1 U.S. Department of Transportation

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION



## INTERIM FINAL RULE REGULATORY EVALUATION

Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft

RIN 2120

- AK82



## OFFICE OF AVIATION POLICY AND PLANS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION

Ralph Morris George Thurston
December 20152 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION S 3

I. INTRODUCTION/B ACKGROUND 4

II. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA 9

I II

. S UAS REGULATORY FLEET FORECAST 13

I V. COSTS 18

V. BENEFITS 29

V I

. TRANSFER COSTS 43

VI I

. B ENEFIT

- COST SUMMARY 473 LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMA Academy of Model Aeronautics

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee

DOT Department of Transportation

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FR Federal Register

NAS National Air s pace System

NPRM N otice of proposed rulemaking

OMB Office of Management and Budget

P ub

. L. Public Law

sUAS Small Unmanned Aircraft System

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

U.S.C. United States Code4 I. INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND

In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112

- 95) (the Act) , Congress

mandated that the Department of Transportation (Department) , in consultation with other

government partners and industry stakeholders, develop a comprehensive plan to safely

accelerate the integration of civil u nmanned aircraft systems ( UAS ) in the national airspace

system ( NAS ) . Since 2012, the Department and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have

made progress in enabling small unmanned aircraft systems ( sUAS ) operations, by issuing

exemptions under sec tion 333 of the Act to permit commercial operations 1 ; creating a UAS test

site program to encourage further research and testing of UAS operations in real

- world

environments; and developing a Pathfinder program to encourage research and innovation that

wil l enable advanced UAS operations

. To date, for each of these integration programs, the

Department and the FAA have required unmanned aircraft owners to comply with the statutory

requirement for aircraft registration using the existing paper

- based process under 14 CFR part

47. 2 Aircraft registration and marking is a foundational statutory and regulatory requirement. It

helps the Department and the FAA ensure that operators are not only aware of the system in

which they are operating, but that we also have a means to identify and track the aircraft to its

owner and operator. As an exercise of discretion, h ist orically, we have not required model

aircraft to be registered under this system.

On February 23, 2015, t he Secretary of the Department of Transportation and the FAA

Administrator issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM )

, “ Operation and Certification of

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems ” (80 FR 9544 (Feb

. 23, 2015)) ( sUAS Operation and

1 For purposes of this economic analysis, the term “commercial operations” means operations conducted for purposes other than as model aircraft.

2 Clarification of the Applicability of Aircraft Registration Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) and Request for Information5 Certification NPRM), that proposed a framework for integrating sUAS operations in the NAS.

Specifically, the proposal would require s UAS owners who are conducting operations other than

model aircraft to re gister the s UAS aircraft under the paper

- based system in 14 C.F.R. part 47

and mark the aircraft in accordance with the requirements of 14 C.F.R. part 45. We proposed to

continue exercising discretion with respect to s UAS intended to be exclusively used a s model

aircraft and did not propose extending the registration and marking requirements to this

population.

The Secretary and the Administrator recently affirmed that all unmanned aircraft,

including model aircraft, are aircraft consistent with congressi onal direction in Title III, Subtitle

B of Public Law 112

- 95 and the existing definition of aircraft in title 49 of the United States

Code. 49 U.S.C. 40102. As such, in accordance with 49 U.S.C 44101(a) and as further

prescribed in 14 CFR part 47, registra tion is required prior to operation. See 80 FR 63912, 63913

(October 22, 2015). Aircraft registration is necessary to ensure personal accountability among all

users of the NAS. See id. With the unprecedented proliferation of new sUAS, registration allows

t he FAA a direct and immediate opportunity to educate sUAS owners. Aircraft registration also

allows the FAA and law enforcement agencies to address non

- compliance by providing the

means by which to identify an aircraft’s owner and operator.

The FAA estimat es that in calendar year 2014, 200,000 small unmanned aircraft were

operated in the NAS in model aircraft operations. During this period, the FAA received 238

reports of potentially unsafe UAS operations. The estimate for 2015 sales indicates that 1.6

mill ion small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as model aircraft are expected to be sold this

year (including approximately 50 percent of that total during the fourth quarter of 2015).6 Since February 2015, reports of potentially unsafe UAS operations have more than

doubled, and many of these reports indicated that the risk to manned aviation or people and

property on the ground was immediate. For example, the agency has received reports of

unmanned aircraft at high altitudes in congested ai rspace, unmanned aircraft operat ions near

passenger

- carrying aircraft or major airports

, 3 and interfering with emergency response

operations such as efforts to combat wildfires. 4 As recently as August 2015, the FAA

investigated reports by four pilots who s potted an unmanned aircraft flying between eight and

thirteen miles from the approach to Newark Liberty International Airport. 5 The FAA also

investigated a similar incident at John F. Kennedy International Airport in August. 6 The risk of

unsafe operation w ill increase as more small unmanned aircraft enter the NAS, and are flown by

individuals who have little to no knowledge of airspace restrictions or safety implications.

Over the past several months, the reports of unauthorized and potentially unsafe UAS

o perations ha ve escalated at an increasing rate. The following tables show the number of reports

received during 2014 and 2015.

Table 2: Unmanned Aircraft Reports, 2014

2014 Unmanned Aircraft Reports

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total

Count 0 1 2 5 11 16 36 30 41 41 33 22 238

3 See, e.g. , Keith Laing, Feds investigating drone sighting near Newark airport , The Hill, Aug. 10, 2015, http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/250731

- feds

- investigating

- drone

- sighting

- near

- newark

- airport ; FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones Near JFK Airport , Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014 WLNR 32783307.

4 See, e.g. , Associated Press, Drones Interfering with Emergency Wildfire Responders , CBSNEWS.com, Aug. 10, 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ drones

- interfering

- wit h

- emergency

- wildfire

- responders (“The U.S. Forest Service has tallied 13 wildfires in which suspected drones interfered with firefighting aircraft this year . . . up from four fires last year . . . .); Polly Mos endz, Drones Interfere With Firefighters Battling California Wildfire , Newsweek, June 26, 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/drones

- interfere

- firefighters

- battling

- california

wildfire

- 347774

. 5 See Keith Laing, Feds investigating drone sighting near Newark airport , The Hill, Aug. 10 , 2015, http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/250731

- feds

- investigating

- drone

- sighting

- near

- newark

- airport

. 6 See FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones Near JFK Airport , Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014 WLNR 32783307.7 Table 3: Unmanned Aircraft Reports, 2015

2015 Unmanned Aircraft Reports

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov* Total

Count 26 50 85 64 95 132 128 193 127 137 96 1133

* As of December 9, 2015.

Specific examples of UAS events include:

• June 17, 2015: Near the surrounding area of Big Bear City, CA, a fire erupted, quickly spreading and causing significant damage. By June 24, 2015, all surrounding affected areas were evacuated, 20,875 acres of land had been destroyed, and the fire was only 26% contained. Although the FAA issued a temporary flight restriction for the area surrounding the fire, unmanned aircraft penetrated the airspace and grounded all airborne firefighting efforts in support of continued fire containment. This event resulted in two reported evasive

action events, and forced the grounding of 4 responding aircraft over a period of two and a half hours before airborne firefighting efforts could resume. Before landing, a DC

- 10 tanker plane diverted to a separate fire in Nevada to drop its fire retardant, while the remaining smaller planes were forced to dump fire retardant around the immediate area due to landing weight restrictions. 7 Officials said the failed mission cost between $10 ,000 and $15,000.

• July 17, 2015: A fire began in California near Interstate 15, a highway that runs between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Due to hot, 40 mile per hour winds, the fire spread at a rapid pace. The Air Attack Officer, upon arrival, observed small unmanned aircraft activity operating contrary to a temporary flight restriction in the area. This resulted in aircraft being removed from the area for a period of twenty minutes. The delay of 20 minutes in aircraft response was critical in the growth of t he fire. With the heavy aviation response on the scene of the fire, Air Attack Officers estimate this fire could have been stopped at less than 100 acres if the small unmanned aircraft had not interfered by penetrating the airspace. 8 A total of eighteen ve hicles and two trucks were destroyed by fire.

• September 3, 2015: An unmanned aircraft was flown into Louis Armstrong Stadium, which is located within 5 miles of LaGuardia Airport, during a U.S. Open tennis match. The unmanned aircraft crashed in an empty section of the stands. 9

• October 26, 2015: An unmanned aircraft flew into primary conductors bringing down one span of power line in West Hollywood, California. The incident report from Southern California Edison indicates that initially 640 customers were impacted. 10

7 Lake Fire Grew After Private Drone Flight Disrupted Air Flights

, L OS A NGELES T IMES , June 25, 2015, available at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la

- me

- ln

- wildfires

- southern

- california

- 20150625

- story.html

. 8 SAFECOM (2015, July 18). Incident Report. Retrieved November 13, 2015 from https://www.safecom.gov/searchone.asp?ID=19694

. 9 Drone Crash at U.S. Open, New York City Teacher Arrested , NPR, September 4, 2015, available at http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo

way/2015/09/04/437539727/drone

- crash

- at

- u

- s

- open

- new

- york

- city

- teacher

- arrested

. 10 Incident report from Robert Laffoon

- Villegas, media relations, Southern California Edison, provided November 13, 2015.8 • January 26, 2015: An unmanned aircraft operator crashed his unmanned aircraft on the grounds of the White House. The flight occurred in the White House prohibited flight zone,
P56. 11

• September 5, 2015: A University of Kentucky student flew an un manned aircraft directly into the campus' stadium during the school’s season

- opening football game. 12 No injuries were reported. The unmanned aircraft, which had hovered near parachuting military skydivers,
crashed in the suite level of Commonwealth Stadium . The Kentucky campus police chief told a news conference that the same student operated an unmanned aircraft over a soccer match the previous week.

• September 12, 2015: Debris from an unmanned aircraft that had fallen near bystanders cut
and bruised an 11

- month

- old girl in a stroller during an outdoor movie screening in Pasadena, California. The Pasadena Police Department said a 24

- year

- old man lost control of his small unmanned aircraft, causing it to crash to the ground. The 11

- month

- old received injuries to her head. She was treated at Huntington Memorial Hospital and then released. 13

During the last quarter of this calendar year, approximately 800,000 new sUAS are

expected to enter the system and begin operating. In 2016, the FAA expects sales of an

addi tional 1.9 million small unmanned aircraft used as model aircraft. The FAA also expects

sales of 600,000 aircraft used for other than model purposes, after the Operation and

Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems notice of proposed rulemaking (th e “sUAS

Operation and Certification NPRM”) is finalized. 14 Model aircraft sales alone are expected to

grow by 23 percent each year for the next 5 years. 15 Sales for sUAS used for commercial

applications will rapidly accelerate as well, with different growth rates in different applications.

Sales are forecast to grow from very few sUAS employed commercially today, to nearly 11

million units by 2020 (about 40% of total unit s sold that year).

11 A Drone, Too Small for Radar to Detect, Rattles the White House. N EW Y ORK T IMES , Jan. 26, 2015, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/white

- house

- drone.html

. 12 Student Charged with Endangerment After Drone Crashes into Stadium, ARS TECHNICA , September 11, 2015, available at http://arstechnica.com/tech

- policy/2015/09/student

- charged

- with

- endangerment

- after

- drone

- crashes

- into

- football

- stadium/.

13 Fallen Drone Injures 11

- mointh old near Pasadena City Hall

, P ASADENA S TAR N EWS , September 15, 2015 available at http://www.pasadenast arnews.com/general

- news/20150915/falling

- drone

- injures

- 11

- month

- old

- near

- pasadena

- city

- hall

14 80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015).

15 Sales estimates provided by McKinsey & Company. The McKinsey & Company forecast report can be found in the docket for this ru lemakin g.9 Many of the owners of these new sUAS may have no prior aviation experience and have

little or no understanding of the NAS, let alone knowledge of the safe operating requirements.

Aircraft registration provides an immediate and direct opp ortunity for the agency to engage and

educate these new users prior to operating their unmanned aircraft, thus helping to mitigate the

risk associated with the influx of operations.

The risk of unsafe operation will increase as more small unmanned aircraf t enter the

NAS. Registration will provide a means by which to quickly identify these small unmanned

aircraft in the event of an incident or accident involving the sUAS. Registration of small

unmanned aircraft also provides an immediate and direct opportun ity for the agency to educate

sUAS owners on safety requirements before they begin operating.

As discussed earlier

, sUAS owners authorized to operate in the NAS must regist er their

aircraft in accordance with part 47. T he Secretary and the Administrator issued a notice in the

Federal Register clarifying the applicability of the statutory requirements for aircraft registration

to sUAS (the Clarification /Request for Information ) (80 FR 63912, October 22, 2015) , to now

extend to all small unmanned aircraft, including those intended for use exclusively as model

aircraft under section 336 of Pub. L. 112

- 95. In that notice, we acknowledged the challenges

associated with requiring all small unmanned aircraft to be registered using the paper

- based

system and det ermined that that system would be too onerous. This determination was based on

the high costs to the FAA and expected delays in processing through the paper

- based system, as

well as the high time and effort that would have been imposed on registrants to u se the paper

based system. (An analysis of the costs of using the paper

- based system is presented in the

“Costs” section below.)10 T he Secretary and the Administrator determined it was necessary to offer an alternative,

stream

- lined, web

- based process for s UAS registration. The Administrator formed a UAS

registration task force ( RTF ) to explore and develop recommendations to streamline the

registration process for sUAS to ease the burden associated with the existing aircraft registration

process. 16 To facilitate the work of the RTF , the Secretary and the Administrator sought

information and data from the public through a number of questions identified in the Federal

Register notice . The UAS RTF completed its work and submitted its recommendations on

November 21, 2015. In developing this interim final rule ( IFR ) , we considered the RTF ’s

recommendations, as well as the public comment s received in response to the aircraft registration

proposal in the Operation and Certification of s UAS NPRM, and commen ts received in response

to petitions for exemptions to allow certain s UAS operations to occur under the Secretary’s

authority in section 333 of Public Law 112

- 95.

Given the costs associated with the existing system as described above, and the expected

prol iferation of s UAS entering the system in the next year alone, this IFR provides an alternative,

streamlined web

- based aircraft registration process so that the agency can accommodate these

aircraft registrations

. G iven easy consumer access to sUAS and the wide range of recreational

and non

- recreational uses, a streamlined registration process is necessary to provide relief from

the existing registration process while still achieving the goal of identif ying sUAS owner s

.

16 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Registration Task Force Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) Task Force Recommendations Final Report November 21, 2015

.11 I. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA

The benefit and cost analysis for the regulatory evaluation is based on the following

factors/assumptions . Technology, markets, and uses for small unmanned aircraft are evolving

rapidly and there is a high degree of uncertainty how the future will unfold and so the FAA

requests comments (supported with data) on these assumptions.

• The period of the regulatory impact analysis begins in 2015 (denoted Year 0) and ends in

2020 (denoted Year 5)

.

• This analysis considers the benefits and costs of requiring the regi strations of sUAS

weighing less than 55 pounds and more than 0.55 pounds on takeoff

.

• We use a seven percent discount rate for the benefits as prescribed by OMB in Circular

A

- 4.

Population and Forecast

• Most of these assumptions, unless otherwise noted, were based on interviews with

manufacturers, retailers, and other industry experts.

• Estimates of small unmanned aircraft registrations are based on projections of sUAS sales

for the period of analysis. A sales forecast was developed based on use cases and likely

adoption rates by commercial application and consumer electronic s

- curve analysis for

non

- commercial applications. This forecast was then adjusted to obtain the number of

modelers and the number of non

- modeler sUAS units.

• Two basic populations are estimated: (1) model aircraft owners and their sUAS units and

(2) the number of commercial / public owners and their sUAS units

. In this document,

the term “modeler” means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft that satisfies the

statutory definition of “model aircraft” now codified in 14 CFR 1.1 . The term12 “ commercial owner ” or “non

- modeler” means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft

used for non

- model aircraft purposes.

• For non

- modelers, w e assume that on average , all sUAS fail within a year and are

replaced in the next year. For modelers we use the assumption that an average of ten

percent of the modelers ’ sUAS survive into a second year , because they are used less

intens iv ely

. These assumptions are based on manufacturers’ information.

• Unmanned aircraft under the 0.55 pound weight limit are excluded from the registrations

forecast. We assume 20 percent of the sales forecast will be unmanned aircraft below the

0.55 pound cutoff

. This analysis is based on an examination of the current unit size

distribution. While there may be some incentive for manufacturers to increase the

number of aircraft produced below the registration size cut

- off, the FAA believes the

inherent limitations of the weight and available technology will not drive large shifts

during the analysis period. SUAS flown exclusively indoors need not be registered. FAA

assumes most sUAS ove r 0.55 pounds will be flown outdoors and must be registered.

• The entire existing fleet of model aircraft and 2015 fourth quarter sales are assumed to be

register ed in Period 0 or 2015.

• Most n on

- modelers will register their aircraft after the FAA has comp leted rulemaking to

establish new Part 107 , anticipated to go into effect in June 2016

.

• On average, model aircraft owners are assumed to own a fleet size of 1.5 sUAS

.

• 80 percent of model aircraft owners replace each aircraft as it is destroyed. (In other

words, 20 percent of modelers drop out of the hobby each year).13 • On average, non

- model s UAS owners are assumed to own 2 aircraft at a time. This is

based on an analysis of current registered sUAS aircraft. Every year all of the non

- model

s UAS owners go through the registration system replacing their two aircraft.

Time

• The estimated time to register an aircraft via the Part 47 ( paper

- based system ) system is

30 minutes 17

.

• The estimated time for a model aircraft owner to establish an online account and register

an aircraft

, under this rulemaking, is estimated to take 5 minutes; a registration renewal

for these owners is also estimated to take 5 minutes. Th e bulk of this time includes

reading and acknowledging basic safety information presented during the registration

process. 18

• The estimated time for a non

- modeler registrant to establish an online account and

register two small unmanned aircraft is 7 minutes ; 5 minutes to establish an account plus

1 minute per small unmanned aircraft

.

• The estimated time for a non

- modeler registrant to de

- register each aircraft is three

minutes.

• The time for an owner to mark an aircraft with its registration number is de minim i s.

17 See SUPPORTING STATEMENT, OMB 2120

- 0042 Aircraft Registration Including Assignment and Cancella tion of U.S. Identification Marks

18 At this time, the FAA will not be accepting manufacturer name, model name, and serial number from individuals registering small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively as model aircraft. However, as discussed i n the preamble discussion on registration marking, the Administrator will continue to evaluate whether serial number can serve the purpose of aircraft identification and in the future, may require use of serial number for aircraft marking purposes in place of an FAA

- issued registration number. In that case, this information would be acquired at point of sale by a manufacturer. FAA estimates this process would reduce the burden on the sUAS owners.14 • The analysis assumes that all sUAS owners will comply with the registration processes

considered in the regulatory analysis (Part 47 baseline system and the web

- based systems

resulting from this Part 48 rulemaking ).

Costs

• The FAA assigns an hourly value of $19.13 per hour f or the value of time for model

aircraft registrants and $24.89 per hour f or the value of time for non

- modeler registrants

in 2015 . These hourly values are in 2013 dollars adjusted to reflect the growth of real

changes in median household income over the ana lysis interval

. 19

• FAA estimates that its costs are $22 for the registration of an aircraft in th e current paper

based system

. This estimate is based on an internal cost model developed by FAA’s

Civil Aviation Registry for managerial purposes.

• FAA cost information for the streamlined, web

- based registrations was developed based

on cost models and FAA data. Costs for the web

- based system include startup costs, costs

to provide interfaces for retailers and manufacturers

, the cost of providing for public

search function based on the unique identifier, the cost of providing for law enforcement

access , and maintenance costs, whether incurred by FAA personnel or FAA’s contractors.

We do not include costs for manufacturers or retailers to provide information to the

registration system or to change packaging as those are voluntary action s

. FAA expects

that retailers will make point

- of

- sale interfaces available in the future.

• As is standard practice, FAA does not include costs of enforcing this rul e.

19 The hourly opportunity cost for modelers is based on the mid

- point estimate of the range values as specified in Section 1.2.3 of FAA’s Treatment of Time: Economic Values for Evaluation of FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/). The hourly opportunity cost for

non

- modeler s is estimated as the median gross compensation which is the sum of median hourly wage and an estimate of hourly benefits. This estimate is reported in DOT guidance titled Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis (Washi ngton DC, 2015)

.15 Safety

• We assume this regulation does not affect the levels of FAA manpower or resources

expended on UAS safety education and outreach but it will allow the FAA to target those

efforts, mak ing those on

- going efforts more effective.

• W e do not attempt to quantify any safety benefit from this regulation. (See “Qualitative

Benefits” section in the Regulatory Evaluation for further discussion)

.

Fees

• The fee to register an aircraft under Part 48, as well as in the current paper

- based system

in part 47, is $5. This fee is required by statute and is based on an estimate of the costs of

the system and services associated with aircraft registration. If actual costs for the web

based system are known before a final rule is issued, we will adjust the fee accordingly in

the final rule. If not, we will continue to monitor and determine the actual costs and

adjust the fee in a subsequent rulemaking. FAA notes that under part 47, the registration

fee using the paper

- based system is $5 per aircraft. FAA has begun a rulem aking to

update this fee based on current costs. ( Aircraft Registration and Airmen Certification

Fees, RIN 2120

- AK37)

.

• We have estimated the registration fee for the new web

- based system to be $5, based on

the projected costs to build and maintain the syst em and provide the registration service.

Model aircraft owners will pay $5 to register and will be assigned a unique identifier that

can be marked on the owner ’ s entire fleet of model aircraft. Model aircraft owners will

be required to renew their regis tration every 3 years and pay a $5 fee. There would be no

charge for de

- registration.16 • N on

- model er aircraft owners will also pay a $5 fee to establish an online account and

register an initial aircraft in the new web

- based system . They will also pay a $5 fee to

add each additional sUAS to their existing account. Aircraft must be re

- registered after

three years, but as noted above, FAA expects very few, if any, sUAS to last that long.

N on

- model er aircraft owners will not pay a fee to de

- register a sUAS

.

• Go vernment fees and taxes are considered transfers and, by Office of Management and

Budget guidance , transfers are not considered a societal cost. These transfers are

estimated separately from the costs and benefits of this IFR

. The FAA acknowledges

fees and transfers can create incentives for behavior change.17 I II

. s UAS REGULATORY FLEET FORECAST

This section describes the estimated number of sUAS aircraft to be registered and number

of s UAS owners who will register their aircraft with the FAA. The forecast is based on a forecast

of units sold developed by a contractor in November 2015. This forecast was based on

conversations with manufacturers and retailers and potential and existing owners of sUAS, and

expert judg ment

. For the regulatory evaluation, it is necessary to convert the forecast into both

the number of owners ( modelers and non

- modelers) and the number of sUAS units , in order to

calculate the time and impact of required actions by registrants

. More details on the forecast and

its conversion to registration activity drivers are in A ppendix A

.

Sales Forecast

Table 1 summarizes results from the sales forecast.

Table 1: Sales Forecast Summary Million sUAS units
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Hobbyist (model aircraft) 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.3

Commercial (non

- model aircraft) 0.0 0.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7

Total 1.6 2.5 4.8 5.4 6.1 7.1

Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Following are the key assumptions in the forecast. The FAA acknowledges there is

significant uncertainty around the forecast and welcomes comments with supporting data.

• The forecast is based on interviews with market participants; an effort has been made to

collect expert opinions on many applications to size the forecast from the bottom up

.18 • All s UAS aircraft in the forecast are less than 55 pounds

.

• Twenty percent of unmanned aircraft purchased by modelers are estimated to be 0 .55

pounds or less and will not be registered

.

• Prior to 2015, there were 200,000 modelers’ s UAS aircraft owned and operated, based

on estimates of existing members of modelers’ associations

.

• In 2015, 1.6 million modelers’ aircraft will be sold (including about 50 percent in the

fourth quarter)

.

• Non

- ex empt non

- modeler operations will commence in 2016

. This forecast is roughly

constrained to correspond with the expected regulatory environment through 2020

.

• In 2016, 1.9 million modelers’ units will be sold and approximately 600,000 non

modelers’ units.

• The forecast then continues to grow through 2020, with intermediate years interpolated

for the purpose of this regulatory evaluation

.

o The modeler’s annual growth rate is 23 percent.

o Non

- modelers application s were developed by business category with separate

growth rate s

.

o Growth rates incorporate real GDP growth

.

Life Span Assumption

A very important assumption in the forecast is that the l ife s pan of all s UAS less than 55

pounds is one year or less . FAA assume s that 10 percent of modelers’ units last into a second

year but are then retired. I nterviewees indicate that under

- 55 pound s UAS have very short life

spans because they are damaged, destroyed

, or reach the end of their serviceable lives through

use

. Due to the life s pan assumption there will be no aircraft renewed after two years and no19 transfers to different owners (the units are not assumed to last long enough to be transferred.)

The forecast assumes the majority of the units sold are at the lower end of the weight range,

consistent with the use cases identified. The FAA requests comment on this assumption.

Estimating the Number of Owner s

Some additional assumptions are required to convert s UAS units to owners . They are

summarized immediately below , with more details in Appendix A :

• Average Number of Active s UAS units per Owner : The forecast estimates that the

average hobbyist will own 1.5 s UAS

. Instead of assuming a homogeneous population of

hobbyists owning 1.5 s UAS each, the FAA created a population of three types: 80

percent of hobbyists own one s UAS, 15 percent own three and 5 percent own five. This

produces a n average fleet size of 1.5 s UAS per hobbyist. This population distribution

determines how many hobbyis ts must register their aircraft . FAA has determined that 20

percent of small unmanned aircraft sold will weigh 0.55 pounds or less and be exempted

from registration. A hobbyist who owns only exempt small unmanned aircraft units need

not register the airc raft with FAA.

• Two aircraft are assumed to be owned by non

- model owners on average, based on the

average number of s UAS units per certificate of waiver under section 333.

• Attrition Rate : Some owners will begin using s UAS but then cease operations in the

future; FAA assumes that the annual attrition rate is 20 percent. We assume that owners

that quit flying sUAS's are replaced by new owners (with identical characteristics) whose

purchases are included in the sales forecas t the following year. As little hard data is

available, FAA requests comments on this assumption.20 • Percent of Sales to Hobbyists Owning only Lightweight sUAS : FAA assumes that 20

percent of all hobbyist s UAS units sold include small unmanned aircraft that are 0.55

pounds or less and thus are not required to be register ed . A slightly smaller percentage of

modelers (16.1 percent ) are assumed to be in this category, because some modelers are

assumed to own only lightweight small unmanned aircraft (and thus do not need to

register) but others own some lightweight unmanned aircraft and some above the weight

(and thus need to register)

.

s UAS Subject to Registration

The following tables summarize these results. The number of s UAS units and owners

estimated to be affected will be used in the following cost and cost savings analysis.

Table 2 : Number of Regist ration Activities (000) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Baseline : Paper

- based Registrations for non

modelers Modeler

- - - - - - Non

- Modeler

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,686

IFR Requirements: Web

- Based Registrations Modeler 979 271 399 478 590 725

Non

- Modeler

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,686

De

- Registration
Modeler 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non

- Modeler

- - 617 2,492 2,555 2,620

Renewals (owners)

Modeler 0 0 0 501 174 25521 Non

- Modeler 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rejected alternative : Paper

- based Registrations for modelers and non

modelers Modeler 1,4 0 0 1,384 1,704 2,096 2,578 3,171

Non

- Modeler

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,686

Note: Appendix A contains the intermediate steps needed to convert from the sales forecast to the registry activities summarized here. Rows ma y not add due to rounding

The FAA notes that model ers would not be required to de

- register their small unmanned

aircraft as each aircraft is not individually registered

. Some modelers may choose to deregister

their aircraft themselves; the FAA assumes this would be a very small number. The FAA also

notes that non

- model er s w ill not have to renew their registration for a small unmanned aircraft

for this analysis because the expected life span of non

- modeler s UAS less than 55 pounds is one

year or less ; even if some survive longer than one year, essentially none are expected to last

beyond three years

.22 I V

. COSTS

In evaluating the impact of this proposed rule, we compare the costs and benefits of the

IFR to a baseline consistent with existing practices: for modelers, the exercise of discretion by

FAA (not requiring registration), and for non

- modelers, registration via Part 47 in the paper

based system. We also calculate the costs of the rejected alternative: requiring modelers and

non

- modelers alike to register aircraft via the paper

- based system.

In order to compare the costs of this rule to th is baseline

, the FAA estimated the costs of

registering sUAS aircraft u nder the web

- based registration system resulting from this Part 48

rulemaking ( The IFR )

. The two populations, modelers and non

- modelers, have slightly different

processes as noted in this evaluation

. In all of these scenarios, sUAS that are 0.55 pounds or less

are excluded from registration. In these analys e s, we estimate the private

- sector compliance costs

and government costs for each scenario

.

FAA notes that a ny aircraft registration fee s imposed will not result in a net gain (benefit)

or loss (cost) from a societal perspective. Government fees and taxes are considered transfers

and, by Office of Management and Budget guidance , transfers are not considered a societal

cost. 20 The FAA is required by law to set the fee in regulation based on estimated costs of

providing the service, and is also required to adjust the fee based on the actual costs of the

service provided. 21 The current estimated fee for aircraft registration under part 48 is $5. Thus,

this fee could be adjusted in the final rule if we have sufficient data to determine the ac tual costs

of the system at that time. If not, we will continue to monitor and determine the actual costs and

will adjust the fee accordingly via future rulemaking.

20 See “ Transfer Costs” section below

21 See 49 U.S.C. 4530523 Baseline: Registering sUAS aircraft operated as other than model aircraft under the baselin e

registration system

The baseline that we analyzed was a framework in which the population of sUAS

requiring aircraft registration is those operated for non

- modeler purposes and that these

regist rations would be made with the current paper

- based baseline registration process

. Th is

baseline analysis requires non

- modelers to register aircraft in the current paper

- based system as

they do today under the Section 333 exemption process

. Notably, model sUAS aircraft are not

registered, per historical discretionary practice, and the agency relies on its broad, general public

outreach campaign, the Know Before you Fly initiative, as the primary opportunity to educate

these new users

.

The current paper

- based registration process is codified in 14 CFR Part 47. To register

an aircraft under the paper

- based process, a sUAS registrant must send by mail the following to

the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch : a completed a ircraft r egistration a pplication, evidence of

ownership (such as one or more bills of sale ) , and a $5 aircraft registration fee

. 22 We also include

additional information such as date of manufacture and aircraft type (i.e., make/model). The

application includes information on the manufacturer, model and , serial number

, among other

data fields. Evi dence of ownership may include, but is not limited to, a traditional bill of sale, a

contract of conditional sale, a lease with purchase option, or an heir

- at

- law affidavit. Many

applicants are required to provide additional documentation for aircraft impo rted from a foreign

country, built from a kit, or that qualify as amateur built aircraft. Additional documentation may

include a certification from the builder as to the type of aircraft and a complete description, to

include information such as make, mode l, serial number, engine manufacturer, type of engine,

22 The required form is an Aircraft Registration Application (AC Form 8050

- 1). The fee for an application for a Certificate of Aircraft Registration for sUAS aircraft registered under P art 48 is $5, as is required for all Certificates of Aircraft Registration issued at this time

.24 number of engines, maximum takeoff weight, and number of seats. An applicant who applies as

a limited liability corporation, a trustee, a non

- citizen corporation, or submits documentation

signed by “ au thorized signers ,” must submit additional documentation to support registration.

For amateur built aircraft, the owner or builder designates the aircraft model name and serial

number. An applicant pertaining to an import ed aircraft must provide evidence sh owing the

aircraft has been removed from a foreign registry. The FAA estimates that for this registration

method it takes registrants 30 minutes to complete and submit forms for the registration process

for each aircraft registered

.

Once registered, the Registry issues a Certificate of Aircraft Registration (AC Form

8050

- 3) to the aircraft owner and mails it to the address on record. The Registry experiences a

range in the amount of time required to issue a Certificate. While it typically takes 12

- 15

busi ness days for the registry to issue a Certificate after an owner submits an application, due to

an increase in registration applications, it currently takes approximately 22 business days for the

registry to issue the certificate. The aircraft owner will t ypically receive a Certificate

approximately 4 days after it is issued as a result of the time required for printing and mailing the

certificate. The estimated times are extended if the application is rejected for document

correction.

R egistrants’ costs r eflect the time (estimated at 30 minutes) to fill out and submit the

application form required by the current paper

- based system for aircraft registration; because

time is a valuable economic resource. The FAA notes that registrants’ costs are the opportu nity

costs for their time used and ar e not out

- of

- pocket costs . For sUAS aircraft registration costs, we

multiply the annual number of sUAS aircraft registrations (from Table 2) by the time it would25 take to complete each registration form

, and then by the hourly value of time from the

“Assumptions and Data” section

.

T able 3 Baseline: Non

- Modeler R egistrants ’ C osts for SUAS Aircraft Registration s U sing Paper

- Based System
Year Calendar Year Number of sUAS registrations

(millions) Applicant Time (hours) Hourly Opportunity Cost (Non

- modeler Value of Time) Total Costs ($M) 7percent P.V. ($M)

0 2015 0.000 0.5 $24.89 $ 0.0 $ 0.0

1 2016 0.617 0.5 $25.14 $ 7.8 $ 7.2

2 2017 2.492 0.5 $25.39 $ 31.6 $ 27.6
3 2018 2.555 0.5 $25.64 $ 32.8 $ 26.7

4 2019 2.620 0.5 $25.90 $ 33.9 $ 25.9

5 2020 2.686 0.5 $26.16 $ 35.1 $ 25.0

Total $141.2 $112.6 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Th e following analysis provides estimates of the FAA’s costs for sUAS registrations for

non

- modelers using the paper

- based system . FAA estimates that its costs are $22 for the

registration of an aircraft in this paper

- based system. These costs reflect both the direc t and

indirect costs for these activities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. For aircraft registrations, direct costs

are obtained from the FAA’s Cost Accounting System (CAS) by project code and the associated

tasks under each project code. Overhead is applied to the activities separately for direct labor

and direct non

- labor costs according to the FAA’s reimbursable agreements methodology to

ensure full cost measurement. The total costs for each of these activities are then divided by FY

2012 registration activi ty volumes to determine the cost for each activity. We multiply the

yearly data in the number of initial registrations column by the FAA cost to register an aircraft in

order to estimate the FAA cost of registering an aircraft. Table 4 show s the estimated registration

costs, in millions of dollars, over the period of analysis.26 Table 4 Baseline: FAA C osts for s UAS Aircraft Registration s for Non

- modelers’ Aircraft using Paper

- Based System

Year Calendar Year Number of sUAS registrations

(millions) Registration processing Cost per sUAS Total Costs ($M) 7 % P.V. ($M)

0 2015 0.000 $22 $ 0.0 $ 0.0

1 2016 0.617 $22 $ 13.6 $ 12.7

2 2017 2.492 $22 $ 54.8 $ 47.9
3 2018 2.555 $22 $ 56.2 $ 45.9

4 2019 2.620 $22 $ 57.6 $ 44.0

5 2020 2.686 $22 $ 59.1 $ 42.1

Total $241.3 $192.6 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Therefore, the baseline cost estimate is shown in Table 5 below. This is the estimate of the total

registrant and FAA cost to register all non

- model sUAS aircraft using the paper

- based system.

Table 5 Baseline: Paper

- Based Registration for Non

- modelers Costs Summary ($M)
Year Calendar Year Costs Costs 7% P.V.
Non

modelers
cost FAA Costs Total Costs Non

modelers
cost FAA Costs Total Costs

0 2015 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0

1 2016 $ 7.8 $ 13.6 $ 21.3 $ 7.2 $ 12.7 $ 19.9

2 2017 $ 31.6 $ 54.8 $ 86.5 $ 27.6 $ 47.9 $ 75.5

3 2018 $ 32.8 $ 56.2 $ 89.0 $ 26.7 $ 45.9 $ 72.6

4 2019 $ 33.9 $ 57.6 $ 91.6 $ 25.9 $ 44.0 $ 69.9

5 2020 $ 35.1 $ 59.1 $ 94.2 $ 25.0 $ 42.1 $ 67.2

Total $1 41.2 $241.3 $382.5 $112.6 $192.6 $305.1 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding27 Web

- based R egistration System resulting from this Part 48 rulemaking

Via this IFR, the FAA will establish a streamlined, web

- based registration process for

sUAS

. In this section, we discuss the estimated costs of this web

- based registration process to

the owners of sUAS

. The process is slightly different depending on whether the sUAS is

operated by a modeler for hobby or recreational purposes or by a non

- modeler f or corporate,

commercial , or public service purposes.

Modelers will be required to register aircraft with the FAA and mark their aircraft prior to

operation

. Modelers will be required to enter their name, their physical address (and if the

applicant does not receive mail at their physical address, a mailing address must be provided),

and their email address

. In addition, basic safety information will be presented and must be

acknowledged during the registration process. These registrants will pay a registration fee of $5

and receive a single unique registration number that they must use to identify all unmanned

aircraft that they operate

. 23 Every three years thereafter, modelers must renew their registration

with the FAA and pay a registration renewa l fee of $5. 24

Based on the web system design and the information to be collected, t he FAA estimates

that it will take 5 minutes for a registrant to complete the initial registration process; a gain, these

costs are time

- resource opportunity costs

. This time estimate includes the time necessary to read

the education materials that will be provided through the online registration system. We

multiply the number of annual number of registrations by the estimated time it would take to

complete a regis tration session and then by the hourly value for personal time from the

“Assumptions and Data” section. In T able 6 w e provide estimates of registrants’ costs to

complete the registrations requirements based on the estimate d number of applicants, the

23 As noted throughout this regulatory evaluation these registration and registration renewal fees are transfers.

24 Ibid

.28 applicants ’ time, and the value of the applicants ’ time

, over the period of analysis

. Every three

years thereafter, modelers must renew their registration s with the FAA. T he FAA estimated

these costs using the sUAS owners and renewals discussed in the “ s UAS Registration Fleet

Forecast” section. Table 6 shows the estimated registration and renewal costs over the analysis

perio d.

Table 6 Modelers Registrations and Renewal s Web

- based P rocess R egistration C osts Year Calendar Year # of Modelers Applicant Time (minutes) Hourly Opportunity cost (Personal Value of Time) Total Costs ($M) 7 % P.V. ($M) New (M) Renewals (M)
0 2015 0.979 0.000 5 $19.13 $1.6 $1.6

1 2016 0.271 0.000 5 $19.32 $0.4 $0.4

2 2017 0.399 0.000 5 $19.51 $0.6 $0.6

3 2018 0.478 0.501 5 $19.71 $1.6 $1.3

4 2019 0.590 0.174 5 $19.90 $1.3 $1.0

5 2020 0.725 0.255 5 $20.10 $1.6 $1.2

Total $7.2 $6.0 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

N on

- modelers will be required to establish an account in order to register their s UAS

aircraft with the FAA. The sUAS aircraft registration website will present registrants with a

short set of questions required for registration. In addition, basic safety information will be

presented and must be acknowledged. In this web

- based Part 48 registration process, these

registrants will be required to provide the name of their authorized representative, the name of

the company (if applicable), physical address, ma iling address (if different from their physical

address), and email address to the FAA. Non

- modelers owning sUAS must also provide the

make, model, and serial number of each sUAS being registered. These registrants will pay a

registration fee of $5 per ai rcraft registered. The FAA will provide those persons with a

Certificate of Registration for each aircraft registered; a unique identifier will be provided by the29 registry for each aircraft. This analysis assumes that sUAS aircraft have a one

- year life a nd

would therefore not have to be de

- register ed

. There is no fee associated with de

- registering a

non

- modeler sUAS aircraft but there is a 3 minute time associated with de

- registering a sUAS

aircraft

. The FAA assumes after the first year all non

- modelers will have to annually register

their aircraft in the current year and de

- register the aircraft from the previous year.

The FAA estimates that it would take 7 minutes for non

- modelers to complete this

registration process of new aircraft for that year and 6 minutes (3 minutes per sUAS aircraft) 25 to

deregister the aircraft from the previous year. We multiply the number of annual number of

these registrations and d e

- registrations by the time it would take to complete each session and

then by the hourly value for personal time from the “Assumptions and Data” section. T he FAA

estimated these costs using the sUAS estimated in the “ s UAS Registration Fleet Forecast”

sec tion. (I n 2015 there are no non

- modeler aircraft registrations using the part 48 process

. ) In

2016 non

- modelers register aircraft for the first time

, for a total of 7 minutes per registration. In

2017

– 2020 non

- modelers spend 13 minutes registering their current year aircraft and de

registering the aircraft from the previous year. In T able 7 we provide estimates of the non

modeler registrants’ costs to register and de

- register their sUAS aircraft for each year of analysis

interval

.

25 From the “Assumption and Data” section, o n average, non

- model s UAS owners are assumed to own 2 aircraft at a time.30 Table 7 Non

- Modeler s s UAS Aircraft Registration Costs Web

- based Registration System
Year Calendar
Year # of sUAS Actions Cost ($M) Total Costs ($M) 7 % P.V. ($M) Register (M) De

- register (M) Register De

- register

0 2015 0.000 0.000 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0

1 2016 0.617 0.000 $ 0.9 $ 0.0 $ 0.9 $ 0.8

2 2017 2.492 0.617 $ 3.7 $ 0. 8 $ 4.5 $ 3.9

3 2018 2.555 2.492 $ 3.8 $ 3.2 $ 7.0 $ 5. 7

4 2019 2.620 2.555 $ 4.0 $ 3.3 $ 7.3 $ 5. 5

5 2020 2.686 2.620 $ 4.1 $ 3.4 $ 7.5 $ 5.4

Total $16.5 $ 10.7 $ 27.2 $ 21.4
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Costs to develop and implement the web

- based registration system for the FAA

An external contractor assisted the FAA in estimating the government costs to develop

and maintain the web

- based registration system for the FAA. This section describes these costs

and provides an estimate, over the analysis interval, of the costs

. The FAA notes the system is

being developed in phases that continue through 2016, and so costs remain uncertain. 26

The FAA would incur business operation, IT p rogram m anagement, and other costs.

Business operation costs include program analysts and managers. IT p rogram management costs

include costs to manage and maintain the web

- based system. Other costs include educational

costs and contract support. FAA contracto rs would also incur costs. These costs include the

initial build and the long

- term sustainment and support of the web

- based registration syst e m.

Table 8 shows estimate of these costs.

26 Consistent with benefit

- cost analysis practice, all government costs are accounted for in the year in which they occur.31 Table 8 FAA W eb

- B ased R egistration S ystem Costs $M
Year Calendar Year FAA Cost Contractor Costs Total Costs 7 % P.V.

0 2015 $ 3.0 $ 0.9 $ 3.9 $ 3.9

1 2016 $ 1.8 $ 3.2 $ 5.0 $ 4.7

2 2017 $ 1.3 $ 1.9 $ 3.2 $ 2.8
3 2018 $ 1.3 $ 2.1 $ 3.4 $ 2.8

4 2019 $ 1.3 $ 1.7 $ 3.0 $ 2.3

5 2020 $ 1.3 $ 1.3 $ 2.6 $ 1.9

Total $10.2 $11.0 $21.2 $18.4 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

The following summary table shows total costs for modelers, non

- modelers and FAA.

Table 9 Web

- Based Registration Costs Summary ($M)
Year Calendar Year Modelers Costs Non

- Modelers Costs FAA Costs Total Costs 7% P.V.
0 2015 $1.6 $ 0.0 $ 3.9 $ 5.5 $ 5.5

1 2016 $0.4 $ 0.9 $ 5.0 $ 6.3 $ 5.9

2 2017 $0.6 $ 4.5 $ 3.2 $ 8.3 $ 7.3
3 2018 $1.6 $ 7.0 $ 3.4 $12.1 $ 9.9

4 2019 $1.3 $ 7.3 $ 3.0 $11.6 $ 8.8

5 2020 $1.6 $ 7.5 $ 2.6 $11.8 $ 8.4

Total $7.2 $27.2 $21.2 $55.6 $45.7 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

s UAS identification marking

Each sUAS aircraft registered in accordance with this IFR must display a unique

identifier which must be marked on the aircraft or affixed by any other means ensuring a similar

degree of permanence. R egistrant s ’ costs to complete the identification marking as required in

the IFR are de minim i s . While ma r king by a pen is sufficient, the FAA is aware some modelers32 will adopt other means to preserve or enhance the appearance of their aircraft. T he FAA will

facilitate efforts by industry to permit the use of the serial number as the identification number,

whi ch would entirely relieve this requirement.

Rejected Alternative: Paper

- Based Registration System Cost for Modelers and Non

- Modelers

As noted above in the “baseline” discussion, the current paper

- based registration process

is codified in 14 CFR Part 47. A s reflected in the October 22, 2015, clarification and request for

information, the Department considered requiring all owners, modelers and non

- modelers, to

register under this existing process in part 47. Based on the following analysis, the Department

has determined it is necessary to provide regulatory relief from this process and has developed

the stream

- lined web

- based system in this IFR.

In this rejected alternative, non

- modelers’ costs remain the same as Table 4 above.

Similarly, t he FAA estimated costs for modelers. We note the two populations are

estimated separately as, by assumption, each group’s value of time is different. Table 10 show s

the estimated registration costs for modelers under the paper

- based system over the period of

analysis

.

T able 10 Modeler (Recreational) Registrants Costs for s UAS Aircraft Registration s Using the Paper

- Based System

Year Calendar Year Number of sUAS registrations

(millions) Applicant Time (hours) Hourly Opportunity Cost (Personal Value of Time) Total Costs ($M) 7 % P.V. ($M)

0 2015 1.400 0.5 $19.13 $ 13.4 $13.4

1 2016 1.384 0.5 $19.32 $ 13.4 $12.5

2 2017 1.704 0.5 $19.51 $ 16.6 $14.5

3 2018 2.096 0.5 $19.71 $ 20.7 $16.9

4 2019 2.578 0.5 $19.90 $ 25.7 $19.6

5 2020 3.171 0.5 $20.10 $ 31.9 $22.7

Total $121.6 $99.633 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

The costs to the FAA for non

- modelers using the paper

- based system are the same as

those shown in Table 4 above. The process and cost elements for modelers would be the same.

Table 11 shows FAA estimated costs if modelers were to register their aircraft using the paper

based system. FAA notes that the estimate of $22 per registration is a full

- cost estimate,

includin g allocations for overhead, as described in the baseline system. However, it is possible

the FAA’s costs would not increase in a linear fashion for this vast increase in number of

registrations. The FAA did not attempt to develop a more detailed cost estim ate for this rejected

alte rnative.

Table 1 1 FAA’s Costs for Paper

- Based Registrations of Model Aircraft
Year Calendar Year Number of sUAS registrations

(millions) Registration processing Cost per sUAS Total Costs ($M) 7 % P.V. ($M)

0 2015 1.400 $22 $ 30.8 $ 30.8

1 2016 1.384 $22 $ 30.4 $ 28.5

2 2017 1.704 $22 $ 37.5 $ 32.7
3 2018 2.096 $22 $ 46.1 $ 37.6

4 2019 2.578 $22 $ 56.7 $ 43.3

5 2020 3.171 $22 $ 69.8 $ 49.7

Total $271.3 $222.6 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Ta b le 12 below summarizes the total cost to FAA and registrants of registering model

aircraft through the paper

- based system.34 Table 12 Paper

- Based Registration for Modelers; Modeler and FAA Costs (Rejected Alternative) ($M)
Year Calendar Year Modelers Costs FAA Costs Total Costs 7% P.V.
0 2015 $ 13.4 $30.8 $44.2 $44.2

1 2016 $ 13.4 $30.4 $43.8 $41.0

2 2017 $ 16.6 $37.5 $54.1 $47.3

3 2018 $ 20.7 $46.1 $66.8 $54.5

4 2019 $ 25.7 $56.7 $82.4 $62.8

5 2020 $ 31.9 $69.8 $101.6 $72.5

Total $121.6 $271.3 $392.9 $322.2 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

T able 13 below summarizes the total cost to FAA and registrants of registering modelers’

and non

- modeler’s aircraft in the paper

- based system (rejected alternative)

.

Table 13 Total Paper

- Based Registration Costs Summary (Rejected Alternative) ($M)
Year Calendar Year Modelers Costs Non

- Modelers Costs FAA Costs Total Costs 7% P.V.
0 2015 $ 13.4 $ 0.0 $30.8 $44.2 $44.2

1 2016 $ 13.4 $ 7.8 $44.0 $65.1 $60.9

2 2017 $ 16.6 $ 31.6 $92.3 $140.6 $122.8

3 2018 $ 20.7 $ 32.8 $102.3 $155.7 $127.1

4 2019 $ 25.7 $ 33.9 $114.4 $173.9 $132.7

5 2020 $ 31.9 $ 35.1 $128.9 $195.9 $139.6

Total $121.6 $141.2 $512.7 $775.4 $627.3 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Cost Summary

Table 14 summarizes our estimates for the costs discussed in this section for all three

scenarios: The baseline, the IFR solution, and the rejected alternative . The details for the

calculations can be found in Appendix A

.35 Table 14 Cost Summary ($M)

Modelers ’ Costs Non

Modelers ’ Costs FAA Costs Total Costs

Baseline Total $0.0 $141.2 $241.3 $382.5

7% P.V. $0.0 $112.6 $192.6 $305.1
Interim Final Rule ( IFR) Total $7.2 $27.2 $21.2 $55.6

7% P.V. $6.0 $21.4 $18.4 $45.7 Rejected Alternative Total $121.6 $141.2 $512.7 $775.4

7% P.V. $99.6 $112.6 $415.2 $627.3
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding36 IV

. BENEFITS

Qua ntitative Benefits

In this section, we discuss beneficial impacts to the non

- modeler from the cost savings of

this rule over registering sUAS aircraft using the baseline system

. The cost savings to non

modelers from the option of not using the paper

- based system exceed the costs to modelers and

the government of establishing and using the web

- based system.

The baseline column shows the total costs for the baseline from Table 5, non

- modelers

register their aircraft using the paper

- based system, while modelers do not register their aircraft

.

The IFR column shows the total costs from Table 9 , the costs to FAA and registrants (modelers

and non

- modelers) of the new web

- based system. Table 15 below shows the significant cost

savings of subtracting the costs of registration betwe en the baseline system from the registration

costs imposed by this rulemaking.

T able 15 Cost Savings of the Baseline versus the Part 48 Rulemaking ($M )
Year Calendar Year Total Cost Difference 7 % P.V. Baseline IFR

0 2015 $ 0.0 $ 5.5

- $ 5.5

- $ 5. 5

1 2016 $ 21.3 $ 6.3 $ 15.0 $ 14.0

2 2017 $ 86.5 $ 8.3 $ 78.1 $ 68. 3
3 2018 $ 89.0 $12.1 $ 76.9 $ 62. 8

4 2019 $ 91.6 $11.6 $ 80.0 $ 61.0

5 2020 $ 94.2 $11.8 $ 82.5 $ 58. 9

Total $382.5 $55.6 $327.0 $259.4 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Qualitative Benefits

In this section, we discuss beneficial impacts from this rule that cannot yet be quantified.

We discuss how the sUAS market has failed to accomplish the goals of sUAS education, and37 accountability. We also cite additional potential savings flowing to local law enforcement

agencies from this IFR.

Sources of Market Failure

In this section of the regulatory evaluation, we highlight the economic ra tionale for

government intervention by identifying the market failure this rule addresses. Then, we discuss

how the selected regulatory intervention (this IFR requiring registration) addresses that market

failure, drawing on examples from other industries to provide support for its likely effec tiveness.

As established in the preamble to this IFR, there are problems arising from the rapid

proliferation of sUAS models, and these concerns are arising more frequently. Further, sales of

sUAS are projected to continue to increase , with over 500 ,000 n ew users projected in the fourth

quarter of calendar year 2015 alone , which makes addressing this problem more urgent. Many of

these users are new to aviation and are unaware of the system in which they will operat e , let

alone the safety requirements that must be met when operating their unmanned aircraft. There is

an immediate need to educate this new user population before they begin operating and the new

streamlined web

- based aircraft registration system will provide that opportunity in a cost

effective manner. In this discussion, we characterize the problems in operating s UAS as

“mistakes” on the part of their operators. There may be many kinds of mistakes, such as errors38 in operators’ judgment, not fully understanding the rules that determine where s UA S can fly,

technical failures of sUAS or their co ntrol systems, etc. 27

In some markets, tort liability and insurance systems exist to address these possible

consequences of mistakes in use. However, establishing liability and effectively compensating

those adversely affected depends upon at least two necessary conditions: (1) identifying the

responsible pa rty, which is difficult without some registration system, and (2) a rational basis for

suing and collecting from the responsible party, some of whom will be consumers who may be

judgment proof. 28 In such circumstances, Shavel argues that regulation and liab ility may be more

effective if used together. 29 Further, insurance companies have also indicated that registration

and robust regulation will be necessary conditions for the creation of insurance for UAS

operations, which will be critical to the ir full deve lopment particularly in the commercial

sector. 30

Lacking information, n e w users may be unaware of when and where it is appropriate to

operate their sUAS. For example, it is inappropriate to operate a sUAS within five miles of an

airport without giving noti ce to the airport operator and to the air traffic control tower, if one is

present at the airport

. Such information failures may occur for a variety of reasons. First, if the

new sUAS operator is an infrequent user he/she may not recognize mistakes as the y occur,

27 This section builds on the behavioral economics literature as described by Barr

- Gill and others cited blow, as well as other literature on UAS’s and the rapid adoption of new technologies. O. Barr

- Gill: The Behavioral Economics of
Consumer Contracts in Minnesota Law Review (2008 )

.

28 See S.Shavell: “A Model of the Optimal Use of Liability and Safety Regulation” Rand Journal of Economics (Vol 15 No 2, Summer 1984) pp 270

- 280 and R. Golaszewski and A. Gellman: “Tort Liability and Government Regulation as a means to Promote Safety: Application to the Aircraft Replacement Parts Manufacturing Industry” Proceedings of the Transportation Research Forum 1985) pp 395

- 400

29 Shavell op cit

30 Lloyds: Dron es Take Flight (Emerging Risk Report

- 2015)39 especially if mistakes occur without consequence. Second, geographical diversity amongst users

may limit learning opportunities. Hobbyist and other new users may not have access to expert

advice on the proper use of these aircraft and the rules g overning their use.

It is unlikely that efforts by sUAS manufacturers or sellers acting alone, in their own best

interest will be sufficient to mitigate these market failures

. Although the FAA and DOT had

earlier initiated the “Know Before You Fly” campaign to educate sUAS operators about their

responsibilities for conducting safe operations, t he continued increase in reported incidents,

along with the increase in new modelers indicates that a more i mmediate and targeted effort is

warranted. Disclosure of the inherent risks associated with inappropriate use of such a product

via labeling or inserts to packaging may not be heeded or even understood by its users

. , While

research in this area reaches mi xed conclusions, 31 it appears to be commonplace and widely

accepted for companies to build and offer products that are potentially unsafe when used

improperly, as long as the risks of doing so are comprehensively disclosed. 32 Furthermore,

education and ot her information provisions can only be effective if the market failure is

inadequate or asymmetric information. Here we also have the market failure of potential external

consequences to others rather than the operator.

Nevertheless, we have seen that the sUAS industry has recently recognized the problem

of proliferating mistakes by operators, and developed mechanisms to fund general education

efforts in cooperation with the FAA. The “Know Before You Fly” website is the most visible

31 Jolls, Christine; Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler (1998). “A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics,” Stanford Law Review , 50(5): 1471

- 1550.

32 Bar

- Gill, Oren (2007). Informing Consumers About Themselves . New York University Law School. (New York University Law and Economics Working Paper 111) page 49.40 effort in this area. 33 While these efforts are important first steps toward reducing user mistakes,

the expanding number of manufacturers, the proliferation of retailers, and a rapidly evolving set

of uses, has meant that communities of interest have not yet coalesced to provide effective

voluntary channels to reach and educate new users. G rowth in the number and uses of sUAS

will need to stabilize before these voluntary education measures can realize their full potential to

promote safe sUAS operation.

Given that the market for sUAS insurance is also in its early stages of development, it

cannot be relied up on to provide adequate incentives for responsible behavior by sUAS

operators. Liability for the consequences of unsafe operation of s UAS has not yet been well

established . F urthermore

, given the growth in the sUAS hobby market, many sUAS are

consumer products for which their typical modeler purchasers may not seek separate insurance

coverage.

Correcting for Market Failure

One way to address this market failure is to encourag e “internalization” of the

externalities resulting from unsafe operation of s UAS , by adopting policies that make operators

responsible for the adverse consequences of incidents (which is the basis for liability law).

Registration will 1) make it easier to identify the owners of the aircraft which has been involved

in an “incident;” 2) facilitate compliance and education, and when appropriate, enforcement

act ion ; 3) encourage accountability by holding owner’s responsibl e for use and 4 ) establish a

33 “ Know Before You Fly ” is an education campaign founded by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to educate prospective users about the safe and responsible operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).41 future basis for FAA to engage in immediate and targeted education activities which might not

otherwise occur.

At present, there are multiple efforts by government to address the problem of increasing

mistakes by sUAS operato rs:

 First, operators of model aircraft (small UASs flown for hobby or recreation) are required to

comply with community

- based safety guidelines within the program of a nationwide

community

- based organization. This maximizes users’ opportunities to learn fr om one

another about proper uses of the products, and about how to anticipate and avoid mistakes as

new uses are discovered. It also creates the opportunity for individual communities to define

locally appropriate uses and enforce local rules. 34

 Second, as discussed previously, FAA and industry have joined together to promote safe

operations of sUAS via their joint “Know Before You Fly,” “B4UFLy APP,” and “Drone

Free Zone” initiatives.

 Third, FAA has issued the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM (Part 107 ), which

proposes operating requirements to allow small unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) to

operate for non

- hobby or non

- recreational purposes; FAA expects to finalize this rule during

2016.

34 Public Law 112

– 95 specifically prohibits the FAA from promulgating operating rules regarding model aircraft that meet all of the following statutory criteria:

 The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use

 The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community

- based set of safety guidelines and within the

programming of a nationwide community

- based organization

 The aircraft is limited to 55 pounds or less unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection,

flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community

- based organ ization

 The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft, and

 When flown within five miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the

airport air traffic control t ower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.42 Aircraft registration and marking serve as the primary foundation blocks in the regulatory

structure that provides for safe and orderly aircraft activity within the NAS because registration

provides accountability among its users. The registration number p rovides a link to information

about the aircraft and the owner responsible for its operations. Compliance with the aircraft

registration and identification requirements will assist the FAA and law enforcement agencies in

identifying owners of s UAS operated in an unsafe manner. With registration the FAA can more

efficiently educate these users, and when appropriate, take enforcement action. Aircraft

registration provides the FAA and law enforcement agencies an invaluable tool during

inspections and invest igations of inappropriate or prohibited behavior, during emergency

situations and for purposes of sharing safety information.

As of October 7, 2015, the FAA has taken 20 actions of enforcement against individuals

for unsafe or unauthorized s UAS operations. Taking enforcement action requires identifying an

individual or entity responsible for the operation. That is often difficult due to the nature of

s UAS operations. An operator can fly an unmanned aircraft from miles away, generally with no

way to trace t he aircraft back to its operator. Locating violators is also a challenge, as very few of

these aircraft are registered in any federal database and rarely will they have identifiable

markings such as those used for conventional manned aircraft.

Examples of Registration from O ther Industries

As discussed previously, the primary objectives of this rule are to improve the education

of sUAS buyers and users about safe operating practices, and increase their accountability for

potential consequences of operating s UAS unsafely

. Economic research, as well and examples

from other industries, suggest that the preferred regulatory intervention of requiring s UAS43 aircraft to be registered, can help ad dress all of these objectives. Summaries of the experience

with government registration requirements for other products that also entail potential safety

consequences are reported below. Complete descriptions and sources are included in Appendix

B

.

Regis tration of products enables monitoring of their proper use , and also facilitat es

identification of those misusing them. For example, consumer mistakes are prevalent in the use

of pesticides, which are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y (EPA). As

part of the registration process , EPA disseminates guidance about permitted uses of specific

pesticide products, and also exercises control over their quality, usage rates, claims, labeling,

packaging

, and advertising, thus ensuring that the in terest s of both pesticide users and the

environment are well

- protected

.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA ) requires food facilities to register, submit to

inspections by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and renew their registrations

annually. The FMSA and these new rules made it possible to better protect public health by

adopting a modern, preven tive, and risk

- based approach to food safety regulation. These new

rules allow the FDA to take a more preventive rather than reacti ve approach to food safety.

Surgical joint replacement registries have also proven to be beneficial in reducing rates of

re vision. Many countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands have

established arthroplasty ( or joint

- replacement) registries , which have improved the quality of

joint replacements by enabling inferior results of implants or replacements to be detected as early

as possible. T he registry is a key component of establishing exposure data, monitoring adverse

incidents and providing a means to conduct risk based safety analysis.44 A final example is widespread registration and licensing of both com mercial and

recreational fishing , two of the many legal and regulatory measures available to control

overfishing. A centerpiece of commercial licensing is the establishment of Annual Catch Limits

(ACLs). One of the key benefits of these laws and regulatio ns is to address adverse incentives for

fishermen to collectively over

- fish particular areas and exhaust fish populations; this occurs

because individual fishermen face no incentive to consider the implications of their collective

decisions about where and how intensively to fish, and together their individual decisions can

reduce fish populations below replacement levels. Thus licensing and registration serves the

important function of limiting individual participants’ activity

– in this case, fishing

– t o levels

that guarantee preservation of a vital common resource that otherwise would be threatened by

their individual action s

. While registering sUAS aircraft is not meant to li m it their use, it is

meant to address an externality that may be caused by inappropriate behavior. Just as in fishing,

inappropriate use of sUAS could result in adverse consequences including further restrictions on

their use if they threaten other importan t activities.

**Benefits to owners**

This IFR also has the potential to benefit sUAS owners. In the event of a mistake where the

aircraft flies away from the owner, the registration marki ng provides a means for the aircraft to

be returned to its owner

.

**Educat ion efforts** 

One benefit of th is rulemaking will be to improve the opportunity to educat e recreational

s UAS owners and operators by mak ing them aware of the regulatory and safety requirements

affecting their activities. At the same time, it will provid e es sential educational tools to the

legions of new and current flyers that are taking to the skies

, so that they can use their unmanned45 aircraft safely. Registration also provide s a means to target educational efforts to new s UAS

operator s, in order to help them to avoid proliferation of the unauthorized and unsafe behavior

that has been reported in recent press accounts

.

T he agency expects to accomplish its sUAS education goals by providing information to

aircraft owner s during the registration process

. Each registrant will need to acknowledge having

read, and state their intent to follow, guidance presented on a single screen of information before

completing their registration process. 35 Registration will also enable the agency to engage in

follow

- up e

- mail communication with sUAS owners in the future, thereby reduc ing its reliance

on regular mail and providing important cost savings. E

- mail also allows for a less burdensome

and a more reliable method of deliver ing educational and other safety

- related materials to sUAS

owners. 36

The FAA is already devoting resources to education and outreach by promot ing safe

s UAS flying via its “Know Before you Fly” and “Drone Free Zone” initiatives. While the FAA

will continue to devote resources to outreach a fter thi s s UAS registration rule is published

, these

resources will be more effectively targeted on the audience of drone users who have registered

their aircraft . This will improve the efficien cy of the agency’s efforts at educational outreach,

thus enabling more effective use of resources compared to its current, less targeted approaches

for communication and outreach

.

35 Time to read and acknowledge is included in the user registration time estimate in the “cost” section.

36 No time or cost estimates for these future voluntar y efforts are included, nor are quantified estimates of safety benefits derived from these voluntary efforts. The number and volume of these future communications is highly uncertain. Model aircraft operators are already required by law to be operating wi thin the bounds of community programming, which does assume ongoing education. Costs associated with future mandatory education, such as for commercial operators, will be addressed in future regulations such as the final Part 107 rule.46 Benefits for Enforcement

As more sUAS enter the NAS, the risk of unsafe operations will increase without a

corresponding improvement in the me ans to identify sUAS operators for purposes of further

education and enforcement action, when appropriate

. An operator can fly a sUAS from miles

away, generally with no way to trace the aircraft back to its operator. Locating violators of

aviation safety regulations is also challenging, as very few of these aircraft are registered in any

federal database, and they rarely have identifiable markings such as those used for conventional

manned aircraft.

Requiring aircraft registration and display of marking information often has a direct and

immediate impact on safety

- related issues. For example, aircraft registration and marking

provides the FAA and law enforcement agencies an invaluable tool during inspections and

investigations of inappropriate or prohibit ed behavior, as well as during emergency situations.

One of the FAA’s goals is to provide the FAA and local law enforcement agencies the immediate

ability to quickly connect individuals to their aircraft with the fewest number of steps possible.

In the pro cess of developing this proposed rule, FAA queried various law enforcement

agencies (LEA) who have worked with us on investigations involving UAS . The question we

asked was “On average, how much time is spent helping the FAA investigating s UAS violations,

to include subject identification, witness interviews and case processing?” Although the

majority of agencies responded that they do not keep this type of statistic, several agencies did

provide estimates that ranged from 30 minutes to 18 hou rs. We compiled the information

provided by LEA and determined the average time spent on a s UAS investigation is

approximately 3 1/2 hours.47 We received feedback that the majority of incidents do not require extensive amounts of

time to track down s UAS o wners, as they are normally with the s UAS or self

- identify if the

device crashes. There have been a very limited number of incidents involving crashed s UASs in

which the owner did not attempt to retrieve them. For these incidents, a registration database

would save time by assisting the FAA and law enforcement in identifying a s UAS owner.48 VI. TRANSFER S

A ircraft registration and registration renewal fees will be paid by registrants of sUAS

.

The fee for application for a Certificate of Aircraft Registration for sUAS and for renewing a

c ertificate of a ircraft r egistration is $5.00 ; these fees are transfers from the registrants to the

F ederal Government . G overnment fees and taxes are considered transfers an d, by O MB

guidance , transfers are not considered a societal cost. OMB Circular A

- 4 requires the FAA to

report estimated transfers and defines a transfer payment as monetary payments from one group

to another that do not affect total resources available to society. Fees to government agencies for

goods or services provided by the agency should not be considered a cost or benefit because the

goods and services are already counted as government costs, and including them as private costs

would entail double co unting. See Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions

(FAQs) at pg. 1 2 available at

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a004/a

4_FAQ.pdf Estimates of the t otal transfers from the baseline, and the web

- based system

resulting from this Part 48 rulemaking are presented in the following table s

.49 Table 16 Registration and Re

- registration Fee s - Transfer Amounts For the Baseline and the IFR For Modelers ( $M )

Year Calendar Year Total Cost 7 % P.V.

Baseline IFR Rulemaking Baseline IFR Rulemaking

0 2015 $0.0 $ 4.9 $0.0 $ 4.9

1 2016 $0.0 $ 1.4 $0.0 $ 1.3

2 2017 $0.0 $ 2.0 $0.0 $ 1.7

3 2018 $0.0 $ 4.9 $0.0 $ 4.0

4 2019 $0.0 $ 3.8 $0.0 $ 2.9

5 2020 $0.0 $ 4.9 $0.0 $ 3.5

Total $0.0 $21.9 $0.0 $18.3
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding

Table 17 Registration Fee

- Transfer Amounts For the Baseline and the IFR For Non

- Modelers ($M )
Year Calendar Year Total Cost 7 % P.V. Rejected Alternative Baseline IFR Rulemaking Rejected Alternative Historical System IFR Rulemaking

0 2015 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0

1 2016 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 2.9

2 2017 $ 12.5 $ 12.5 $ 12.5 $ 10.9 $ 10.9 $ 10.9
3 2018 $ 12.8 $ 12.8 $ 12.8 $ 10.4 $ 10.4 $ 10.4

4 2019 $ 13.1 $ 13.1 $ 13.1 $ 10.0 $ 10.0 $ 10.0

5 2020 $ 13.4 $ 13.4 $ 13.4 $ 9.6 $ 9.6 $ 9.6

Total $54.9 $54.9 $54.9 $43.8 $43.8 $43.8
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding50 V I I. BENEFIT

- COST SUMMARY

T here are problems arising from the rapid proliferation of sUAS , the problems are

occurring more frequently, sales projections are for the number of sUAS to continue to increase,

and thus addressing the problem is urgent.

Over the past several months, the FAA has received increasing reports of unauthorized

and unsafe use of sUAS . Pilot reports of unmanned aircraft sightings have incr eased

significantly

. For example, the agency has received reports of unmanned aircraft at high altitudes

in congested airspace, unmanned aircraft operations near passenger

- carrying aircraft or major

airports, 37 and interfering with emergency response operat ions such as efforts to combat

wildfires. 38

As evidenced by the recent reports of unsafe sUAS operations, the lack of awareness of

operators regarding what must be done to operate s UAS safel y in the national airspace , and the

lack of identification of s UAS and their operators pose significant challenges in ensuring

accountability for responsible use. Without increased awareness and knowledge of the statutory

and regulatory requirements for safe operation, the risk of unsafe s UAS operations will continue

.

Th is risk is escalated by the expected rapid increase in sUAS operating in the national airspace.

One benefit of this rulemaking is to improve the education of recreational sUAS owners

and operators to make them aware of the regulatory and safety requirements affecting their

operations by providing essential educational tools to the legions of new and current flyers taking

37 See, e.g. , Keith L aing, Feds investigating drone sighting near Newark airport , The Hill, Aug. 10, 2015, http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/250731

- feds

- investigating

- drone

- sighting

- near

- newark

- airport ; FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones Near JFK Airport , Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014 WLNR 32783307.

38 See, e.g. , Associated Press, Drones Interfering with Emergency Wildfire Responders , CBSNEWS.com, Aug. 10, 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drones

- interfering

- wit h

- emergency

- wildfi re

- responders (“The U.S. Forest Service has tallied 13 wildfires in which suspected drones interfered with firefighting aircraft this year . . . up from four fires last year . . . .); Polly Mos endz, Drones Interfere With Firefighters Battling California Wi ldfire , Newsweek, June 26, 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/drones

- interfere

- firefighters

- battling

- california

wildfire

- 347774

.51 to the skies so they can use their unmanned aircraft safe ly. Registration also provides a means

for targeting sUAS operators and educat ing them in order to change their behavior that has

resulted in unsafe and unauthorized events

. Currently aircraft registration is a paper

- based

process defined in Part 47. Un der current statutory and regulatory policy, the FAA could require

s UAS model owners, at a significant cost, to register their sUAS aircraft under the legacy paper

based system , but as discussed above, this alternative was rejected

. N on

- model ers currently have

to register their aircraft under part 47 , and , without this IFR, would continue to as outlined in the

notice of proposed rulemaking, “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft

Systems” (80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015)).

Due to the rapid increase in sUAS use by modelers and expected growth in sUAS by non

modelers , the FAA has created a web

- based registration to significantly reduce the time to

register. In addition, to ease the burden to modelers this regulation will allow model own ers to

register their first sUAS aircraft , not each of their subsequent sUAS aircraft

. While these owners

will have the option to use either registration system, because of this benefit, we assume that

most modelers will opt to register under the new stre amlined, web

- based part 48 registration

system.

Given the time to register aircraft under the paper

- based system and the projected number

of sUAS aircraft, the FAA estimates the cost to the government and non

- modelers would be

about $383 million. Due to t he increase in s UAS aircraft used by hobbyists to date and the

expected rapid increase, the FAA has decided that both modelers and non

- modelers need to

register their aircraft and have developed this IFR to provide a less costly, stream

- lined

alternative for registering

. The estimated cost of this IFR is about $56 million. The resulting

cost savings to the society from this IFR equals the cost of the baseline policy ($383 million)52 minus the cost of this IFR ($56 million), or about $327 million ($259 million in present value at

a 7 percent discount rate). These cost savings are the net quantified benefits of this IFR

.53 VIII. APPENDI CES54 

### APPENDIX A: Forecast of sUAS Aircraft and Registration Activities

T his appendix describes how the number of sUAS aircraft and number of sUAS owners registering with the FAA were estimated for the regulatory evaluation. The methodology is based on a forecast of units sold developed by FAA and its contractors, informed by d iscussions with industry and subject matter experts. For the regulatory evaluation, it is necessary to convert the sales forecast into both the number of owners (modelers and non

- modelers) and the number of sUAS (both in the fleet and registered).

UAS Sal es Forecast

Exhibit 1 summarizes FAA’s sUAS forecast divided between model and non

- model populations. The forecast is based on discussions with retailers, manufacturers and subject matter experts. Given the relatively sudden appearance of the technology in mass consumer markets and the fast developing non

- model sector, the forecast represents a combination of expertise and judgment informed by information on sUAS that have been produced for the consumer market, and various exemption applications made by non

- model owners in the U.S.. This forecast assumes that Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations will not be approved in substantial numbers through 2020, meaning that most e

- commerce, mapping and new/media applications are excluded and 50% of emergen cy response, agriculture and oil rig applications are also excluded.

Exhibit 1: FAA sUAS Unit Forecast Summary

Units (000) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cumulative
Modeler 1,550 1,885 2,319 2,852 3,508 4,315 16,428
Non Modeler Aerial Photography

- 12 50 51 54 56 222 Agriculture **

- 280 1,142 1,165 1,189 1,212 4,988

E

-

Commerce *

- - - - - - - Emergency Response **

- 6 25 25 25 25 107 Industrial Inspection **

- 274 1,094 1,127 1,161 1,196 4,852
Insurance

- 45 180 185 191 197 798 Mapping *

- - - - - - - News/Media *

- - - - - - - Wildlife

- 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total Non

- Modeler

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,686 10,969
Total Sales 1,550 2,502 4,810 5,407 6,127 7,001 27,397

* Most projected applications are BVLOS and so are excluded

. ** Fifty percent of agricultural and emergency projected applications are BVLOS dependent and so are excluded; 50% of oil rig projected applications included in industrial inspection at BVLOS and are
excluded.

Following are key features of the forecast.55 • All sUAS in the forecast are less than 55 pounds

.

• Prior to 2015, FAA estimates that there were approximately 200,000 civilian sUAS in the
U.S.

• All of sUAS costing less than approximately $65 are hobbyist aircraft that are generally .55 pounds or less and will not be registered; this is estimated to be 20% of hobbyist
units 39 )

• FAA estimates that in the first three quarters of calendar year (CY) 2015, between 0.6 and 0.8 million hobbyist units were sold.

• Discussions with industry suggest that another 0.8 to 1.0 million model units will be sold in the fourth q uarter of 2015.

• FAA projects that in 2015, 1.55 million model units will be sold.

• In 2016, FAA projects that 1.9 million model units will be sold, with annual growth thereafter averaging 23%. By 2020, FAA projects model sales will reach 4.3 million
units.

• Non

- model operations will commence in mid

- 2016 once Part 107 is finalized.

• Non

- model sales for the second half of 2016 are forecast to be 50% of the forecast rate afterwards, reflecting the tendency of a market to build over time. This translates into
201 6 sales of 617,000 non

- model units or 25% of 2017 sales.

• The forecast for non

- model units sold is based on an evaluation of specific applications. The key assumptions for each of the applications are shown in Exhibit 2, which also
shows the estimated unit s sold in 2017. It is important to note that e

- commerce, mapping and news/media applications depend importantly on the ability to operate the aircraft beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) of the owner. The FAA assumes that civilian BVLOS applications wi ll not be approved in substantial numbers within the regulatory analysis period, so they are set to zero in Exhibit 1.

• Each of the non

- model applications grow through 2020 at the growth rates indicated in Exhibit 2; for the regulatory evaluation, BVLOS app lications are excluded.

Life Span Assumption

A very important assumption in the forecast is that the life span of all model sUAS less than 55 pounds is one year or less, with the exception that 10% of modeler units last into a second year
but are then reti red. Interviewees indicate that under

- 55 pound

- sUAS have very short life spans because they are damaged, destroyed or reach the end of their serviceable lives through use, generally within one year. This assumption drives unit sales, especially in the non

- model sector where owners replace units each year.

The life span assumption also means that there are no aircraft renewed after three years and no transfers (the units are not assumed to last long enough to be sold or transferred.) 40

39 This conclusion is based on an evaluation of sUAS by sales rank, weight and price on Amazon November 18

- 20, 2015.56 Uncertainty

The FAA re cognizes that the forecast is subject to considerable uncertainty because this is a nascent market, the regulatory environment is evolving, and the pace of technology development is unknown. For the purposes of this analysis, it is desirable that the forec ast be relatively conservative. The benefit cost evaluation of the IFR depends on saving time

- related and processing costs in registering users and aircraft sufficient to offset the cost of investing in a robust new registration system.

Exhibit 2 illustra tes the method used to project the number of units put to specific applications; later in the analysis we estimate the number of sUAS owned by the average modeler and non

model owners.

40 An informal a nalysis suggests that used sUAS account for between 1.5% and 2.5% of the total market today. A search on Amazon on November 20,2015 for "DJI" found 35,070 "new" condition models and 614 "used" condition models for sale indicating used and potentially trans ferrable units make up 1.7% of the total. A similar search on EBay checked by condition revealed that there are 41,575 "new" listings, 1,008 "used" listings, and 234 "not specified" listings. Ignoring the “not specified” units, used and potentially transfe rrable units make up 2.4% of the total57 Exhibit 2: Forecast Non

- model Units by Application

A B C AxBxC Aerial Photography

Photographers Adoption Rate s UAS/Photog Growth Rate 2017 Value 165,000 20% 1.5 4% 49,500

Agriculture Growth Rate 50% BVLOS Sensing 2% Sensing firms Adoption Rate s UAS/Firm 2017 Value 6,000 80% 1 4,800
Farms Adoption Rate s UAS/Farm 2017 Value 5,700,000 40% 1 2,280,000

E

-

Commerce BVLOS Dependent

Fleet Growth Rate 2017 Value 450,000 10.0% 450,000 Emergency Response 50% BVLOS Departments Adoption Rate s UAS/Firm 2017 Value 48,037 70% 1.5 50,439

Industrial Inspection Growth Rate

Oil Rigs Adoption Rate s UAS/Rig 3% 2017 Value :50% BVLOS 1,000 90% 1.5 1,350 Construction Companies Adoption Rate s UAS/Firm 2017 Value 729,000 100% 1.5 1,093,500

DOTs Adoption Rate s UAS/DOT 2017 Value
51 100% 5 255
Insurance

Adjustors Adoption Rate Growth Rate 2017 Value 360,000 50% 3% 180,000

Mapping BVLOS Dependent
Acres Acres/ s

UAS/Day Mappings/Yr 2017 Value 2,400,000,000 1,000 4 26,301

News/Media BVLOS Dependent Helicopters Adoption Rate 2017 Value

11,000 5% 550 Wildlife
National Parks Adoption Rate s UAS/Park 2017 Value
59 90% 5 266
Note: BVLOS operations are excluded in the regulatory evaluation because they are unlikely to be approved in substantial numbers during the analysis period.58 Units Sold Subject to Registration

The Base Case for this regulatory evaluation is the “historic” Part 47 paper

– based registration system, which would apply to non

- model owners only. A non

- model owner in the Base Case would register and renew their aircraft every three years, and would reg ister each sUAS aircraft individually. Thus both non

- modelers and their individual sUAS aircraft must be tracked in the
Base Case.

In the Scenario Case (the IFR), both model and non

- model owners would register using a robust computerized registration syste m. As in the Base Case, non

- model owners would register and renew their aircraft every three years and would register each sUAS aircraft individually. Owners of at least one model aircraft above 0.55 pounds would register and renew every three years. (In the future, it is anticipated that model aircraft would be registered at the point of sale via systems linked directly to the FAA, but the regulatory evaluation assumes individual actions by the owner for the entire period).

Exhibit 3 summarizes the numbe r of sUAS aircraft potentially subject to registration, depending
on details in the rule. 41 The chart starts with the summary sales forecast from Exhibit 1, and shows how sales were converted to sUAS aircraft subject to registration. Following are the key

a ssumptions made in this process:

• sUAS Subject to Registration : In the Scenario Case, all sUAS aircraft over 0.55 pounds are required to register and 100% comply. This assumption maximizes the estimated costs incurred by users and the FAA in the Scenario Ca se.

• Underweight sUAS : 20% of model sales are assumed to be 0.55 pounds or less , and thus not subject to registration

.

• Surviving Fleet : 10% of the previous year’s model fleet subject to registration is assumed to survive a second year.

• Pre

- 2015 Fleet: 200, 000 model units are assumed to be in the fleet prior to 2015 of which 160,000 are heavier than 250 grams and subject to registration

41 No individual units are assumed to be registered in 2015 .59 Exhibit 3: sUAS Aircraft Potentially Subject to Registration

Units (000) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cumulative
Modeler Sales Units 1,550 1,885 2,319 2,852 3,508 4,315 16,428
Non Modeler Sales Units

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,686 10,969
Total Sales 1,550 2,502 4,810 5,407 6,127 7,001 27,397

Modeler Registration Adjustments

s

UAS under weight limit (310) (377) (464) (570) (702) (863) (3,286) Surviving fleet from previous year

- (124) (151) (185) (228) (281) (969)

Pre

- 2015 fleet to register (> 250g) 160

- - - - - 160
Model sUAS Aircraft Covered by Registration 1,400 1,384 1,704 2,096 2,578 3,171 12,333
Total sUAS Aircraft Covered by Registration 1,400 2,001 4,196 4,651 5,198 5,857 23,302

Applying the Forecast to the Regulation

In order to evaluate the impacts of the rule, it is important to identify the volume of sUAS owners and and the aircraft that they will register. It is also important to recognize that users subject to registration in the Base and Scenario cases will incur time costs to register the first time in the system and to renew their registration.

• In the Base Case, only non

- model owners would register via the paper based system; they would register each aircraft as it comes into the fleet.

• In the Scenario Case modelers will register once for all their aircraft (and renew every three years thereafter) while non

- model owners will incur the initial time costs for their first registration and will register each sUAS aircraft. Thus, there are com binations of owners and sUAS units that drive the registration activities as summarized in Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4: Activities Tracked in Base and Scenario Cases

Activities Tracked

Modeler Non Modeler

Base Case Paper

- Based System NA Owner s and sUAS

Scenario Case (IFR) Automated System Owner s only Owner s and sUAS

Estimating the Number of Owners

Exhibit 3 above provides estimates of the new sUAS that may need to be registered each year (depending on the case). To complete the regulatory evaluation, it is also important to count the60 number of owners that may register each year. Some additional assumptions are required to
convert sUAS units to owne rs. They are summarized immediately below:

• Average Number of Active sUAS units per Owner : Discussions with experts suggest that 1.5 sUAS will be owned by the typical modeler and 2.0 aircraft will be owned by the typical non

- model owner 42

• Attrition Rate : So me owners will begin using sUAS but then cease operations in the future; FAA assumes that the annual attrition rate is 20% for both model and non

- model users; this means that of the new owners registering for the first time in any year, only
51% will still be operating three years later when it is time to renew their registration.

• Percent of Sales to Modelers Owning only Lightweight sUAS : FAA assumes that 20% of all model sUAS units sold are 0.55 pounds or less and thus are not required to register. A sligh tly smaller percentage of modelers (16.1%) are assumed to be exempt from registration, because some modelers own more than one aircraft.

Number of Modelers

Exhibit 5 reports the annual number of model aircraft being registered, and the number of modelers p aying registration fees (in the Scenario Case). These two numbers are identical because modelers only pay when they register and renew registration as owners. They do not pay fees when they register individual sUAS (beginning in 2016).

42 These average ownership figures are used to estimate the number of owners. In Exhibit 2, we used an average number of sUAS needed to accomplish work by s omeone adopting the technology; but not all adopters will choose to operate their own sUAS. For example, not all farmers will choose to operate their own sUAS.61 Exhibit 5: Number o f Model Owners

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cumulative Modeler Sales Units (000) 1,550 1,885 2,319 2,852 3,508 4,315 16,428 Sales to Modelers owning only lightweight sUAS Units (000) 43 (250) (304) (374) (460) (566) (696) (2,648)

Sales to Modelers owning 1+ sUAS requiring registration Units (000) 1,300 1,581 1,945 2,392 2,942 3,619 13,779
Total Modelers (000) 867 1,054 1,297 1,595 1,961 2,413 9,186
Modelers with Pre

- 2015 Fleets requiring registration (000) 112

- - - - - 112
New Hobbyists from Transfers

- - - - - - - Modelers previously registered (000) 44

- (783) (897) (1,117) (1,371) (1,687) New Modelers to register (000) 979 271 399 478 590 725 3,442 Renewal Registrations (000)

- - - 501 174 255 930 Total Number of Modeler Registrations (000) 979 271 399 979 764 981 4,372

Modelers dropping out (000) 196 157 179 223 274 337

Modelers continuing to next year (000) 783 897 1,117 1,371 1,687 2,075 Modelers continuing to next year

- 2015 783 626 501 401 321 257 Modelers continuing to next year

- 2016 271 217 174 139 111 Modelers continuing to next year

- 2017 399 319 255 204 Modelers continuing to next year

- 2018 478 382 306 Modelers continuing to next year

- 2019 590 472 Modelers continuing to next year

- 2020 725

The first row of Exhibit 5 above reports the FAA forecast of annual model unit sales. Subtract off the number of sales to modelers operating lightweight sUAS to estimate the new units that need to be registered. Because the average modeler owns 1.5 active sUAS, the total number of modelers to whom sUAS are sold in a year is simply total sUAS >0.55 pounds divided by 1.5. Add to this any modelers with sUAS prior to 2015 and subtract off any modelers who have previously registered their aircraft, to estimate the number of new model registrants. Add to this the number of renewals to obtain total registering in a year. Notice that at the bottom of the Exhibit, the analysis keeps track of modelers dropping out due to attrition each year, and the number remaining three years after initial registration who must renew.

Number of Non

- model Owners

Exhibit 6 reports the annual number of non

- model owners registering in both the Base and Scenario Cases. Note that these owners register each non

- model sUAS. The format and l ogic of

43 The difference between this row, and the corresponding row in Exhibit 3, reflects the fact tha t some lightweight sUAS are being sold to owners whose fleet is composed of both above and below the weight cut

- off for the IFR.

44 We assume that owners that quit flying sUAS's are replaced by new owners (with identical characteristics) whose purchases are included in the sales forecast the following year.62 the analysis are identical to Exhibit 5, except that no non

- model sUAS are assumed to be 0.55 pounds or less . The first row of the exhibit reports the FAA forecast unit sales. Divide this by the average number of units per non

- model owner (2) to d erive total owners. Subtract off non

model owners that have already registered and remain active (net of attrition) to derive new non

model owners. Then add any renewal registrations to derive total annual registrations by non

model owners.

Exhibit 6: Numb er of Non

- model Owners

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cumulative
Non

- Modeler Sales Units (000)

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,686 10,969
Total Non

- Modeler Owner s (000)

- 308 1,246 1,277 1,310 1,343 5,485
New Non

- Modeler Owner s from Transfers

- - - - - - - Non

- Modeler Owner s Already Registered 45

- - (308) (1,184) (1,041) (1,102) (3,635)

New Non

- Modeler Owner s to register

- 308 938 93 269 241 1,850 Renewal Registrations

- - - - 197 600 797 Total Registrations

- 308 938 93 467 841 2,647

Non

- Modeler Owner s dropping out

- - 62 237 208 220

Non

- Modeler Owner s continuing to next year

- 308 1,184 1,041 1,102 1,123
Non

- Modeler Owner s continuing to next year

- 2015

- - - - - - Non

- Modeler Owner s continuing to next year

- 2016 308 247 197 158 126
Non

- Modeler Owner s continuing to next year

- 2017 938 750 600 480
Non

- Modeler Owner s continuing to next year

- 2018 93 75 60
Non

- Modeler Owner s continuing to next year

- 2019 269 215

Non

- Modeler Owner s continuing to next year

- 2020 241

Estimating the Key Activities for Each Case in the Regulatory Evaluation

The estimates of sUAS and owners in Exhibits 3, 5 and 6 can be used to summarize the activities that drive costs incurred by government, and users as well as the fees paid in each year for both
the Base and Scenario Cases. These drivers are summ arized in Exhibit 7.

45 We assume that owners that quit flying sUAS's are replaced by new owners (with identical characteristics) whose purchases are included in the sales forecast the following year.63 Exhibit 7: Registrations in the Base and Scenario Cases

Activity Owner Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Units (000)

Base Case Paper

- Based System sUAS
Aircraft Non

- Modeler

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,686

Scenario Case: (IFR) Automated System Owners Modeler 979 271 399 979 764 981

Owners Non

- Modeler 0 308 938 93 269 241

sUAS
Aircraft Non

- Modeler

- 617 2,492 2,555 2,620 2,68664 

## APPENDIX **B : Registration**  **Analogies**

Pesticide Registration

The EPA regulates pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA ), and the Food Quality Protection Act, of 1996. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires all pesticides sold or distributed in the United States (including imported pesticides) to be registered by the EPA. 46 Registration is based on evaluation of scientific data and assessment of risks and benefits of a product’s use. Under this act, the EPA can authorize limited use of unregistered pesticides or pesticides registered for other uses to address emergencies and special local needs.
The EPA can also suspend or cancel a product’s registration. The FFDCA requires the EPA to set pesticide tolerances for all pesticides used in or on food or in a manner that will result in a residue in or on food or animal feed. The Food Quality Protection Ac t amends FIFRA and FFDCA, and states the EPA must find that a pesticide poses a “reasonable certainty of no harm” before it can be registered for use on food or feed. Also, the EPA must review each pesticide registration at least once every 15 years.

Under these laws, companies submit an application for a registration action, such as to register a new pesticide active ingredient, new product for an existing pesticide, or adding a new use to an existing product. The pathway for the registration of a pesticid e is: (1) research conducted by the manufacturer prior to its decision to pursue registration; (2) submission of a data report by the manufacturer to the registration authority; (3) review of the data by the registration authority; and (4) a decision by th e registration authority either to register the pesticide, based on the merits of the submitted data, or to deny registration. 47

When reviewing a pesticide, the EPA considers harm to humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including endangered species and non

- t arget organisms, contamination of surface water or ground water from leaching, runoff, and spray drift. Potential human risks range from short

term toxicity to long

- term effects such as cancer and reproductive system disorders.

The following quotations abo ut the risks of pesticides from a recent paper, Pesticide Exposure, Safety Issues, and Risk Assessment Indicators , could very well be applicable to s UAS: “Many end users have poor knowledge of the risks associated to the use of pesticides, including
the es sential role of the correct application and the necessary precautions,” and “Even though the development of toxicity reference levels for pesticides incorporates uncertainty factors that serve to achieve this regulatory standard, in reality, we may never k now whether a pesticide is safe under all circumstances, nor can we predict with certainty its performance in hypothetical

46 http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide

- registration/about

- pesticide

- registration#laws

47 http://www.mdpi.c om/1660

- 4601/8/5/1402/htm#b29

- ijerph

- 08

- 0140265 situations.” Thus, registration is an important step in the management of pesticides. It enables authorities primarily to determine w hich pesticide products are permitted to be used and for what purposes, and also to exercise control over quality, usage rates, claims, labelling, packaging and advertising of pesticides, thus ensuring that the best interest of end

- users as well as the

env ironment are well protected. 48

Like with pesticides, s UAS users may not understand the risks involved, nor can users or regulators predict their performance in every hypothetical situation.

Food Facility Registration

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 48 million people (one in six Americans) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from
foodborne diseases. 49

Since 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required all food facilities to register wit h the agency. 50 The act directing the FDA to require food facility registration is the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), which aims to take steps to protect the public from a threatened or actual terrorist attack on the U.S. food supply and other food

- related emergencies.

A subsequent act, The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), requires food facilities submit to FDA inspections and renew their registration on an annual basis. If the FDA determines that food manufactured, processed, packed, received, or held by a registered food facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, FDA may by order suspend the registration of th at facility.

In August of 2015, four years after the FMSA was signed into law, FDA finalized two rules on preventive controls in human and animal food. 51 These rules require registered food facilities to maintain a food safety plan, perform a hazard analysi s, and institute preventive controls for dealing with those hazards. 52 The human food rule also clarifies the definition of “farm,” which is central to whether an entity has to register as a food facility and, thus, become subject to the new requirements fo r hazard analysis and risk

- based preventive controls.

48 http://www.mdpi.com/1660

- 4601/8/5/1402/htm#b29

- ijerph

- 08

- 01402

49 http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm314178.htm

50 http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/FoodDefense/ucm331 957.htm

51 http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/09/fda

- finalizes

- fsma

- preventive

- controls

- rules

- for

- human

- and

- animal

foods/

52 http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/09/fda

- finalizes

- fsma

- preventive

- controls

- rules

- for

- human

- and

- animal

foods/66 Overall, the FMSA and these new rules intend to better protect public health by, among other things, adopting a modern, preventive, and risk

- based approach to food safety regulation. 53

These new rules al low the FDA to take a more preventative rather than reactionary approach to food safety.

Surgical Joint Replacement

Improper use of medical devices during surgery can lead to complications, and increased health care costs due to surgical revision. In 2007 for example, 47 knee replacement surgeries were performed incorrectly, the knee replacement implants were inserted in a non

- cemented fashion, although these specific implants had been designed for cemented use only. As a result, 34 of these patients under went surgical revision. One of the contributing factors leading to wrong use of this implant in this case was related to a mistranslation of the packaging from English to German. One report concludes “The shocking fact that 47 consecutive patients suffered from the same basic error implies that not only human failure, but also system errors and lacking control mechanisms may have contributed to this series of adverse events.” 54

Many countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands have establis hed arthroplasty (joint

- replacement) registries that have improved the quality of joint replacements. The main purpose of the register is to detect inferior results of implants as early as possible. 55 Recent data from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register indic ate that the results of total hip replacements are improving in Finland. 56 A recent Swedish study found that, in practice, total hip replacement in Sweden has improved, as judged by information from this Register about individualized patient risks, implant safety, and the greater efficacy of surgical and cementing techniques. 57

A 2007 study compared surgical revision rates between the U.S. and Sweden and found
that since the introduction of the Swedish hip registry in 1979, revision rates for hip arthroplasty have been reduced approximately by half, to currently seven percent. In the U.S., the mean revision rate for total hip arthroplasty is 18 percent. The study also stated “It is conceivable that formal registries on joint arthroplasties may help identifying implantation

- related errors at an early stage and thus prevent further patients from undergoing inadequate surgical procedures.” 58

Formal registries can greatly improve long

- term patient safety by reducing complication and revision rates significantly. The se registries should be developed in a way to allow for early

53 https://s3.amazonaws.com/public

- inspection.federalregister.gov/2015

- 21920.pdf

54 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2241776/

55 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11028881

56 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11728068

57 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10852315/

58 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2241776/67 identification of errors and failures, in order to avoid repetitive errors which may consecutively affect a large patient population. 59

Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Licensing is one of th e many legal and regulatory measures available for controlling overfishing. Many countries including the U.S. have set up Ministries/Government Departments, controlling aspects of fisheries within certain economic zones. One of the important rationales
for these laws and regulations is to address adverse incentives for fishermen as a group to over

fish and/or exhaust populations; no one operator or person has incentives to consider the implications of actions taken by the group which together may exhaust a natural resource.

The Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson

- Stevens Act) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. The 1976 law extended U.S. jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles and establi shed eight regional fishery management councils (Councils) with representation from the coastal states and fishery stakeholders. Nationwide, there are 46 fishery management and ecosystem plans that provide a framework for managing the harvest of 446 fish s tocks and stock complexes. 60 For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office 61 with several programs dedicated to preservation, restoration and sustainable
fisheries.

Key objectives of the Magnuson

- Stevens Act are to:

 Prevent overfishing

 Rebuild overfished stocks

 Increase long

- term economic and social benefits

 Ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood

According to NOAA, as a result of the Magnuson

- Stevens Act, the United States is “ending and preventing overfishing in federally

- managed fisheries, actively rebuilding stocks, and providing fishing opportunities and economic benefits for both commercial and recreational fishermen as well as fishing communities and shore

- side businesse s that support fishing and use fish products.” 62

59 http ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2241776/

60 https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/documents/feus/2012/FEUS2012.pdf

61 http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/index.html

62 http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policie s/msa/index.html68 The centerpiece of the Magnuson

- Stevens Act is the establishment of Annual Catch Limits (ACLs). One of the methods used to achieve optimal annual catch goals is through vessel or operator permits. For exampl e, all vessels that fish for or possess fish or shellfish from federal waters (EEZ) and that are regulated by the Greater Atlantic Region must have a fishing vessel permit from the Greater Atlantic Permit Office and must sell only to federally permitted
de alers. 63 Additionally, operator cards are required for any operator of a charter/party boat or a commercial vessel (including carrier and processor vessels) issued a vessel permit from the Greater Atlantic Region. Other regulations for operators of NOAA Fis heries Greater Atlantic Region permitted vessels include submitting a vessel trip report (VTR) for every fishing trip regardless of where the fishing occurs or what species are targeted, with the exception of those vessels that possess only a lobster permi t. Operators of all federally permitted vessels must complete a VTR prior to landing. 64

Additionally, licenses are required for recreational fishing, and recreational fishers must follow both federal and state regulations. Fisheries offices promote sustaina ble recreational fisheries by monitoring catch and implementing regulations in federal waters. For example, federal regulations for Greater Atlantic Region state which species can be caught, open season, minimum possession size, possession limit and any cl osed areas. 65 Individual states also require fishing licenses to realize their objectives, including maintaining the long

- term viability of fishing habitats by restricting use and issuing minimum size limits for specific species.

As with commercial fishing, the objective in regulating recreational fishing is to manage various species and ecosystems and prevent over fishing. NOAA Fisheries estimates that nationally over 70 million recreational fishing trips were taken by more than 11 million marine anglers in 2011. 66 Absent any recreational regulation, over fishing would pose a real threat to the
nation’s oceans and fresh water habitats

.

63 http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/permits/fishing/index.html

64 http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/evtr/index.html

65 http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/recfishin g/regs/index.html

66 http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Sustainable/recfishing/69