of 

compliance for FAA acceptance. 

89.535 Acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance. 

89.540 Rescission and reconsideration. 

89.545 Record retention. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 

40101(d), 40103(b), 44701, 44805, 44809(f); 

Section 2202 of Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 

629. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 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. 

(a) No person may make or cause to 

be made any of the following: 

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false statement in any document related 

to any acceptance, application, 

approval, authorization, certificate, 

declaration, designation, qualification, 

record, report, request for 

reconsideration, or similar, submitted 

under this part. 

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false statement in any document 

required to be developed, provided, 

kept, or used to show compliance with 

any requirement under this part. 

(3) Any reproduction or alteration, for 

fraudulent purpose, of any document 

related to any acceptance, application, 

approval, authorization, certificate, 

declaration, designation, qualification, 

record, report, request for 

reconsideration, or similar, submitted or 

granted under this part. 

(b) No person may, by omission, 

knowingly conceal or cause to be 

concealed, a material fact in— 

(1) Any document related to any 

acceptance, application, approval, 

authorization, certificate, declaration, 

designation, qualification, record, 

report, request for reconsideration, or 

similar, submitted under this part; or 

(2) Any document required to be 

developed, provided, kept, or used to 

show compliance with any requirement 

under this part. 

(c) The commission by any person of 

an act prohibited under paragraph (a) or 

(b) of this section is a basis for— 

(1) Denial, suspension, rescission, or 

revocation of any acceptance, 

application, approval, authorization, 

certificate, declaration, declaration of 

compliance, designation, document, 

filing, qualification, means of 

compliance, record, report, request for 

reconsideration, or similar instrument 

issued or granted by the Administrator 

and held by that person; or 

(2) A civil penalty. 

Subpart B—Operating Requirement 

§ 89.101 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, this subpart applies 

to the following: 

(1) Persons operating unmanned 

aircraft registered or required to be 

registered under part 47 or 48 of this 

chapter. 

(2) Persons operating foreign civil 

unmanned aircraft in the United States. 

(b) This subpart does not apply to 

unmanned aircraft operations under 

part 91 of this chapter that are 

transmitting ADS–B Out pursuant to 

§ 91.225. 

§ 89.105 Remote identification 

requirement. 

Except as otherwise authorized by the 

Administrator or as provided in 

§ 89.120, after September 16, 2023, no 

person may operate an unmanned 

aircraft within the airspace of the 

United States unless the operation 

meets the requirements of § 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 

4506 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

unmanned aircraft must broadcast the 

message elements of § 89.305. 

(2) The person manipulating the flight 

controls of the unmanned aircraft 

system must land the unmanned aircraft 

as soon as practicable if the standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

is no longer broadcasting the message 

elements of § 89.305. 

(b) Standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft requirements. A 

person may operate a standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft only if 

the unmanned aircraft meets all of the 

following requirements: 

(1) Its serial number is listed on an 

FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance, or the standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft is 

covered by a design approval or 

production approval issued under part 

21 of this chapter and meets the 

requirements of subpart F of this part. 

(2) Its remote identification 

equipment is functional and complies 

with the requirements of this part from 

takeoff to shutdown. 

(3) Its remote identification 

equipment and functionality have not 

been disabled. 

(4) The Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration of the unmanned aircraft 

used in the operation must include the 

serial number of the unmanned aircraft, 

as per applicable requirements of parts 

47 and 48 of this chapter, or the serial 

number of the unmanned aircraft must 

be provided to the FAA in a notice of 

identification pursuant to § 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 (b) of this section. 

(a) Remote identification broadcast 

modules. Unless otherwise authorized 

by the Administrator, a person may 

operate an unmanned aircraft that is not 

a standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft if all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) Equipage. (i) The unmanned 

aircraft used in the operation must be 

equipped with a remote identification 

broadcast module that meets the 

requirements of § 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 this 

subpart. 

(4) In-flight loss of remote 

identification broadcast. The person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

unmanned aircraft system must land the 

unmanned aircraft as soon as 

practicable if the unmanned aircraft is 

no longer broadcasting the message 

elements of § 89.315. 

(b) Operations at FAA-recognized 

identification areas. Unless otherwise 

authorized by the Administrator, a 

person may operate an unmanned 

aircraft without remote identification 

equipment only if all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) The unmanned aircraft and the 

person manipulating the flight controls 

of the unmanned aircraft system remain 

within the boundaries of an FAArecognized identification area 

throughout the operation; and 

(2) The person manipulating the flight 

controls of the unmanned aircraft 

system must be able to see the 

unmanned aircraft at all times 

throughout the operation. 

§ 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 SurveillanceBroadcast (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. 

(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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4507 

unless the person obtains a 

Confirmation of Identification under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

maintains such Confirmation of 

Identification at the unmanned aircraft’s 

control station, and produces the 

Confirmation of Identification when 

requested by the FAA or a law 

enforcement officer. 

(d) Requirement to maintain current 

information. The holder of a 

Confirmation of Identification must 

ensure that the information provided 

under paragraph (a) of this section 

remains accurate and must update the 

information prior to operating a foreign 

registered civil unmanned aircraft in the 

United States. 

Subpart C [Reserved] 

Subpart D—Requirements for Standard 

Remote Identification Unmanned 

Aircraft and Remote Identification 

Broadcast Modules 

§ 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. 

(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. 

(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 47 CFR part 15, where operations 

may occur without an FCC individual 

license. 

(2) Any broadcasting device used to 

meet the requirements of this section 

must be integrated into the unmanned 

aircraft without modification to its 

authorized radio frequency parameters 

and designed to maximize the range at 

which the broadcast can be received, 

while complying with 47 CFR part 15 

and any other applicable laws in effect 

as of the date the declaration of 

compliance is submitted to the FAA for 

acceptance. 

(h) Message elements performance 

requirements. (1) The reported 

geometric position of the unmanned 

aircraft and the control station must be 

accurate to within 100 feet of the true 

position, with 95 percent probability. 

(2) The reported geometric altitude of 

the control station must be accurate to 

within 15 feet of the true geometric 

altitude, with 95 percent probability. 

(3) The reported geometric altitude of 

the unmanned aircraft must be accurate 

to within 150 feet of the true geometric 

altitude, with 95 percent probability. 

(4) The unmanned aircraft must 

broadcast the latitude, longitude, and 

geometric altitude of the unmanned 

aircraft and its control station no later 

than 1.0 seconds from the time of 

measurement to the time of broadcast. 

(5) The unmanned aircraft must 

broadcast the message elements at a rate 

of at least 1 message per second. 

(i) Take-off limitation. The unmanned 

aircraft must not be able to take off 

unless it is broadcasting the message 

elements in § 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. 

(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 

4508 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

capable of determining the take-off 

location of the unmanned aircraft. 

(b) Time mark. The time mark 

message element must be synchronized 

with all other remote identification 

message elements. 

(c) Self-testing and monitoring. (1) 

Prior to take-off, the remote 

identification broadcast module must 

automatically test the remote 

identification functionality and notify 

the person manipulating the flight 

controls of the unmanned aircraft 

system of the result of the test. 

(2) The remote identification 

broadcast module must continuously 

monitor the remote identification 

functionality from takeoff to shutdown 

and must provide notification of 

malfunction or failure to the person 

manipulating the flight controls of the 

unmanned aircraft system. 

(d) Tamper resistance. The remote 

identification broadcast module must be 

designed and produced in a way that 

reduces the ability of a person to tamper 

with the remote identification 

functionality. 

(e) Error correction. The remote 

identification broadcast module must 

incorporate error correction in the 

broadcast of the message elements in 

§ 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 nonproprietary broadcast specification and 

using radio frequency spectrum 

compatible with personal wireless 

devices in accordance with 47 CFR part 

15, where operations may occur without 

an FCC individual license. 

(2) The remote identification 

broadcast module must be designed to 

maximize the range at which the 

broadcast can be received, while 

complying with 47 CFR part 15 and any 

other applicable laws in effect as of the 

date the declaration of compliance is 

submitted to the FAA for acceptance. 

(h) Message elements performance 

requirements. (1) The reported 

geometric position of the unmanned 

aircraft must be accurate to within 100 

feet of the true position, with 95 percent 

probability. 

(2) The reported geometric altitude of 

the unmanned aircraft must be accurate 

to within 150 feet of the true geometric 

altitude, with 95 percent probability. 

(3) The reported geometric position of 

the take-off location must be accurate to 

within 100 feet of the true geometric 

position, with 95 percent probability. 

(4) The reported geometric altitude of 

the take-off location must be accurate to 

within 150 feet of the true geometric 

altitude, with 95 percent probability. 

(5) The remote identification 

broadcast module must broadcast the 

latitude, longitude, and geometric 

altitude of the unmanned aircraft no 

later than 1.0 seconds from the time of 

measurement to the time of broadcast. 

(6) The remote identification 

broadcast module must broadcast the 

message elements at a rate of at least 1 

message per second. 

Subpart E—Means of Compliance 

§ 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. 

(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. 

§ 89.410 Acceptance of a means of 

compliance. 

(a) A person requesting acceptance of 

a means of compliance must 

demonstrate to the Administrator that 

the means of compliance addresses all 

of the requirements of subparts D and E 

of this part, and that any standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or remote identification broadcast 

module designed and produced in 

accordance with such means of 

compliance would meet the 

performance requirements of subpart D 

of this part. 

(b) The Administrator will evaluate a 

means of compliance that is submitted 

to the FAA and may request additional 

information or documentation, as 

needed, to supplement the submission. 

(c) If the Administrator determines 

the person has demonstrated that the 

means of compliance meets the 

requirements of subparts D and E of this 

part, the FAA will notify the person that 

the Administrator has accepted the 

means of compliance. 

§ 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4509 

§ 89.420 Record retention. 

A person who submits a means of 

compliance that is accepted by the 

Administrator under this subpart must 

retain the following information for as 

long as the means of compliance is 

accepted plus an additional 24 calendar 

months, and must make available for 

inspection by the Administrator the 

following: 

(a) All documentation and 

substantiating data submitted to the 

FAA for acceptance of the means of 

compliance. 

(b) Records of all test procedures, 

methodology, and other procedures, as 

applicable. 

(c) Any other information necessary to 

justify and substantiate how the means 

of compliance enables compliance with 

the remote identification requirements 

of this part. 

Subpart F— Remote Identification 

Design and Production 

§ 89.501 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart prescribes— 

(1) Requirements for the design and 

production of unmanned aircraft with 

remote identification produced for 

operation in the airspace of the United 

States. 

(2) Requirements for the design and 

production of remote identification 

broadcast modules. 

(3) Procedural requirements for the 

submission, acceptance, and rescission 

of declarations of compliance. 

(4) Rules governing persons 

submitting declarations of compliance 

for FAA acceptance under this part. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, this subpart applies 

to the design and production of all 

unmanned aircraft operated in the 

airspace of the United States. 

(c) Except for unmanned aircraft 

designed and produced to be standard 

remote identification unmanned 

aircraft, this subpart does not apply to 

the design or production of: 

(1) Home-built unmanned aircraft. 

(2) Unmanned aircraft of the United 

States Government. 

(3) Unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 

pounds or less on takeoff, including 

everything that is on board or otherwise 

attached to the aircraft. 

(4) Unmanned aircraft designed or 

produced exclusively for the purpose of 

aeronautical research or to show 

compliance with regulations. 

§ 89.505 Serial numbers. 

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, 

CTA@CTA.tech, 703–907–7600 or at 

https://www.cta.tech. It is also available 

for inspection at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, email 

fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

§ 89.510 Production requirements for 

unmanned aircraft produced under a design 

approval or production approval issued 

under part 21 of this chapter. 

After September 16, 2022, no person 

may produce an unmanned aircraft for 

operation in the airspace of the United 

States under a design approval or 

production approval issued under part 

21 of this chapter unless: 

(a) All applicable requirements of part 

21 of this chapter are met; and 

(b) The unmanned aircraft is— 

(1) Designed and produced to meet 

the minimum performance requirements 

for standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft established in 

§ 89.310 in accordance with an FAAaccepted 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 

of this chapter. 

Except as provided in § 89.510, after 

September 16, 2022, no person may 

produce an unmanned aircraft for 

operation in the airspace of the United 

States unless— 

(a) The unmanned aircraft is designed 

and produced to meet the minimum 

performance requirements for standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

established in § 89.310 in accordance 

with an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance; and 

(b) All of the following conditions are 

met: 

(1) Inspection requirements for 

production of standard unmanned 

aircraft. A person responsible for the 

production of standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft must, 

upon request, allow the Administrator 

to inspect the person’s facilities, 

technical data, and any standard remote 

identification unmanned aircraft the 

person produces, and to witness any 

tests necessary to determine compliance 

with this subpart. 

(2) Audit requirements. A person 

responsible for the production of 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft must cause 

independent audits to be performed on 

a recurring basis, and additionally 

whenever the FAA provides notice of 

noncompliance or potential 

noncompliance, to demonstrate the 

unmanned aircraft listed under a 

declaration of compliance meet the 

requirements of this subpart. The person 

responsible for the production of 

standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft must provide the 

results of all such audits to the FAA 

upon request. 

(3) Product support and notification. 

A person responsible for the production 

of standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft must maintain 

product support and notification 

procedures to notify the public and the 

FAA of any defect or condition that 

causes an unmanned aircraft to no 

longer meet the requirements of this 

subpart, within 15 calendar days of the 

date the person becomes aware of the 

defect or condition. 

§ 89.520 Production requirements for 

remote identification broadcast modules. 

After March 16, 2021, no person may 

produce remote identification broadcast 

modules unless: 

(a) The remote identification 

broadcast module is designed and 

produced to meet the minimum 

performance requirements for remote 

identification broadcast modules 

established in § 89.320 in accordance 

with an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance; and 

(b) All of the following conditions are 

met: 

(1) Inspection requirements for 

production of remote identification 

broadcast modules. A person 

responsible for the production of remote 

identification broadcast modules must, 

upon request, allow the Administrator 

to inspect the person’s facilities, 

technical data, and any remote 

identification broadcast modules the 

person produces, and to witness any 

4510 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

(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. 

(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. 

(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. 

(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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4511 

compliance under circumstances 

including but not limited to the 

following: 

(i) A standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or remote 

identification broadcast module listed 

under an accepted declaration of 

compliance does not meet the minimum 

performance requirements of § 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 FAAaccepted declaration of compliance of 

any issue of noncompliance. 

(3) If the Administrator determines 

that it is in the public interest, prior to 

rescinding acceptance of a declaration 

of compliance, the Administrator may 

provide a reasonable period of time for 

the person who submitted the 

declaration of compliance to remediate 

the noncompliance. A failure to 

remediate the noncompliance 

constitutes cause for rescission of the 

FAA’s acceptance of the declaration of 

compliance. 

(4) The Administrator will notify the 

person who submitted the declaration of 

compliance of the decision to rescind 

acceptance of the declaration of 

compliance by publishing a notice of 

rescission in the Federal Register. 

(b) Petition to reconsider the FAA’s 

decision to rescind acceptance of a 

declaration of compliance. (1) The 

person who submitted the FAAaccepted declaration of compliance or 

any person adversely affected by the 

rescission of the Administrator’s 

acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance may petition for a 

reconsideration of the decision by 

submitting a request to the FAA in a 

form and manner acceptable to the 

Administrator within 60 calendar days 

of the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of notification of rescission. 

(2) A petition to reconsider the 

rescission of the Administrator’s 

acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance must show that the 

petitioner is an interested party and has 

been adversely affected by the decision 

of the FAA. The petition must also 

demonstrate at least one of the 

following: 

(i) The petitioner adduces a 

significant additional fact not 

previously presented to the FAA. 

(ii) The Administrator made a 

material error of fact in the decision to 

rescind acceptance of the declaration of 

compliance. 

(iii) The Administrator did not 

correctly interpret a law, regulation, or 

precedent. 

(3) Upon consideration of the 

information submitted by the petitioner, 

the Administrator will notify the 

petitioner and the person who 

submitted the declaration of compliance 

(if different) of the decision on whether 

to reinstate the Administrator’s 

acceptance of the declaration of 

compliance. 

(c) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart 

D, of this chapter. Part 13, subpart D, of 

this chapter does not apply to the 

procedures of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

§ 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 September 16, 2022, add 

subpart C to part 89 to read as follows: 

Subpart C—FAA-Recognized Identification 

Areas 

89.201 Applicability. 

89.205 Eligibility. 

89.210 Requests for establishment of an 

FAA-recognized identification area. 

89.215 Approval of FAA-recognized 

identification areas. 

89.220 Amendment. 

89.225 Duration of an FAA-recognized 

identification area. 

89.230 Expiration and termination. 

Subpart C—FAA-Recognized 

Identification Areas 

§ 89.201 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes procedural 

requirements to establish an FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized 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. 

(6) The location of the proposed FAArecognized 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 

4512 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FAArecognized identification areas. 

§ 89.220 Amendment. 

(a) From the time of application until 

expiration or termination of an FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area is subject 

to ongoing review in accordance with 

§ 89.215 by the Administrator that may 

result in the termination of the FAArecognized identification area pursuant 

to § 89.230 or modification of the FAArecognized identification area. 

§ 89.225 Duration of an FAA-recognized 

identification area. 

(a) Duration. Except as otherwise 

provided in this subpart, an FAArecognized 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. 

(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 FAArecognized 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 FAArecognized identification area for as 

long as those conditions remain in 

effect. 

(c) Petition to reconsider the FAA’s 

decision to terminate an FAArecognized 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 3/A 

interrogations with the code specified 

by ATC and intermode and Mode S 

interrogations in accordance with the 

applicable provisions specified in TSO 

C–112, and that aircraft is equipped 

with automatic pressure altitude 

reporting equipment having a Mode C 

capability that automatically replies to 

Mode C interrogations by transmitting 

pressure altitude information in 100- 

foot increments. The requirements of 

this paragraph (b) apply to— 

* * * * * 

(c) Transponder-on operation. Except 

as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section, while in the airspace as 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

or in all controlled airspace, each 

person operating an aircraft equipped 

with an operable ATC transponder 

maintained in accordance with § 91.413 

shall operate the transponder, including 

Mode C equipment if installed, and 

shall reply on the appropriate code or as 

assigned by ATC, unless otherwise 

directed by ATC when transmitting 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4513 

would jeopardize the safe execution of 

air traffic control functions. 

* * * * * 

(e) Unmanned aircraft. (1) The 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section do not apply to a person 

operating an unmanned aircraft under 

this part unless the operation is 

conducted under a flight plan and the 

person operating the unmanned aircraft 

maintains two-way communication with 

ATC. 

(2) No person may operate an 

unmanned aircraft under this part with 

a transponder on unless: 

(i) The operation is conducted under 

a flight plan and the person operating 

the unmanned aircraft maintains twoway communication with ATC; or 

(ii) The use of a transponder is 

otherwise authorized by the 

Administrator. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

(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 SurveillanceBroadcast Out equipment in transmit 

mode unless: 

(i) The operation is conducted under 

a flight plan and the person operating 

that unmanned aircraft maintains twoway 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 

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 Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) Out 

prohibition. 

Unless otherwise authorized by the 

Administrator, no person may operate a 

small unmanned aircraft system under 

this part with ADS–B Out equipment in 

transmit mode. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40103, 

44701(a)(5), 44805, 44809, and section 2202 

of Public Law 114–190. 

Steve Dickson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28948 Filed 1–8–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P