Vol. 80 Wednesday, 

No. 241 December 16, 2015 

Part VI 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 45, 47, et al. 

Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft; Final 

Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 45, 47, 48, 91, and 375 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–7396; Amdt. Nos. 

1–68, 45–30, 47–30, 48–1, 91–338] 

RIN 2120–AK82 

Registration and Marking 

Requirements for Small Unmanned 

Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action provides an 

alternative, streamlined and simple, 

web-based aircraft registration process 

for the registration of small unmanned 

aircraft, including small unmanned 

aircraft operated as model aircraft, to 

facilitate compliance with the statutory 

requirement that all aircraft register 

prior to operation. It also provides a 

simpler method for marking small 

unmanned aircraft that is more 

appropriate for these aircraft. This 

action responds to public comments 

received regarding the proposed 

registration process in the Operation 

and Certification of Small Unmanned 

Aircraft notice of proposed rulemaking, 

the request for information regarding 

unmanned aircraft system registration, 

and the recommendations from the 

Unmanned Aircraft System Registration 

Task Force. The Department encourages 

persons to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting comments on or before 

the closing date for comments. The 

Department will consider all comments 

received before the closing date and 

make any necessary amendments as 

appropriate. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

21, 2015. Comments must be received 

on or before January 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–7396 

using any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

http://www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/

privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl 

Lawrence, Director, FAA UAS 

Integration Office, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–6556; email 

UASRegistration@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

II. Compliance 

III. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

IV. Comments Invited 

V. Authority for this Rulemaking 

VI. Background 

A. Statutory Requirements Related to 

Aircraft Registration 

B. Regulatory Requirements Pertaining to 

Aircraft Registration and Identification 

C. Related FAA and DOT Actions 

1. Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems notice of 

proposed rulemaking 

2. Clarification of the Applicability of 

Aircraft Registration Requirements for 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and 

Request for Information Regarding 

Electronic Registration for UAS 

3. Registration Task Force (Task Force) 

VII. Discussion of the Interim Final Rule 

A. Applicability 

1. Small unmanned aircraft 

2. Public Aircraft Operations 

3. Trusts and voting trusts 

4. Operations in U.S. Airspace 

B. Definitions 

1. Unmanned Aircraft 

2. Small Unmanned Aircraft 

3. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (small 

UAS) 

4. Model aircraft 

C. Exclusion from the Requirement to 

Register 

D. Eligibility to register 

1. Citizenship 

2. Commercial activity conducted by nonU.S. citizens 

3. Minimum Age to Register 

E. Registration Required Prior to Operation 

1. Registration Prior to Operation 

2. Registration of each aircraft 

F. Registration Process 

1. Design of Registration System 

2. Web-Based Registration Application 

3. Information required 

4. Fee for registration 

G. Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

H. Registration Marking 

I. Transfer of Ownership 

J. Education 

K. Compliance Philosophy and 

Enforcement 

L. Privacy 

M. Other Methods To Encourage 

Accountability and Responsible Use of 

the National Airspace System 

N. Legal Implications of the Registration 

Requirement 

1. Comments addressing Section 336 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 

2. Comments addressing requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

3. Comments addressing other legal issues 

with the proposed registration 

requirement 

O. Alternatives to Registration 

P. Comments Beyond the Scope 

Q. Miscellaneous 

VIII. Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

Interim Final Rule 

IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

G. Environmental Analysis 

X. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

XI. How To Obtain Additional Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

This interim final rule (IFR) provides 

an alternative process that small 

unmanned aircraft owners may use to 

comply with the statutory requirements 

for aircraft operations. As provided in 

the clarification of these statutory 

requirements and request for further 

information issued October 19, 2015, 49 

U.S.C. 44102 requires aircraft to be 

registered prior to operation. See 80 FR 

63912 (October 22, 2015). Currently, the 

only registration and aircraft 

identification process available to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78595 

comply with the statutory aircraft 

registration requirement for all aircraft 

owners, including small unmanned 

aircraft, is the paper-based system set 

forth in 14 CFR parts 45 and 47. As the 

Secretary and the Administrator noted 

in the clarification issued October 19, 

2015 and further analyzed in the 

regulatory evaluation accompanying 

this rulemaking, the Department and the 

FAA have determined that this process 

is too onerous for small unmanned 

aircraft owners and the FAA. Thus, after 

considering public comments and the 

recommendations from the Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) Registration Task 

Force, the Department and the FAA 

have developed an alternative process, 

provided by this IFR (14 CFR part 48), 

for registration and marking available 

only to small unmanned aircraft owners. 

Small unmanned aircraft owners may 

use this process to comply with the 

statutory requirement to register their 

aircraft prior to operating in the 

National Airspace System (NAS). 

The estimate for 2015 sales indicates 

that 1.6 million small unmanned aircraft 

intended to be used as model aircraft are 

expected to be sold this year (including 

approximately 50 percent of that total 

during the fourth quarter of 2015). With 

this rapid proliferation of new sUAS 

will come an unprecedented number of 

new sUAS owners and operators who 

are new to aviation and thus have no 

understanding of the NAS or the safety 

requirements for operating in the NAS. 

The risk of unsafe operation will 

increase as more small unmanned 

aircraft enter the NAS. Registration will 

provide a means by which to quickly 

identify these small unmanned aircraft 

in the event of an incident or accident 

involving the sUAS. Registration of 

small unmanned aircraft also provides 

an immediate and direct opportunity for 

the agency to educate sUAS owners on 

safety requirements before they begin 

operating. 

All owners of small unmanned 

aircraft, including small unmanned 

aircraft operated as a model aircraft in 

accordance with the statutory 

requirements for model aircraft 

operations in section 336 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 

Public Law 112–95, may take advantage 

of the new registration process in part 

48. The part 47 paper-based registration 

process will remain available for owners 

to register small unmanned aircraft due 

to financing requirements, ownership 

arrangements, or intent to operate a 

sUAS outside of the United States. For 

more information regarding both the 

statutory requirements for model aircraft 

operations and the authorizations that 

may be needed for operations that do 

not satisfy the requirements for model 

aircraft, please consult the materials 

available on the FAA Web site, 

including the Know Before You Fly 

materials, available at www.faa.gov/uas. 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions 

Table 1 provides a brief summary of 

the major provisions of this IFR. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS. 

Issue Interim final rule requirement 

Unmanned aircraft covered by the 

registration requirement.

Unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds and more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft and operated outdoors in the national airspace system must register. 

§ 48.15 

Timing of registration ...................... Owners of small unmanned aircraft must register their aircraft prior to operation of the sUAS. 

§ 48.15 

Compliance dates ........................... December 21, 2015 

• Any small unmanned aircraft to be used exclusively as model aircraft that have never been operated. 

• Small unmanned aircraft to be used in authorized operations as other than model aircraft continue to 

use part 47 registration process. 

February 19, 2016 

• Small unmanned aircraft to be used exclusively as model aircraft and have been operated by their 

owner prior to December 21, 2015. 

March 31, 2016 

• Small unmanned aircraft to be used in authorized operations other than as model aircraft continue to 

use part 47 registration process or use part 48 process. 

§ 48.5 

Minimum age to register a small 

unmanned aircraft.

Persons 13 years of age and older are permitted to use the part 48 process to register a small unmanned 

aircraft. If the owner is less than 13 years of age, then the small unmanned aircraft must be registered 

by a person who is at least 13 years of age. 

§ 48.25 

Registration platform ....................... Registration will occur through an online web-based system. 

§ 48.100(c) 

Registration number ........................ Each small unmanned aircraft intended to be used other than as a model aircraft and owned by individuals 

or other persons, including corporations, will be issued a Certificate of Aircraft Registration with a unique 

registration number. 

§ 48.110(a) 

A Certificate of Aircraft Registration and registration number issued to an individual intending to use small 

unmanned aircraft exclusively as model aircraft, constitutes registration for those small unmanned aircraft owned by that individual that are intended to be used exclusively as model aircraft. 

§ 48.115(a) 

Registration information .................. Required information from persons registering small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as other than 

model aircraft. 

• Applicant name or name of authorized representative. 

• Applicant physical address (and mailing address if different than physical address). 

• Applicant e-mail address or email address of authorized representative. 

• Aircraft manufacturer and model name, and serial number, if available. 

• Other information as required by the Administrator. 

Required information from individuals registering small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively 

as model aircraft. 

• Applicant name. 

• Applicant physical address (and mailing address if different than physical address). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS.—Continued 

Issue Interim final rule requirement 

• Applicant e-mail address. 

• Other information as required by the Administrator. 

§ 48.100 

Registration fee ............................... Persons intending to use the small unmanned aircraft other than as model aircraft. 

• $5 to register each aircraft. 

Individuals intending to use the small unmanned aircraft exclusively as model aircraft. 

• $5 to register an individual’s fleet of small unmanned aircraft. 

§ 48.30 

Delivery of Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration.

Upon completion of the registration process, the Certificate of Aircraft registration will be delivered to the 

aircraft owner via the same web-based platform used to register the aircraft. 

§ 48.100(d) 

Information contained on the Certificate of Aircraft Registration.Small unmanned aircraft owner name, issue date and registration number. 

Registration renewal and fee .......... A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued in accordance with part 48 is effective once the registration 

process is complete and must be renewed every three years. 

The fee for renewal of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration is $5. 

§§ 48.110(c), 48.115(c) 

Marking ........................................... All small unmanned aircraft must display a unique identifier. 

• A unique identifier is the FAA-issued registration number. 

• The Administrator may authorize the use of the small unmanned aircraft serial number. 

§ 48.200 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

In order to implement the new 

streamlined, web-based system 

described in this IFR, the FAA will 

incur costs to develop, implement, and 

maintain the system. Small UAS owners 

will require time to register and mark 

their aircraft, and that time has a cost. 

The total of government and registrant 

resource cost for small unmanned 

aircraft registration and marking under 

this new system is $56 million ($46 

million present value at 7 percent) 

through 2020. 

In evaluating the impact of this 

interim final rule, we compare the costs 

and benefits of the IFR to a baseline 

consistent with existing practices: for 

modelers, the exercise of discretion by 

FAA (not requiring registration) and 

continued broad public outreach and 

educational campaign, and for nonmodelers, registration via part 47 in the 

paper-based system. Given the time to 

register aircraft under the paper-based 

system and the projected number of 

sUAS aircraft, the FAA estimates the 

cost to the government and nonmodelers would be about $383 million. 

The resulting cost savings to society 

from this IFR equals the cost of this 

baseline policy ($383 million) minus the 

cost of this IFR ($56 million), or about 

$327 million ($259 million in present 

value at a 7 percent discount rate). 

These cost savings are the net quantified 

benefits of this IFR. 

II. Compliance 

Any small unmanned aircraft 

operated exclusively as a model aircraft 

by its current owner prior to December 

21, 2015 must be registered no later than 

February 19, 2016. The delayed 

compliance date provides a period of 

time to bring the existing population of 

small unmanned aircraft owners into 

compliance as it is not reasonable to 

expect that all existing small unmanned 

aircraft owners will register their aircraft 

immediately upon the effective date of 

this rule. 

All other small unmanned aircraft 

intended to be used exclusively as 

model aircraft (i.e., for hobby and 

recreational purposes in accordance 

with the requirements of section 336 of 

Pub. L. 112–95)—newly purchased or 

never before used—must be registered 

prior to the first operation outdoors. 

Thus, any small unmanned aircraft 

purchased, received as a gift, or 

otherwise acquired on or after December 

21, 2015, and intended to be used 

exclusively as a model aircraft must be 

registered prior to operation. 

Currently, small unmanned aircraft 

operated as other than model aircraft 

(i.e., for operations for non-hobby or 

non-recreational purposes or as a public 

aircraft) must continue to complete the 

part 47 registration process in 

accordance with the conditions and 

limitations of exemptions issued under 

section 333 of Public Law 112–95. As 

exemplified by the growing number of 

petitions for exemption, the agency 

expects to see a continued high level of 

demand for registration of aircraft used 

for purposes other than model aircraft 

once the Operation and Certification of 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

notice of proposed rulemaking (the 

‘‘sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM’’) is finalized.1 The small 

unmanned aircraft registration system 

established by this final rule will be able 

to receive and process applications for 

Certificates of Aircraft Registration for 

aircraft operating pursuant to an 

exemption issued under section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95 beginning March 31, 

2016. Thus, beginning on March 31, 

2016, the agency will allow small 

unmanned aircraft operating pursuant to 

an exemption to use the new part 48 

registration requirements in place of 

part 47, as well as aircraft used in 

operations authorized under the sUAS 

Operation and Certification rulemaking, 

once the rule is finalized. 

III. Good Cause for Immediate 

Adoption 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense 

with notice and comment procedures 

for rules when the agency for ‘‘good 

cause’’ finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under this 

section, an agency, upon finding good 

cause, may issue a final rule without 

seeking comment prior to the 

rulemaking. 

The Secretary and the Administrator 

recently affirmed that all unmanned 

aircraft, including model aircraft, are 

aircraft consistent with congressional 

direction in Title III, Subtitle B of Public 

Law 112–95 and the existing definition 

of aircraft in title 49 of the United States 

Code. 49 U.S.C. 40102. As such, in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C 44101(a) and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78597 

2This forecast is based on a largely unconstrained 

operating environment. 

3FAA Press Release, ‘‘FAA Proposes $1.9 Million 

Civil Penalty Against SkyPan International for 

Allegedly Unauthorized Unmanned Aircraft 

Operations,’’ available at http://www.faa.gov/news/ 

press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19555. 

4See, e.g., Keith Laing, Feds investigating drone 

sighting near Newark airport, The Hill, Aug. 10, 

2015, http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/

250731-feds-investigating-drone-sighting-nearnewark-airport; FAA Investigating Close Calls with 

Drones Near JFK Airport, Albany Business Review, 

Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014 WLNR 32783307. 

5See, e.g., Associated Press, Drones Interfering 

with Emergency Wildfire Responders, 

CBSNEWS.com, Aug. 10, 2015, http://

www.cbsnews.com/news/drones-interfering-withemergency-wildfire-responders (‘‘The U.S. Forest 

Service has tallied 13 wildfires in which suspected 

drones interfered with firefighting aircraft this year 

. . . up from four fires last year . . . .); Polly 

Mosendz, Drones Interfere With Firefighters Battling 

California Wildfire, Newsweek, June 26, 2015, 

http://www.newsweek.com/drones-interferefirefighters-battling-california-wildfire-347774. 

6See Keith Laing, Feds investigating drone 

sighting near Newark airport, The Hill, Aug. 10, 

2015, http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/

250731-feds-investigating-drone-sighting-nearnewark-airport. 

7See FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones 

Near JFK Airport, Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 

2014, available at 2014 WLNR 32783307. 

8 Lake Fire Grew After Private Drone Flight 

Disrupted Air Flights, Los Angeles Times, June 25, 

Continued 

as further prescribed in 14 CFR part 47, 

registration is required prior to 

operation. See 80 FR 63912, 63913 

(October 22, 2015). Aircraft registration 

is necessary to ensure personal 

accountability among all users of the 

NAS. See id. With the current 

unprecedented proliferation of new 

sUAS, registration allows the FAA a 

direct and immediate opportunity to 

educate sUAS owners. Aircraft 

registration also allows the FAA and 

law enforcement agencies to address 

non-compliance by providing the means 

by which to identify an aircraft’s owner 

and operator. 

Congress has also directed the FAA to 

‘‘develop plans and policy for the use of 

the navigable airspace and assign by 

regulation or order the use of the 

airspace necessary to ensure the safety 

of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace.’’ 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1). 

Congress has further directed the FAA 

to ‘‘prescribe air traffic regulations on 

the flight of aircraft (including 

regulations on safe altitudes)’’ for 

navigating, protecting, and identifying 

aircraft; protecting individuals and 

property on the ground; using the 

navigable airspace efficiently; and 

preventing collision between aircraft, 

between aircraft and land or water 

vehicles, and between aircraft and 

airborne objects. 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2). 

The FAA estimates that in calendar 

year 2014, 200,000 small unmanned 

aircraft were operated in the NAS in 

model aircraft operations. During this 

period, the FAA received 238 reports of 

potentially unsafe UAS operations. The 

estimate for 2015 sales indicates that 1.6 

million small unmanned aircraft 

intended to be used as model aircraft are 

expected to be sold this year (including 

approximately 50 percent of that total 

during the fourth quarter of 2015). 

For 2016, the FAA estimates sales of 

more than 600,000 sUAS intended to be 

used for commercial purposes.2

Additionally, as evidenced by recent 

FAA enforcement action against SkyPan 

International,3 the Department and the 

FAA have become aware that there may 

be commercial operators who may be 

risking operating without the requisite 

authority. 

Since February 2015, reports of 

potentially unsafe UAS operations have 

more than doubled, and many of these 

reports indicated that the risk to 

manned aviation or people and property 

on the ground was immediate. For 

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,4 and interfering with 

emergency response operations such as 

efforts to combat wildfires.5 As recently 

as August 2015, the FAA investigated 

reports by four pilots who spotted an 

unmanned aircraft flying between eight 

and thirteen miles from the approach to 

Newark Liberty International Airport.6

The FAA also investigated a similar 

incident at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport in August.7 The 

risk of unsafe operation will increase as 

more small unmanned aircraft enter the 

NAS, and are flown by individuals who 

have little to no knowledge of airspace 

restrictions or safety implications. 

Over the past several months, the 

reports of unauthorized and potentially 

unsafe UAS operations have escalated at 

an increasing rate. There is good reason 

to believe that the numbers of incidents 

will continue to rise substantially with 

the projected rapid rise in UAS sales in 

the coming months. The following 

tables show the number of reports 

received during 2014 and 2015. 

TABLE 2—UNMANNED AIRCRAFT REPORTS, 2014 

2014 Unmanned aircraft reports 

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

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

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.8 Officials 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2015, available at http://www.latimes.com/local/

lanow/la-me-ln-wildfires-southern-california20150625-story.html. 

9SAFECOM (2015, July 18). Incident Report. 

Retrieved November 13, 2015 from https://

www.safecom.gov/searchone.asp?ID=19694. 

10 Drone Crash at U.S. Open, New York City 

Teacher Arrested, NPR, September 4, 2015, 

available at http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2015/09/04/437539727/drone-crash-at-u-sopen-new-york-city-teacher-arrested. 

11 Incident report from Robert Laffoon-Villegas, 

media relations, Southern California Edison, 

provided November 13, 2015. 

12A Drone, Too Small for Radar to Detect, Rattles 

the White House. New York Times, Jan. 26, 2015, 

available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/

us/white-house-drone.html. 

13Student Charged with Endangerment After 

Drone Crashes into Stadium, Ars Technica, 

September 11, 2015, available at http://arstechnica.

com/tech-policy/2015/09/student-charged-withendangerment-after-drone-crashes-into-footballstadium/. 

14 Fallen Drone Injures 11-mointh old near 

Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena Star News, September 

15, 2015 available at http://www.pasadenastar

news.com/general-news/20150915/falling-droneinjures-11-month-old-near-pasadena-city-hall. 

15 80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015). 

said the failed mission cost between 

$10,000 and $15,000. This estimate only 

reflects operational costs and does not 

reflect the additional damage caused to 

property by the delay in being able to 

combat the fires. 

• 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 the 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.9 A total of 

eighteen vehicles 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.10

• 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.11

• 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, P56.12

• September 5, 2015: A University of 

Kentucky student flew an unmanned 

aircraft directly into the campus’ 

stadium during the school’s seasonopening football game.13 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.14

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 additional 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 (the ‘‘sUAS 

Operation and Certification NPRM’’) is 

finalized.15 Model aircraft sales alone 

are expected to grow by 23 percent each 

year for the next 5 years.16 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 units sold that year). 

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 and additional 

authorizations required to conduct 

certain operations. Aircraft registration 

provides an immediate and direct 

opportunity for the agency to engage 

and educate these new users prior to 

operating their unmanned aircraft and 

to hold them accountable for 

noncompliance with safe operating 

requirements, thereby mitigating the 

risk associated with the influx of 

operations. In light of the increasing 

reports and incidents of unsafe 

incidents, rapid proliferation of both 

commercial and model aircraft 

operators, and the resulting increased 

risk, the Department has determined it 

is contrary to the public interest to 

proceed with further notice and 

comment rulemaking regarding aircraft 

registration for small unmanned aircraft. 

To minimize risk to other users of the 

NAS and people and property on the 

ground, it is critical that the Department 

be able to link the expected number of 

new unmanned aircraft to their owners 

and educate these new owners prior to 

commencing operations. 

In addition to the safety justifications 

that support the immediate adoption of 

this rule, the FAA Aircraft Registration 

Branch (the Registry) will be unable to 

quickly process the total volume of 

expected small unmanned aircraft 

registration applications for existing 

unmanned aircraft and the proliferation 

of newly purchased unmanned aircraft. 

Thus, the FAA must implement a 

registration system that allows the 

agency greater flexibility in 

accommodating this expected growth. 

In addition, the existing registration 

system requirements are incongruous 

with the characteristics of many of the 

small unmanned aircraft, small 

unmanned aircraft ownership, and 

small unmanned aircraft operations. For 

example, small unmanned aircraft are 

not required to be type certificated, may 

cost very little, making them widely 

accessible, and may have operating 

limitations that could affect the range of 

their operations. As reflected in greater 

detail in the regulatory evaluation 

supporting this rulemaking, the total 

costs for using the paper-based registry, 

for both the small unmanned aircraft 

owners and for the FAA, were projected 

to exceed $775M over a 5-year period. 

The Department has determined it 

would be impracticable to require all 

small unmanned aircraft owners to use 

this system and that a stream-lined, 

web-based alternative is necessary to 

accommodate this population and 

ensure operations may commence in a 

safe and timely manner. 

The streamlined registration process 

provided in this IFR will allow the 

agency to complete in the near-term the 

registration of existing and new small 

unmanned aircraft to be operated 

exclusively as model aircraft, where the 

FAA expects the largest growth in the 

coming months. In the spring of 2016, 

the FAA will open the streamlined 

registration process to small unmanned 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78599 

aircraft used for purposes other than as 

model aircraft. By first addressing the 

registration of new small unmanned 

aircraft to be operated exclusively as 

model aircraft, the FAA expects to 

provide relief from the existing 

registration process to the largest 

population of new small unmanned 

aircraft operators while still realizing 

the fundamental goal of identification of 

small unmanned aircraft owners 

responsible for the aircraft operation. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined 

that it is impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest in ensuring the safety 

of the NAS and people and property on 

the ground to proceed with further 

notice and comment on aircraft 

registration requirements for small 

unmanned aircraft before implementing 

the streamlined registry system 

established by this rule. As more small 

unmanned aircraft enter the NAS, the 

risk of unsafe operations will increase 

without a means by which to identify 

these small unmanned aircraft in the 

event of an incident or accident. 

Registration will also provide an 

immediate and direct avenue for 

educating users regarding safe and 

responsible use of sUAS. The public 

interest served by the notice and 

comment process is outweighed by the 

significant increase in risk that the 

public will face with the immediate 

proliferation of new small unmanned 

aircraft that will be introduced into the 

NAS in the weeks ahead. 

In developing the IFR, the Department 

has considered the public comments 

regarding UAS registration received in 

response to the Operation and 

Certification of Small UAS NPRM, the 

Request for Information published in 

the Federal Register on October 22, 

2015, and the recommendations from 

the UAS Registration Task Force. 

Although we have considered these 

comments in developing this IFR, the 

Department will consider additional 

comments received following 

publication of this IFR and make any 

necessary adjustments in the final rule. 

At this time however, due to the reasons 

set forth above, providing another 

opportunity for notice and comment in 

advance of this rule going into effect 

would be contrary to the public interest 

and impracticable. 

Additionally, the APA requires 

agencies to delay the effective date of 

regulations for 30 days after publication, 

unless the agency finds good cause to 

make the regulations effective sooner. 

See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Good cause exists 

for making this regulation effective less 

than 30 days from the date of 

publication because it relieves a 

significant number of owners from the 

burden of complying with the paperbased, time-consuming part 47 

registration process. It also is necessary 

to address immediate and ongoing 

safety risk identified in the discussion 

of above regarding good cause for 

forgoing notice and comment. 

IV. Comments Invited 

Prior to the issuance of this IFR, the 

Department and the FAA solicited 

public comment on the aircraft 

registration process for small unmanned 

aircraft through the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM and a request for 

information issued on October 19, 2015. 

In developing this IFR, the agency has 

considered comments received in 

response to these requests. 

In addition, consistent with the 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures of 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

(44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), which 

provide that to the maximum extent 

possible, operating administrations for 

the DOT should provide an opportunity 

for public comment on regulations 

issued without prior notice, the 

Department requests comment on this 

IFR. The Department encourages 

persons to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting comments containing 

relevant information, data, or views. 

The Department will consider 

comments received on or before the 

closing date for comments. The 

Department will consider late filed 

comments to the extent practicable. This 

IFR may be amended based on 

comments received. 

V. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

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

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules; and 

49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires 

the Administrator to promote safe flight 

of civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and setting 

minimum standards for other practices, 

methods, and procedures necessary for 

safety in air commerce and national 

security. 

This rule is also promulgated 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44101–44106 and 

44110–44113 which require aircraft to 

be registered as a condition of operation 

and establish the requirements for 

registration and registration processes. 

Additionally, this rulemaking is 

promulgated pursuant to the Secretary’s 

authority in 49 U.S.C. 41703 to permit 

the operation of foreign civil aircraft in 

the United States. 

VI. Background 

A. Statutory Requirements Related to 

Aircraft Registration 

For purposes of the statutory 

provisions in part A (Air Commerce and 

Safety) of subtitle VII (Aviation 

Programs) of title 49 of the United States 

Code (49 U.S.C.), title 49 defines 

‘‘aircraft’’ as ‘‘any contrivance invented, 

used, or designed to navigate or fly in 

the air.’’ 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). Since a 

small unmanned aircraft is a 

contrivance that is invented, used, and 

designed to fly in the air, a small 

unmanned aircraft is an aircraft under 

title 49. 

In Public Law 112–95, Congress 

confirmed that unmanned aircraft, 

including those used for recreation or 

hobby purposes, are aircraft consistent 

with the statutory definition set forth in 

49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). See Public Law 

112–95 sections 331(8) and 336 

(defining an unmanned aircraft as ‘‘an 

aircraft that is operated without the 

possibility of direct human intervention 

from within or on the aircraft’’ and a 

model aircraft as ‘‘an unmanned aircraft 

that is capable of sustained flight in the 

atmosphere, flown within visual line of 

sight of the person operating the aircraft, 

and flown for hobby or recreational 

purposes.’’); see also Administrator v. 

Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA–5730 at 12 

(Nov. 17, 2014) (affirming that the 

statutory definition of aircraft is clear 

and unambiguous and ‘‘includes any 

aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or 

small.’’). 

Subject to certain exceptions, aircraft 

must be registered prior to operation. 

See 49 U.S.C. 44101–44103. Upon 

registration, the Administrator must 

issue a certificate of registration to the 

aircraft owner. See 49 U.S.C. 44103. 

Because small UAS, including model 

aircraft, involve the operation of 

‘‘aircraft,’’ the Secretary and the 

Administrator clarified that the 

statutory and regulatory aircraft 

registration requirements apply. See 80 

FR 63912, October 22, 2015. 

B. Regulatory Requirements Pertaining 

to Aircraft Registration and 

Identification 

The regulatory requirements 

pertaining to aircraft registration serve 

several purposes. In order to operate in 

the NAS, the FAA must ensure not only 

that aircraft operators are aware of the 

system in which they are operating, but 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

also that the agency has a means to 

identify and track an aircraft, including 

unmanned aircraft, to its operator. One 

means to accomplish this is through 

aircraft registration and marking. 

Aircraft registration and marking are 

essential elements in the regulatory 

structure that provides for safe and 

orderly aircraft activity within the NAS 

because registration ensures 

accountability among its users. The 

registration number provides a link to 

information about the aircraft and the 

owner responsible for its operations. 

Aircraft registration information often 

has a direct and immediate impact on 

safety-related issues. For example, 

aircraft registration provides the FAA 

and law enforcement agencies an 

invaluable tool during inspections and 

investigations of inappropriate or 

prohibited behavior, during emergency 

situations and for purposes of sharing 

safety information. The Registry also 

serves as a valuable tool in enabling 

further research and analysis. 

Additionally, the aircraft registration 

requirements in part 47 together with 

the requirements pertaining to the 

recording of aircraft title and security 

documents in part 49 coalesce to 

establish a filing and recording system 

for the collection of ownership and 

financial interests in aircraft. This 

system supports the aviation industry 

by providing public notice of interests 

in aircraft in a reviewable format, 

generally to support the confidence or 

willingness of banks and others to 

provide financing for the development 

of the U.S. aviation industry and to 

promote commerce. 

Part 47: Part 47 of 14 CFR implements 

the statutory requirements for aircraft 

registration by providing a registration 

process applicable to aircraft that are 

not registered under the laws of a 

foreign country and that meet one of the 

following ownership criteria: 

• The aircraft is owned by a citizen of 

the United States; 

• The aircraft is owned by a 

permanent resident of the United States; 

• The aircraft is owned by a 

corporation that is not a citizen of the 

United States, but that is organized and 

doing business under U.S. Federal or 

State law and the aircraft is based and 

primarily used in the United States; or 

• The aircraft is owned by the United 

States government or a state or local 

governmental entity. 

This process is entirely paper-based 

and begins when a person who wishes 

to register an aircraft in the United 

States submits an Aircraft Registration 

Application (AC Form 8050–1) to the 

Registry. At a minimum, under part 47, 

applicants for a Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration must provide evidence of 

ownership, an application for 

registration, which includes 

certification as to eligibility for 

registration, and a registration fee. 

Evidence of ownership may include, but 

is not limited to, a traditional bill of 

sale, a contract of conditional sale, a 

lease with purchase option, or an heirat-law affidavit. Many applicants are 

required to provide additional 

documentation for aircraft imported 

from a foreign country, built from a kit, 

or that qualify as amateur built aircraft. 

Additional documentation may include 

a certification from the builder as to the 

type of aircraft and a complete 

description, to include information such 

as make, model, serial number, engine 

manufacturer, type of engine, number of 

engines, maximum takeoff weight, and 

number of seats. An applicant who 

applies as a limited liability 

corporation, a trustee, a non-citizen 

corporation, or submits documentation 

signed by ‘‘authorized signers,’’ must 

submit additional documentation to 

support registration. For amateur built 

aircraft, the owner or builder designates 

the aircraft model name and serial 

number. An applicant pertaining to an 

imported aircraft must provide evidence 

showing the aircraft has been removed 

from a foreign registry. 

Once registered, the Registry issues a 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration (AC 

Form 8050–3) to the aircraft owner and 

mails it to the address on record. The 

Registry experiences a range in the 

amount of time required to issue a 

Certificate. While it typically takes 12– 

15 business days for the registry to issue 

a Certificate after an owner submits an 

application, due to an increase in 

registration applications, it currently 

takes approximately 22 business days 

for the registry to issue the certificate. 

The aircraft owner will typically receive 

a Certificate approximately 4 days after 

it is issued as a result of the time 

required for printing and mailing the 

certificate. The estimated times are 

extended if the application is rejected 

for document correction. 

The certificate of registration must be 

carried in the aircraft and must be made 

available for inspection upon request. 

Upon registration, an aircraft is also 

eligible to apply for an airworthiness 

certificate for operational purposes. 

When applying for registration of an 

aircraft that is already on the U.S. civil 

registry, and has a valid airworthiness 

certificate, an owner may use the second 

(carbon) copy of the application as 

temporary operating authority for up to 

90 days pending receipt of the ‘‘hard 

card’’ certificate. For aircraft not already 

on the U.S. civil registry, there is no 

temporary operating authority. 

An aircraft registration must be 

renewed every three years by either 

submitting a renewal application or 

using an online renewal process, and 

paying the renewal fee. The certificate 

of registration is generally valid until 

the owner’s address changes, the aircraft 

is sold or destroyed, it has expired 

under the three-year renewal period, the 

owner’s eligibility status changes, or the 

owner registers the aircraft in a foreign 

country. 

Placing an aircraft on the U.S. civil 

aircraft registry in accordance with the 

part 47 process affords the aircraft the 

opportunity to operate within the 

United States and in most foreign 

countries. 

Part 45: Under part 45 of Title 14 

CFR, aircraft must display the unique 

registration number that corresponds 

with the number on the registration 

certificate. Part 45 prescribes the 

requirements for identification of U.S. 

registered aircraft and the display of the 

registration number. The number must 

generally be: (1) Painted on the aircraft 

or affixed to the aircraft by some other 

permanent means; (2) have no 

ornamentation; (3) contrast in color with 

the background; and (4) be legible. See 

14 CFR 45.21(c). 

Currently, small unmanned aircraft 

authorized to operate in the NAS under 

an exemption issued pursuant to the 

authority in section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

must register in accordance with the 

paper-based process in 14 CFR part 47. 

Owners of unmanned aircraft with 

special airworthiness certificates and 

unmanned aircraft used by 

governmental entities in public aircraft 

operations also register via the part 47 

registration process. 

C. Related FAA and DOT Actions 

In the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95), 

Congress mandated that the DOT, in 

consultation with other government 

partners and industry stakeholders, 

develop a comprehensive plan to safely 

accelerate the integration of civil UAS 

in the NAS. Since 2012, the Department 

and the Federal Aviation 

Administration have made progress in 

enabling UAS operations, by issuing 

exemptions per part 11 in conjunction 

with the authority of section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95 to permit 

commercial operations; creating a UAS 

test site program to encourage further 

research and testing of UAS operations 

in real-world environments; and 

developing a Pathfinder program to 

encourage research and innovation that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78601 

17RIN 2120–AJ60. 

will enable advanced UAS operations. 

The Department requires UAS operators 

authorized under each of these 

integration programs to register their 

unmanned aircraft through the existing 

FAA paper-based registration process 

under 14 CFR part 47. 

The Department and the FAA have 

taken several other related actions as 

provided in the preamble discussions 

that follow. 

1. Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

The Secretary and the Administrator 

issued an NPRM, ‘‘Operation and 

Certification of Small Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems’’ (80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 

2015)) (sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM),17 that proposed a 

framework for integrating small UAS 

operations in the NAS. Specifically, the 

proposal would address the operation of 

small UAS, certification of small UAS 

operators, small UAS registration, and 

display of registration markings. The 

agency also proposed to exclude small 

UAS operations from the requirements 

for airworthiness certification under the 

authority of section 333 of the Act 

because the safety concerns related to 

airworthiness of small UAS would be 

mitigated by the other provisions of that 

proposed rule. 

In the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM, the Secretary and 

the Administrator asserted that small 

unmanned aircraft satisfy the statutory 

definition of ‘‘aircraft’’ and thus must be 

registered prior to operation. For this 

reason, the NPRM proposed to clarify 

the applicability of the part 47 aircraft 

registration requirements to sUAS 

expected to be operated under proposed 

part 107. See 80 FR at 9574. The NPRM 

also clarified that small unmanned 

aircraft must display a registration 

number in accordance with part 45. The 

agency proposed, however, to exclude 

small unmanned aircraft from the 

requirements in part 45, subpart B for 

fireproof marking. See 80 FR at 9574– 

9575. 

The comment period for the sUAS 

Operation and Certification NPRM 

closed April 24, 2015. The FAA 

received more than 4,500 comments on 

this proposal; of those, approximately 

125 commenters addressed the issue of 

small unmanned aircraft registration 

and the registration process, and 

approximately 110 addressed marking 

requirements. This IFR addresses the 

comments received regarding the 

registration, identification, and marking 

requirements as well as certain 

definitions relevant to the registration 

process and proposed in the NPRM. 

2. Clarification of the Applicability of 

Aircraft Registration Requirements for 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and 

Request for Information Regarding 

Electronic Registration for UAS 

On October 19, 2015, the Secretary 

and the Administrator issued a notice 

clarifying the applicability of the 

statutory requirements for aircraft 

registration to small unmanned aircraft 

(the ‘‘Clarification/Request for 

Information’’) (80 FR 63912, October 22, 

2015). In addition, the Clarification/

Request for Information announced the 

formation of a UAS Registration Task 

Force (Task Force) to explore and 

develop recommendations to streamline 

the registration process for small 

unmanned aircraft to ease the burden 

associated with the existing aircraft 

registration process. To facilitate the 

work of the Task Force, the Secretary 

and the Administrator sought 

information and data from the public 

through a number of questions 

identified in the Federal Register 

notice. Specifically, the Secretary and 

the Administrator sought information 

on the following questions: 

1. What methods are available for 

identifying individual products? Does 

every UAS sold have an individual 

serial number? Is there another method 

for identifying individual products sold 

without serial numbers or those built 

from kits? 

2. At what point should registration 

occur (e.g. point-of-sale or prior to 

operation)? How should transfers of 

ownership be addressed in registration? 

3. If registration occurs at point-of 

sale, who should be responsible for 

submission of the data? What burdens 

would be placed on vendors of UAS if 

DOT required registration to occur at 

point-of-sale? What are the advantages 

of a point-of-sale approach relative to a 

prior-to-operation approach? 

4. Consistent with past practice of 

discretion, should certain UAS be 

excluded from registration based on 

performance capabilities or other 

characteristics that could be associated 

with safety risk, such as weight, speed, 

altitude operating limitations, duration 

of flight? If so, please submit 

information or data to help support the 

suggestions, and whether any other 

criteria should be considered. 

5. How should a registration process 

be designed to minimize burdens and 

best protect innovation and encourage 

growth in the UAS industry? 

6. Should the registration be 

electronic or web-based? Are there 

existing tools that could support an 

electronic registration process? 

7. What type of information should be 

collected during the registration process 

to positively identify the aircraft owner 

and aircraft? 

8. How should the registration data be 

stored? Who should have access to the 

registration data? How should the data 

be used? 

9. Should a registration fee be 

collected and if so, how will the 

registration fee be collected if 

registration occurs at point-of-sale? Are 

there payment services that can be 

leveraged to assist (e.g. PayPal)? 

10. Are there additional means 

beyond aircraft registration to encourage 

accountability and responsible use of 

UAS? 

See 80 FR at 63914. The comment 

period on the Clarification/Request for 

Information closed November 6, 2015. 

As of November 6, 2015, the FAA 

received over 4,500 comments on the 

Clarification/Request for Information. In 

the Clarification/Request for 

Information, the DOT stated, ‘‘[T]he 

docket will remain open after this time 

and the Department will consider all 

comments received in developing a 

registration process.’’ The FAA 

considered more than 175 additional 

comments submitted after the close of 

the comment period. The FAA has 

considered the Clarification/Request for 

Information comments in the 

development of this IFR. 

3. Registration Task Force (Task Force) 

The Administrator chartered the 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Registration Task Force (Task Force) 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 

on October 20, 2015. The Administrator 

selected Task Force members based on 

their familiarity with UAS, aircraft 

registration policies and procedures, 

retail inventory control and tracking, 

and electronic data capture. The 

membership was comprised of a diverse 

group of representatives from trade 

groups representing manned and 

unmanned aviation, UAS manufacturers 

and retailers, and law enforcement. 

The Task Force was tasked with the 

following three objectives: 

1. Develop and recommend minimum 

requirements for UAS that would need 

to be registered. 

2. Develop and recommend 

registration processes. 

3. Develop and recommend methods 

for proving registration and marking. 

On November 21, 2015, the Task 

Force provided a final report with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

18The Task Force final report can be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking and at https://

www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/

RTFARCFinalReport_11-21-15.pdf. 

recommendations pertaining to these 

three objectives.18

The following table, taken from the 

Task Force report, describes the Task 

Force’s recommendations. 

TABLE 4—SMALL UAS REGISTRATION TASK FORCE AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY

Issue Task force recommendation 

What category of UAS is covered by the registration requirement? UAS that weigh under 55 pounds and above 250 grams maximum takeoff weight, and are operated outdoors in the NAS. 

Do owners need to register each individual UAS 

they own? 

No. The registration system is owner-based, so each registrant will have a single registration 

number that covers any and all UAS that the registrant owns. 

Is registration required at point-of-sale? ............. No. Registration is mandatory prior to operation of a UAS in the NAS. 

What information is required for the registration 

process? 

Name and street address of the registrant are required. 

Mailing address, email address, telephone number, and serial number of the aircraft are optional. 

Is there a citizenship requirement? .................... No. 

Is there a minimum age requirement? ............... Yes. Persons must be 13 years of age to register. 

Is there a registration fee? ................................. No. 

Is the registration system electronic or webbased? The system for entry of information into the database is web-based and also allows for multiple entry points, powered by an API [application programming interface] that will enable 

custom apps [applications] to provide registry information to the database and receive registration numbers and certificates back from the database. Registrants can also modify their 

information through the web or apps. 

How does a UAS owner prove registration? ...... A certificate of registration will be sent to the registrant at the time of registration. The certificate will be sent electronically, unless a paper copy is requested, or unless the traditional 

aircraft registration process is utilized. The registration certificate will contain the registrant’s 

name, FAA-issued registration number, and the FAA registration website that can be used 

by authorized users to confirm registration information. For registrants who elect to provide 

the serial number(s) of their aircraft to the FAA, the certificate will also contain those serial 

number(s). Any time a registered UAS is in operation, the operator of that UAS should be 

prepared to produce the certificate of registration for inspection. 

Does the registration number have to be affixed 

to the aircraft? 

Yes, unless the registrant chooses to provide the FAA with the aircraft’s serial number. Whether the owner chooses to rely on the serial number or affix the FAA-issued registration number to the aircraft, the marking must be readily accessible and maintained in a condition that 

is readable and legible upon close visual inspection. Markings enclosed in a compartment, 

such as a battery compartment, will be considered ‘‘readily accessible’’ if they can be 

accessed without the use of tools. 

In its report, the Task Force stated, 

‘‘[T]he general consensus view of the 

Task Force is that the recommendations 

on the three objectives are to be 

presented together as a unified 

recommendation, with each of the 

individual recommendations dependent 

upon elements in the others. 

Compromises in positions were made 

whenever possible to obtain a general 

consensus, and changes to any of the 

components could further dilute 

support among the Task Force members 

and their constituencies for the final 

recommendations.’’ 

The agency has assessed the 

recommendations within statutory 

limitations provided for aircraft 

registration and with this final rule, will 

move forward with the elements of the 

Task Force report that support the best 

public policy for registering small 

unmanned aircraft. 

VII. Discussion of the Interim Final 

Rule 

This IFR adds part 48 to title 14 to 

allow for a web-based registration 

process and marking appropriate for 

small unmanned aircraft. For these 

aircraft, part 48 may be used in place of 

the paper-based, registration process in 

part 47 and the marking requirements in 

part 45 that would otherwise be 

required. 

Unlike manned aircraft, small 

unmanned aircraft cost significantly less 

than manned aircraft and are available 

through a variety of different markets for 

purchase by individuals who may not 

be familiar with the federal safety 

requirements for operating in the NAS. 

As a consequence, small unmanned 

aircraft may become more common than 

manned aircraft, resulting in a 

significant volume of new aircraft 

registrations. This rule provides for a 

streamlined and simple registration 

process that is commensurate to the 

nature of small unmanned aircraft, can 

accommodate an expected high volume 

of registrations, and will facilitate 

compliance by using a web-based 

platform and limiting the information to 

that which can identify the aircraft and 

its owner. Upon registration under new 

part 48, the FAA will assign a unique 

registration number and provide a 

registration certificate that can be stored 

electronically or printed by the aircraft 

owner. 

The FAA recognizes that some small 

unmanned aircraft owners may choose 

to continue to register small unmanned 

aircraft under part 47. For example, 

some small unmanned aircraft owners 

may choose to register their small 

unmanned aircraft under part 47 due to 

financing requirements or if they wish 

to operate internationally, displaying 

registration marks in accordance with 

part 45. While this final rule does not 

require small unmanned aircraft owners 

to use the part 48 registration process in 

place of part 47, the agency strongly 

encourages small unmanned aircraft 

owners to take advantage of the more 

efficient part 48 method of aircraft 

registration. The FAA also notes that a 

new part 48 registration does not limit 

an owner’s ability to later move to a 

traditional part 47 registration should its 

operational or financial interests 

change. Conversely, a traditional part 47 

registration of small unmanned aircraft 

can be moved to a new part 48 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78603 

19Sec. 331(9) of Public Law 112–95. Public Law 

112–95 defines an ‘‘unmanned aircraft system’’ as 

‘‘an unmanned aircraft and associated elements 

(including communication links and the 

components that control the unmanned aircraft) 

that are required for the pilot in command to 

operate safely and efficiently in the national 

airspace system.’’ 

20 ICAO Circular 328 (Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS)) (2011). 

registration at the discretion of the 

owner if they wish to pursue that venue. 

A. Applicability 

1. Small Unmanned Aircraft 

The registration requirements in part 

48 apply to small unmanned aircraft 

that are part of a small unmanned 

aircraft system and that satisfy the 

requirements to register in § 48.15 and 

the eligibility requirements in § 48.20. 

Although a small unmanned aircraft 

itself is one component of an sUAS, part 

48 requires the registration of the 

aircraft only.19 The registration 

requirement is limited to the small 

unmanned aircraft for two reasons. 

First, the small unmanned aircraft is the 

only part of the UAS that satisfies the 

definition of ‘‘aircraft’’ for purposes of 

the registration requirements in 49 

U.S.C. 44101–44103, and second, 

components that control the unmanned 

aircraft can be used to control multiple 

aircraft. As discussed in this document, 

the FAA would continue to exercise 

enforcement discretion for aircraft that 

weigh less than 0.55 pounds, such as 

paper airplanes that are not linked to a 

system. 

Registration does not provide 

authorization to operate any aircraft— 

and the same is true for small 

unmanned aircraft. Currently, 

operations using small unmanned 

aircraft other than as model aircraft 

must obtain authorization to operate in 

accordance with section 333 of Public 

Law 112–95, or through issuance of a 

special airworthiness certificate. Small 

unmanned aircraft operated exclusively 

as model aircraft may only be operated 

in accordance with requirements of 

section 336 of Public Law 112–95 (Feb. 

14, 2012). See also Interpretation of the 

Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 FR 

36171 (June 25, 2014). Any operation 

that does not follow the 336 framework 

needs authorization from the FAA. Once 

the sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM is finalized, operations intending 

to use small unmanned aircraft as other 

than model aircraft, and those operators 

who choose not to operate in 

accordance with the requirements of 

section 336 of Public Law 112–95, will 

need to operate in accordance with the 

sUAS Operation and Certification rule’s 

requirements. 

2. Operations in U.S. Airspace 

The registration process for small 

unmanned aircraft provided in part 48 

may be used only if the aircraft is 

intended for use within the United 

States during the period of registration 

because this registration process is not 

intended to be consistent with 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) standards 

addressing registration and marking. 

The FAA notes that under Presidential 

Proclamation 5928, the territorial sea of 

the United States, and consequently its 

territorial airspace, extends to 12 

nautical miles from the baselines of the 

United States determined in accordance 

with international law. 

ICAO has stated that ‘‘[u]nmanned 

aircraft . . . are, indeed aircraft; 

therefore existing [ICAO standards and 

recommended practices] SARPs apply 

to a very great extent. The complete 

integration of UAS at aerodromes and in 

the various airspace classes will, 

however, necessitate the development of 

UAS-specific SARPs to supplement 

those already existing.’’ 20 ICAO has 

begun to issue and amend SARPs to 

specifically address UAS operations and 

registration. Regarding registration, 

ICAO standards in Annex 7 (Aircraft 

Nationality and Registration Marks) to 

the Convention require remotely piloted 

aircraft to ‘‘carry an identification plate 

inscribed with at least its nationality or 

common mark and registration mark’’ 

and be ‘‘made of fireproof metal or other 

fireproof material of suitable physical 

properties.’’ For remotely piloted 

aircraft, this identification plate must be 

‘‘secured in a prominent position near 

the main entrance or compartment or 

affixed conspicuously to the exterior of 

the aircraft if there is no main entrance 

or compartment.’’ 

The FAA agrees with ICAO that 

unmanned aircraft are indeed aircraft 

and as such, must be registered and 

identified. However, the agency has 

determined that it is possible to register 

and identify small unmanned aircraft 

using in a less restrictive manner and 

with more flexibility than current ICAO 

standards allow. Additionally, the FAA 

has determined that it can achieve the 

highest level of compliance with a 

registration requirement and thus 

identify more small unmanned aircraft 

to their owners by using the 

streamlined, web-based process in this 

final rule. 

The FAA emphasizes that utilization 

of the registration process implemented 

by this final rule does not prohibit small 

UAS operators from operating in 

international airspace or in other 

countries; however, the rule also does 

not provide authorization for such 

operations. 

UAS operations that do not take place 

entirely within the United States will 

need to obtain the necessary 

authorizations from the FAA and the 

relevant foreign aviation authority. 

3. Public Aircraft Operations 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Several commenters addressed the 

applicability of registration 

requirements to small unmanned 

aircraft used in public aircraft 

operations. The Department of Defense 

Policy Board on Federal Aviation 

recommended the FAA ‘‘[c]learly state 

that all public aircraft operators with 

self-certification authority, by statute, 

are exempt from this registration.’’ 

Aviation Management Associates also 

said the FAA should exempt all public 

aircraft from the registration 

requirement. Another commenter said 

that any UAS that are owned or 

operated by the FAA Small UAS Center 

of Excellence, any of the six FAA UAS 

Test Sites or any other government 

agency or department, or are operated 

under a Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (COA) should be exempt 

from the registration requirement. In 

contrast, a few individuals specifically 

recommended that UAS operated by 

government should be required to 

register. 

IFR Requirement: Under 49 U.S.C. 

44101, only certain foreign aircraft and 

aircraft of the national defense forces of 

the United States are eligible to operate 

unregistered aircraft in the United 

States, and any such unregistered 

aircraft must be identified in a way 

satisfactory to the Administrator. 

Section 44102(a)(2)(A) and (B) describe 

those aircraft that may be registered as 

those of the United States Government 

and various state and local 

governments. This definition parallels 

the language used in 49 U.S.C. 

40102(a)(41) and 40125 to describe 

public aircraft eligibility and operations. 

Accordingly, consistent with existing 

statutory requirements for registration, 

the IFR will not apply to small 

unmanned aircraft of the armed forces 

of the United States. 49 U.S.C. 

44101(b)(2). Small unmanned aircraft 

used in non-military public aircraft 

operations are subject to the registration 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44101 and as 

such, must complete the registration 

process provided in part 47. These 

aircraft may also be registered in 

accordance with the part 48 process that 

will be available for aircraft used for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78604 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

21 80 FR at 9586. 

22 80 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112–95, section 

331(8)). 

23Pub. L. 112–95, section 331(8). 

24 80 FR at 9586. 

25 80 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112–95, section 

331(6)). 

26 80 FR at 9556. 

27 80 FR at 9556. 

other than model aircraft operations in 

the spring of 2016. 

4. Trusts and Voting Trusts 

The FAA requires that a person 

holding legal title to an aircraft in trust 

must, when applying to register that 

aircraft in the United States, submit a 

‘‘copy of each document legally 

affecting a relationship under the trust 

. . .’’ 14 CFR 47.7(c)(2)(i). The purpose 

of this requirement is to ensure the FAA 

has access to all documents relevant to 

the trust relationship when determining 

whether a trust provides an adequate 

basis for registering an aircraft in 

accordance with FAA regulations. A 

fundamental part of the registration 

process for aircraft held in trust is 

determining whether the underlying 

agreements meet and are not in conflict 

with the applicable requirements and 

therefore are sufficient to establish the 

trustee’s eligibility to register the 

aircraft. The analysis of voting trusts is 

similarly intricate. 

Use of trusts and voting trusts involve 

complex relationships that have been 

used to obscure the identity of the 

beneficial owners of an aircraft. For this 

reason, part 47 applies a higher level of 

scrutiny when trusts and voting trusts 

seek to register aircraft. This higher 

level of scrutiny is inconsistent with the 

streamlined registration process 

established under part 48. Accordingly, 

trusts and voting trusts must continue to 

register small unmanned aircraft under 

part 47 so that the FAA can identify and 

evaluate the applicants. 

B. Definitions 

The new part created by this final rule 

includes definitions of several terms 

that are relevant to the registration of 

small unmanned aircraft. The 

definitions of ‘‘U.S. Citizen,’’ ‘‘resident 

alien,’’ and ‘‘Registry’’ have the same 

meaning as provided in the aircraft 

registration process provided by part 47. 

See § 47.2. The definition of ‘‘model 

aircraft’’ is identical to the definition 

provided in section 336(c) of Public Law 

112–95. 

Additionally, the agency finds it 

necessary to codify the statutory 

definitions of ‘‘small unmanned 

aircraft,’’ ‘‘unmanned aircraft,’’ and 

‘‘small unmanned aircraft system’’ given 

the limited applicability of the new 

subpart to small unmanned aircraft that 

are an associated element of a small 

UAS. The agency proposed definitions 

of these three terms in the Operation 

and Certification NPRM. This 

rulemaking finalizes these proposed 

definitions because they are applicable 

to the small unmanned aircraft 

registration process provided by this 

final rule. The definitions will be added 

to § 1.1 General definitions, because the 

agency expects them to be applicable to 

several parts throughout title 14. 

1. Unmanned Aircraft 

In the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM, the FAA proposed 

to define ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ as ‘‘an 

aircraft operated without the possibility 

of direct human intervention from 

within or on the aircraft.’’ 21 This 

proposed definition would codify the 

statutory definition of ‘‘unmanned 

aircraft’’ specified in Public Law 112– 

95.22

The Management Association for 

Private Photogrammetric Surveyors 

(MAPPS) stated that the definition of 

‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ needs to be 

clarified because the current definition 

leaves open the possibility that paper 

airplanes, model airplanes, model 

rockets, and toys could be considered 

unmanned aircraft. The Aviators Model 

Code of Conduct Initiative stated that 

this definition and the definition of 

small unmanned aircraft may permit 

infant passengers and asked the FAA to 

amend the definition to categorically 

prohibit the carriage of passengers on an 

unmanned aircraft. 

Lastly, an individual said that because 

14 CFR 1.1 defines aircraft as ‘‘a device 

that is used or intended to be used for 

flight in the air,’’ only a ‘‘whole’’ or 

‘‘complete’’ aircraft can meet this 

definition for registration purposes. 

The definition of unmanned aircraft 

as ‘‘an aircraft operated without the 

possibility of direct human intervention 

from within or on the aircraft’’ is a 

statutory definition, and as such, this 

rule will finalize that definition as 

proposed.23

2. Small Unmanned Aircraft 

In the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM, the FAA proposed 

to define ‘‘small unmanned aircraft’’ as 

‘‘an unmanned aircraft weighing less 

than 55 pounds including everything 

that is on board the aircraft.’’ 24 The 

NPRM noted that Public Law 112–95 

defines a small unmanned aircraft as 

‘‘an unmanned aircraft weighing less 

than 55 pounds.’’ 25 However, the 

NPRM pointed out that this statutory 

definition does not specify whether the 

55-pound weight limit refers to the total 

weight of the aircraft at the time of 

takeoff (which would encompass the 

weight of the aircraft and any payload 

on board) or simply the weight of an 

empty aircraft.26 The NPRM proposed to 

define small unmanned aircraft using 

total takeoff weight because: (1) Heavier 

aircraft generally pose greater amounts 

of public risk in the event of an accident 

as they can do more damage to people 

and property on the ground; and (2) this 

approach would be similar to the 

approach that the FAA has taken with 

other aircraft, such as large aircraft, 

light-sport aircraft, and small aircraft.27

Commenters including the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), 

Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), 

Helicopter Association International 

(HAI), the Small UAV Coalition, the 

News Media Coalition, and the 

Professional Photographers of America, 

expressed support for the proposed 

definition. The New England Chapter of 

the Association of Unmanned Vehicles 

International supported the weight 

limitation as a reasonable starting point, 

but pointed out that there are 

commercial applications being 

developed that will need to exceed 55 

pounds. Event 38 Unmanned Systems, 

Inc. stated that, rather than segregate 

small unmanned aircraft by total weight, 

FAA should use a ‘‘kinetic energy split’’ 

that combines weight and speed. 

Several commenters asked that the 55- 

pound weight limit be lowered. Event 

38 Unmanned Systems recommended 

an initial weight restriction of 10 

pounds, with adjustments based on 

subsequent research. Prioria Robotics 

stated that the weight limitation for 

small unmanned aircraft should be less 

than 25 pounds, and that the definition 

should include a requirement that the 

aircraft be ‘‘hand-launchable.’’ An 

individual commenter asked for the 

weight limit to be reduced to 33 pounds. 

Green Vegans stated that FAA must 

provide test data on the collision impact 

of a 55 pound UAS, traveling at various 

speeds, on both humans and birds. The 

advocacy group argued that the public 

cannot make informed comments on the 

proposed weight limitation without 

such data. The commenter also noted 

that such data would be provided by a 

National Environmental Protection Act 

Environmental Impact Statement, which 

the group stated FAA must do. Crew 

Systems similarly opposed the 

maximum weight limitation, arguing 

that FAA provided no justification for it. 

The company asserted that a 55 pound 

limit is large enough to be hazardous 

when operating in an urban 

environment, even if care is taken. 

Although it did not expressly object to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78605 

28Pub. L. 112–95, section 331(6). 

29See 14 CFR 1.1 (referring to ‘‘takeoff weight’’ 

for large, light-sport, and small aircraft in the 

definitions for those aircraft). 

30 80 FR at 9586. 

31 80 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112–95, section 

331(9)). 

32 80 FR at 9556. 

33Pub. L. 112–95, section 331(9). 

the weight limitation, the United States 

Ultralight Association (UASA) also 

expressed concern about the significant 

damage that a 50-plus pound unmanned 

aircraft could do to light, open cockpit 

aircraft. 

Other commenters asked the FAA to 

increase the 55-pound weight limit. 

Consumers Energy Company objected to 

the definition’s proposed weight 

limitation as too light, arguing that a 55- 

pound weight restriction will negatively 

impact small UAS flight times and the 

usage of alternative fuel sources. The 

company urged FAA to consider fuel 

loads and to increase the weight 

restriction to 120 pounds. The company 

noted that, if FAA has concerns about 

safety, it could create subcategories 

under which maximum weight 

restriction is imposed on the fuel load, 

rather than adopt a blanket weight 

restriction. Several individual 

commenters also suggested higher 

weight limits, including: 80 pounds; a 

range of 30–100 pounds; and 150 

pounds. Another individual commenter 

called the weight restriction ‘‘arbitrary,’’ 

and noted that other countries have 

defined small UAS up to 150 kg. 

An individual commenter suggested 

that the FAA amend the definition of 

small unmanned aircraft to include 

aircraft weighing exactly 55 pounds. 

Another individual commenter stated 

that the definition of ‘‘small unmanned 

aircraft’’ must be clarified to account for 

different types of UAS (e.g., fixed-wing, 

rotor-wing, small, medium, large). 

The definition of ‘‘small unmanned 

aircraft’’ is a statutory definition. 

Specifically, Public Law 112–95 defines 

a small unmanned aircraft as ‘‘an 

unmanned aircraft weighing less than 

55 pounds.’’ 28 Accordingly, this rule 

will retain the statutory definition, 

which includes 55 pounds as the weight 

limit for a small unmanned aircraft. 

However, as the FAA pointed out in 

the sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM, the statutory definition contains 

an ambiguity with regard to how the 55- 

pound weight limit should be 

calculated. The Small UAV Coalition 

and Federal Airways & Airspace 

supported the inclusion of payload in 

the 55-pound weight limit. Conversely, 

DJI, the Associated General Contractors 

of America, and an individual 

commenter questioned whether the 55- 

pound weight limitation should include 

payload that is carried by the small 

unmanned aircraft. DJI argued that the 

FAA does not consider the weight of 

payload in its regulations governing the 

operation of ultralights. Kapture Digital 

Media stated that the total weight limit 

of a small UAS should not include the 

weight of the battery. 

As noted in the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM, the FAA uses total 

takeoff weight for multiple different 

types of aircraft, including large aircraft, 

light-sport aircraft, and small aircraft.29

One of the reasons that the FAA uses 

total takeoff weight in all of these 

regulations is because, in the event of a 

crash, a heavier aircraft can do more 

damage to people and property on the 

ground than a lighter aircraft. In 

evaluating this type of risk for a small 

UAS, it is the total mass of the small 

unmanned aircraft that is important; the 

manner in which that mass is achieved 

is irrelevant. In other words, a 50-pound 

unmanned aircraft carrying 30 pounds 

of payload does not pose a smaller risk 

than an 80-pound unmanned aircraft 

that is not carrying any payload. As 

such, this rule will retain the proposed 

inclusion of everything onboard the 

aircraft in the 55-pound weight limit of 

a small unmanned aircraft. 

The General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) pointed out that, 

although FAA typically points to 

Maximum Takeoff Weight when 

identifying an aircraft’s weight and 

associated mass, the proposed definition 

of the small UAS does not include the 

term ‘‘takeoff.’’ As such, the commenter 

recommended FAA modify the 

definition to reference the point of 

takeoff as follows: ‘‘Small unmanned 

aircraft means an unmanned aircraft 

weighing less than 55 pounds including 

everything that is on board the aircraft 

on takeoff.’’ An individual commenter 

stated that the choice of ‘‘on board’’ in 

the definition of ‘‘small unmanned 

aircraft’’ will create confusion, because 

these aircraft routinely have ‘‘attached’’ 

external payloads because there is little 

room for internal ‘‘on board’’ payloads. 

The FAA agrees with these comments 

and has modified the proposed 

definition to refer to the total aircraft 

weight at takeoff and to include possible 

external attachments to the aircraft in 

the calculation of small unmanned 

aircraft weight. Accordingly, as 

provided in § 1.1, small unmanned 

aircraft means an unmanned aircraft 

weighing less than 55 pounds on 

takeoff, including everything that is on 

board or otherwise attached to the 

aircraft. If the unmanned aircraft is 

tethered by the cable in such a way that 

the cable, securely attached to an 

immoveable object, prevents the 

unmanned aircraft from flying away in 

the event of loss of positive control, 

only the portion of the cable which may 

be lift aloft by the small unmanned 

aircraft must be added to the weight of 

the unmanned aircraft when 

determining total weight. 

3. Small Unmanned Aircraft System 

(Small UAS) 

Finally, the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM proposed a 

definition of ‘‘small unmanned aircraft 

system (small UAS)’’ as ‘‘a small 

unmanned aircraft and its associated 

elements (including communication 

links and the components that control 

the small unmanned aircraft) that are 

required for the safe and efficient 

operation of the small unmanned 

aircraft in the national airspace 

system.’’ 30 The NPRM explained that, 

with one exception, this proposed 

definition would be similar to the 

statutory definition of UAS specified in 

Public Law 112–95.31 The difference 

between the two definitions is that the 

proposed definition of small UAS did 

not refer to a ‘‘pilot in command,’’ as 

that position did not exist under the 

NPRM.32

AirShip Technologies supported the 

proposed definition. Conversely, 

Transport Canada asked the FAA to 

consider whether it would be better to 

use the ICAO terminology of remotelypiloted aircraft system (RPAS) instead of 

small UAS. Foxtrot Consulting stated 

that the inclusion of the phrase 

‘‘associated elements (including 

communications links and the 

components that control the small 

unmanned aircraft)’’ in the definition of 

small UAS creates a ‘‘regulatory 

nightmare,’’ because it means cellular 

network providers and their 

infrastructure are considered part of a 

small UAS. The commenter pointed out 

that small UAS can be controlled via 

Wi-Fi and cellular networks, which 

opens enormous capabilities to small 

UAS operations. The commenter went 

on, however, to question whether, as a 

result of the proposed definition, a 

cellular provider is liable if a UAS being 

controlled through their network causes 

damage to property, serious injury, or 

death. 

The proposed definition of small UAS 

is derived from the statutory definition 

of ‘‘unmanned aircraft system’’ in Public 

Law 112–95.33 As such, this rule will 

codify the proposed definition. 

Because Congress has selected the 

term ‘‘unmanned aircraft system’’ to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

describe this type of a system, the FAA 

may not use a different term, such as 

RPAS, in this rule. In response to 

Foxtrot Consulting, the FAA notes that 

the requirements of this rule apply only 

to the sUAS operator, the owner of the 

small UAS, and people who may be 

involved in the operation of the small 

UAS. As such, a cellular provider would 

not be in violation of proposed part 107 

when their involvement in a small UAS 

operation is limited to the operator’s use 

of the provider’s infrastructure. 

Additionally, the FAA does not opine 

on liability issues that are beyond the 

scope of this rule such as whether the 

provider may be liable to the sUAS 

operator or third parties under tort or 

contract law. 

The NextGen Air Transportation 

Program at North Carolina State 

University and one individual 

commenter recommended FAA 

specifically state that tethered powered 

small UAS are considered small UAS 

under proposed part 107. In response to 

these comments, the FAA notes that the 

definition of small UAS in this rule 

includes tethered powered small UAS. 

4. Model Aircraft 

This rulemaking includes the 

definition of the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ 

as it appears in section 336 of Public 

Law 112–95. Thus, in this IFR, ‘‘model 

aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft 

that is (1) capable of sustained flight in 

the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual 

line of sight of the person operating the 

aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or 

recreational purposes. 

C. Exclusion From the Requirement to 

Register 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

The DOT and the FAA posed the 

following question in the October 22, 

2015 Clarification/Request for 

Information document (80 FR at 63914): 

Consistent with past practice of discretion, 

should certain UAS be excluded from 

registration based on performance 

capabilities or other characteristics that could 

be associated with safety risk, such as weight, 

speed, altitude operating limitations, 

duration of flight? If so, please submit 

information or data to help support the 

suggestions, and whether any other criteria 

should be considered. 

The agency received many comments 

responding to this inquiry. A few 

commenters said this question is 

premature because there is insufficient 

data available to determine what, if any, 

safety risk is posed by various categories 

of UAS. One individual commenter said 

this question should not be asked until 

after there are ‘‘thorough, independent 

studies available showing the effects of 

different hobby aircraft on the national 

airspace and potential interference with 

full scale aviation.’’ The commenter 

further stated that once the results of 

that research are available, the public 

should have an opportunity to comment 

on them. Another individual said the 

FAA cannot make a determination about 

exclusions from the registration 

requirement until testing is conducted 

to see what the actual damage would be 

to buildings, cars, people, and manned 

aircraft from UAS of different sizes. 

No unmanned aircraft should be 

excluded from the requirement of 

registration: Some commenters said that 

all unmanned aircraft should be 

registered. One individual commenter, 

for example, asserted that if the intent 

of registration is to have the ability to 

identify the operator of a UAS, then 

there is no logical reason to base the 

requirement to register on factors such 

as the speed, performance, capability, or 

size of a UAS. Another individual 

commenter said all unmanned aircraft 

should be registered because unmanned 

aircraft of any size or weight could pose 

a safety threat to manned aircraft 

(including, for example, helicopters on 

emergency or rescue missions that 

operate at all altitudes and from areas 

other than certificated airports). 

Chronicled, Inc. said that if the 

registration procedure is ‘‘efficient and 

seamless’’ then it should include all 

unmanned aircraft. 

The National Association of 

Broadcasters asserted that UAS 

registration is a reasonable step to 

mitigate the dangers posed by a small 

minority of hobbyist UAS operators that 

are flying in a careless and reckless 

manner that endangers the public. The 

City of Arlington (Texas) Police 

Department stated that ‘‘the increasing 

popularity of the recreational use of 

UAS by model aircraft operators has 

presented significant public safety and 

regulatory challenges in Arlington and 

our nation’s cities,’’ and strongly urged 

the FAA to require the registration of all 

UAS systems. The Air Medical 

Operators Association stated that all 

UAS capable of entering the NAS and 

conflicting with manned aircraft in 

flight should be considered aircraft and 

be subject to the registration 

requirement. 

The Colorado Agricultural Aviation 

Association (CoAAA) supported its 

position that all UAS need to be 

registered by pointing out that low 

altitude airspace is already being shared 

by manned and unmanned flight 

operations ‘‘without any definitive 

safety protocols beyond operate in a safe 

manner and yield to manned aircraft.’’ 

As the number of unmanned aircraft 

using the airspace increases, the 

commenter continued, so does the 

potential for a mid-air collision which 

could lead to loss of the aircraft, 

injuries, or death. CoAAA and the 

National Agricultural Aviation 

Association (NAAA) further supported 

their positions that there should be no 

exemption for light-weight UAS by 

pointing to bird-strike data from a joint 

report by the FAA and the USDA. 

Comparing the dangers associated with 

collisions between wildlife and civil 

aircraft to the dangers associated with 

collisions between light-weight UAS 

and civil aircraft, the commenters 

asserted that it does not take a very large 

bird to do significant damage to an 

airplane. By way of example, CoAAA 

noted that mallard ducks (which weigh 

between 1.6 and 3.5 pounds) and turkey 

vultures (which weigh between 1.8 to 

5.1 pounds) can break through the 

windshield of aircraft used for 

agricultural purposes. 

The Electronic Privacy Information 

Center (EPIC) also opposed an 

exemption from the registration 

requirement for any UAS that operates 

in the NAS. EPIC stated that the size of 

a UAS is not strictly indicative of the 

privacy risks it poses and, in fact, that 

smaller UAS can more easily conduct 

‘‘surreptitious surveillance on 

unsuspecting individuals.’’ 

Modovolate Aviation, LLC and a 

number of individual commenters 

recommended a limited exemption for 

unmanned aircraft that are operated 

exclusively indoors. 

All model aircraft should be excluded 

from the requirement of registration: A 

large number of commenters 

recommended an exemption from the 

registration requirement for model 

aircraft. These commenters included 

many individual members of the 

Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), 

as well as other members of the 

recreational/hobby community. Among 

the reasons given by commenters for 

this position were the facts that 

traditional model aircraft have a long 

history of safe operations and that the 

FAA is not authorized to regulate model 

aircraft. The Aerospace Industries 

Association said the exemption of 

‘‘hobby platforms’’ from registration 

would enhance the viability of the 

registration process by allowing the 

focus of the registry to remain on 

‘‘commercial use platforms.’’ 

With respect to which aircraft would 

qualify as ‘‘model aircraft’’ for the 

purposes of an exemption from the 

registration requirement, some 

commenters said that any model aircraft 

flown recreationally should be exempt. 

One individual commenter asserted that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78607 

34Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United 

States 1990–2014 (July 2015), available at http://

www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/

media/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2014.pdf. 

35The sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM 

considered the creation of a micro UAS 

classification for UAS weighing no more than 4.4 

pounds (2 kilograms) for purposes of operation and 

certification requirements. 80 FR at 9556–9558. 

other countries, such as Australia, 

Canada and the United Kingdom have 

made this distinction between 

recreational and commercial use and 

not required registration of recreational 

use aircraft. The Minnesota Department 

of Transportation also stated that it has 

not required UAS operated solely for 

recreational use to register. Many other 

commenters specifically stated that any 

model aircraft operated within the 

safety programming of the AMA should 

be considered ‘‘model aircraft’’ and not 

‘‘UAS’’ and therefore exempt from the 

registration requirement. A large 

number of those commenters asserted 

that the AMA has ‘‘an impeccable 80- 

year track record of operating safely,’’ 

and that requiring AMA members to 

register their aircraft will have no 

impact on that safety record. Several 

commenters recommended that the FAA 

require model aircraft operators to 

become AMA members. Some other 

commenters said that any model aircraft 

that meets the definition of model 

aircraft contained in the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

should be exempt from the registration 

requirement. 

A number of individual commenters 

highlighted the distinction between 

traditional model aircraft that are home 

built or assembled from kits (which they 

characterized as separate from UAS) and 

Ready to Fly (RTF) aircraft that do not 

require assembly (which they 

characterized as UAS). These 

commenters claimed that traditional 

model aircraft do not pose a safety risk 

to the NAS because they are flown 

strictly within the operator’s visual line 

of sight, have no autonomous control, 

and have fairly limited ranges. Some 

commenters also pointed out that model 

aircraft that are operated within the 

auspices of the AMA can only be flown 

at AMA-sanctioned fields and must 

already display the owner’s AMA 

member ID. Commenters contrasted 

these models with ready-to-fly aircraft, 

which are easy to operate, capable of 

vertical take-off, payload carrying and 

flying autonomously and beyond visual 

line of sight, and are often equipped 

with other enhanced capabilities, such 

as cameras, GPS systems, and remote 

viewing electronics. Commenters 

asserted that the problems that have 

prompted the FAA to require 

registration are due to the proliferation 

of these ready-to-fly aircraft that can be 

flown beyond visual line of sight. One 

commenter said ‘‘their ease of use, 

intuitive controls, and overall 

availability have created a perfect storm, 

wherein inexperienced flyers are flying 

in inappropriate and/or dangerous 

places.’’ 

Some commenters recommended a 

blanket exemption for home-built model 

aircraft. One commenter explained that 

home-built models should be exempt 

from registration because individuals 

who build their own model aircraft 

‘‘have the time, experience, personal 

investment and motivation to be aware 

of and observe safe modeling practices.’’ 

Another commenter asserted that 

exempting home- or scratch-built model 

aircraft ‘‘will allow experimenters, 

programmers, developers and beta 

testers to exercise their creativity 

without complicating or impeding the 

creative process with unnecessary 

restrictions.’’ Other commenters did not 

request a blanket exemption for homebuilt model aircraft but instead 

recommended exemptions based on 

performance capabilities, which would 

necessarily exclude traditional model 

aircraft. Those recommendations are 

discussed below. 

Unmanned aircraft under a certain 

weight should be excluded from the 

requirement of registration: Many 

commenters recommended that the FAA 

create an exemption from the 

registration requirement for UAS that 

fall below a minimum weight threshold. 

One individual commenter said the 

FAA needs to collect some real data to 

determine the weight below which 

unmanned aircraft no longer pose a 

threat to people or manned aircraft. 

Another individual commenter stated 

any weight threshold chosen for 

exemption needs to be determined 

based on kinetic energy and lethality 

studies. Other commenters made both 

general and specific recommendations 

for a minimum weight threshold. 

Some individuals based their 

recommendations on a comparison 

between the risks to manned aircraft 

from bird strikes and the risks from 

collisions with unmanned aircraft. One 

commenter said that any aircraft over 

the weight of a mallard duck should be 

registered. Another commenter 

recommended an exemption for UAS 

‘‘which present a risk equivalent or less 

than an acceptable bird strike.’’ Another 

commenter recommended an exemption 

for UAS that weigh less than 1.5 times 

the heaviest flying bird’s weight. 

Another commenter noted that the FAA 

has regulations that define the 

requirements for aircraft to withstand 

impact from birds (14 CFR 25.631) and 

engine ingestion from birds (14 CFR 

33.76), and recommended the FAA 

exempt any unmanned aircraft that 

would have equal or less impact than a 

bird with the characteristics described 

in those existing regulations. Another 

individual commenter said a threshold 

weight of 2 pounds is ‘‘entirely 

reasonable’’ because crows weigh 

between 0.7 and 2.6 pounds. Another 

commenter stated that a weight 

threshold of 1 kilogram (or 2.2 pounds) 

is appropriate because it represents a 

small risk factor based on an FAA 

wildlife strike report that says ‘‘species 

with body masses < 1 kilogram (2.2 lbs) 

are excluded from database.’’ 34 Another 

individual commenter asserted that a 

weight threshold of 5 pounds is 

appropriate because damage is likely to 

be minimal in an emergency event and 

because manned aircraft already must 

have the ability to withstand a similar 

bird strike. 

Some commenters based their 

recommendations on the weight 

threshold proposed by the FAA in the 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM for a possible micro UAS 

classification.35 The News Media 

Coalition said that if the FAA adopts 

special rules for micro UAS, then those 

micro UAS should be exempt from the 

registration requirement. Aviation 

Management Associates, Inc. similarly 

stated that the weight threshold for 

registration should be 4.4 pounds—the 

weight proposed in the sUAS Operation 

and Certification NPRM—‘‘or lesser 

weight if it is determined vehicles of 

less than 4.4 pounds create an 

unacceptable safety risk.’’ Aviation 

Management qualified its 

recommendation, however, by asserting 

that no UAS that weighs less than 1.5 

pounds should be required to register. A 

few individual commenters also stated 

that the weight threshold for registration 

should be in line with the weight 

threshold chosen for a micro UAS 

classification. 

The Agricultural Technology Alliance 

(ATA) asserted that if the FAA issues a 

blanket exemption from the registration 

requirement for all micro UAS 

registration, it can better focus its efforts 

on higher-risk UAS without 

compromising safety. ATA also noted 

that Canada has a similar exemption for 

micro UAS. 

A number of commenters, including 

Aviation Management Associates, Inc., 

the National Retail Federation and 

numerous individuals, asserted that the 

FAA should exempt UAS that fit into 

the ‘‘toy’’ category. Many of those 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

commenters did not suggest a minimum 

weight threshold for a toy category. 

Several individual commenters 

suggested the FAA use the AMA’s 

guidelines for the Park Flyer Program 

(i.e., aircraft weighing 2 pounds or less) 

to define what qualifies as a ‘‘toy’’ for 

purposes of this exclusion. 

The Toy Industry Association said 

that for purposes of defining products 

that should be exempt from the 

registration requirement, it is not 

necessary to create an independent ‘‘toy 

UAS’’ category that is separate from the 

category of unmanned aircraft that 

should be exempt from registration 

requirements ‘‘due to their lower risk.’’ 

Specifically, the association discouraged 

the FAA from creating a ‘‘toy’’ category 

based on factors unrelated to 

operational safety, such as cost of the 

UAS, how it is marketed, or where it is 

sold, and encouraged the agency to 

‘‘instead look at targeted UAS 

performance indicators that directly 

speak to the operational risk of the 

product and exempt all UAS that fit in 

that category.’’ The Toy Industry 

Association highlighted the weight of 

the UAS as ‘‘the most risk-related and 

measurable variable.’’ The commenter 

noted that most of its members 

manufacture UAS that are below 1 

kilogram, but that certain UAS that 

weigh more than 1 kilogram should also 

be considered for exemption (i.e., 

products intended to be flown indoors, 

products than can only fly relatively 

low, and products that are equipped 

with technology that makes the product 

safer, such as crash avoidance 

technology or technology that limits the 

height the UAS can fly). 

Prox Dynamics stated that smaller and 

lighter air vehicles generally display 

less risk than larger ones. The company 

asserted, for example, that ‘‘a fly-sized 

low energy drone has negligible risk, 

even if a direct impact is considered.’’ 

The company further asserted that a 

class of ‘‘inherently safe’’ aircraft exists 

that should be exempt from the 

registration requirement. Specifically, 

the company recommended an 

exemption for aircraft with a maximum 

weight of less than 60 grams. A few 

individual commenters suggested 3.3 

pounds because that weight is used as 

a threshold for regulating model rockets. 

Horizon Hobby recommended that 

products with a gross weight of less 

than 2 kilograms be exempt from the 

registration requirement, which the 

commenter asserted is in line with 

current FAA-approved exemption for 

hobby uses. An individual commenter 

stated that rules already exists for other 

unmanned objects operating in the NAS, 

including kites, balloons and rockets (14 

CFR part 101), and that the FAA should 

follow the precedent set by those rules 

and only regulate UAS heavier than 4 to 

6 pounds. Other commenters also 

recommended specific weight 

thresholds for exemption from the 

registration requirement ranging from 60 

grams on the low end to 100–150 

pounds on the high end. 

A few individual commenters framed 

their proposals in terms of payload 

weight. One commenter recommended 

an exemption for unmanned aircraft that 

are not capable of carrying a payload of 

more than 1 or 2 pounds. Another 

commenter recommended that 

registration be required for unmanned 

aircraft that are capable of carrying more 

than 10 pounds of payload. Another 

commenter said registration be required 

for any unmanned aircraft that weighs 

more than 8 or 10 pounds and can carry 

a load of its weight or higher. An 

individual commenter asserted that 

even small, relatively light-weight 

models have dangerous rotors and can 

carry a risk of doing damage if they 

collide with, or are ingested into the 

engine of, a full-scale aircraft. This 

commenter further asserted that 

technology is advancing to enable a 

single control station to operate 

multiple UAS in a coordinate way, and 

a ‘‘swarm’’ of otherwise light-weight 

UAS would be dangerous if flown into 

the path of a full-scale aircraft. 

Some commenters recommended 

minimum weight thresholds for specific 

types of UAS. A number of commenters, 

for example, said model aircraft that do 

not operate within existing AMA rules 

should be above 5 pounds to trigger the 

registration requirement. Another 

individual commenter said that only 

model aircraft that are one-half scale or 

larger should be subject to registration. 

One individual commenter 

recommended a 1 kilogram (2.2 pound) 

threshold for multicopters. The 

commenter noted that this threshold is 

commonly used in Europe and the 

United Kingdom. Another individual 

commenter recommended a weight 

threshold of 25 pounds for fixed-wing 

UAS and 10 pounds for non-fixed-wing 

UAS. One individual commenter 

recommended an exemption for 

quadcopters under 1,500 grams, while 

another individual commenter 

recommended an exemption for 

quadcopters under 20 pounds. One 

individual commenter recommended an 

exemption for ‘‘toy’’ unmanned aircraft 

that are 1 pound or less and registration 

only if used above 300 feet for ‘‘mini’’ 

UAS weighing between 1 and 7 pounds. 

A few commenters recommended an 

exemption for small unmanned aircraft 

that are made out of foam, although the 

individual did not specify a weight 

threshold for these aircraft. 

Unmanned aircraft with certain 

performance capabilities should be 

excluded from the requirement of 

registration: A large number of 

individual commenters recommended 

that the registration requirement apply 

only to UAS that possess certain 

performance capabilities or aircraft 

specifications. Many of those 

commenters, including individuals who 

submitted comments as part of an AMA 

form letter campaign, said the 

registration requirement should apply 

only to unmanned aircraft that have the 

ability to operate beyond the operator’s 

visual line of sight. Other commenters, 

including Aviation Management 

Associates, Inc. and numerous 

individuals, also said that unmanned 

aircraft that are capable of beyond visual 

line of sight operations should be 

registered, but those commenters did 

not say that such unmanned aircraft are 

the only small unmanned aircraft that 

should be registered. 

In addition to the ability to operate 

beyond visual line of sight, commenters 

recommended that the registration 

requirement apply only to unmanned 

aircraft that have one or more of the 

following performance capabilities: 

Have the ability to fly autonomously. 

Have automated control functions such as 

‘‘return-to-home.’’ 

Have RNAV capabilities (either through 

satellite base navigation or through inertial 

navigation). 

Have first person view capabilities. 

Have an onboard navigational system. 

Are equipped with GPS. 

Take off vertically. 

Are capable of hovering. 

Are capable of hovering during normal 

operation and are equipped with onboard 

photo or video recording equipment. 

Are capable of automated or remotecontrolled pickup or drop-off of a payload. 

Are equipped with an onboard camera or 

audio recording equipment. 

Can transmit a video signal at more than 1⁄4

mile. 

Are capable of flight for longer than a 

specified minimum period of time. 

Have a range that exceeds a specified 

minimum distance. One commenter 

characterized this as ‘‘electronic line of 

site.’’ 

Have the ability to fly above a specified 

minimum altitude. 

Are capable of entering controlled or 

restricted airspace. 

Some commenters suggested some 

minimum weight threshold in 

combination with one or more of the 

above-listed capabilities. 

A group of academics recommended 

the FAA adopt a progressive approach 

that requires registration for only the 

most problematic technologies—which 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78609 

they asserted to be long-range first 

person view and GPS waypoint 

navigation—and then ‘‘transparently 

assess’’ the results of this registration. 

These commenters noted that if the FAA 

determines that conventional model 

aircraft are still creating an undue 

hazard for aviation, then additional 

measures (such as a requirement for 

low-cost pressure altimeters that limit 

model aircraft below 400 feet) could be 

implemented. 

The Aerospace Industries Association 

said that only aircraft capable of 

sustained, untethered flight should be 

registered. A few individual 

commenters similarly recommended 

exemptions for aircraft that are controlline operated (i.e., tethered flight), that 

are hand-thrown or rubber-band 

powered (i.e., ‘‘free flight’’ aircraft), and 

that are unpowered (e.g., gliders). 

Several members of the ‘‘free flight’’ 

community specifically recommended 

that the FAA create an exemption for 

light-weight, free flight model aircraft 

that weigh 10 ounces or less and have 

no means of externally controlling their 

aircraft while in flight. 

Another individual similarly asserted 

that speed, altitude, and flight duration 

will depend on battery, motor, and 

propeller size, and that weight should 

therefore be used to determine which 

UAS should be exempt from the 

registration requirement. The 

commenter noted that consideration of 

factors such as speed, altitude, and 

flight duration raises the question of 

what defines the actual UAS (e.g., the 

fuselage for a plane, the frame of a 

quadcopter). The commenter further 

noted that the same fuselage can have 

dramatically different performance 

characteristics if the battery, motor, or 

propeller is changed. The commenter 

asserted that registering each 

combination ‘‘would be absurd,’’ and 

any change in propeller, motor, or 

battery size would raise questions of 

when an owner needs to re-register the 

aircraft. 

There were commenters, however, 

who disagreed with a requirement to 

register UAS that possess some of the 

above-listed capabilities. An individual 

commenter, for example, said that 

enhanced capabilities such as first 

person view or flight controls capable of 

autonomous flight should not be a 

reason for requiring registration. The 

commenter claimed that an aircraft that 

does not exceed safe mass/speed/

altitude/duration thresholds is not 

automatically a threat to manned 

aircraft simply by virtue of being 

equipped with enhanced capabilities. 

Another individual commenter said that 

small UAS equipped with GPS should 

not automatically be required to register 

because some small UAS flown by 

beginners use GPS to stabilize the 

aircraft, which increases their safety 

level. The commenter noted that these 

UAS have controls that will not let the 

aircraft fly above a certain altitude. 

Several commenters said that any 

requirement to register all UAS that 

have the ability to fly above a certain 

altitude or to enter controlled airspace 

should exclude UAS that are 

programmed with geofencing or ‘‘Safe 

Fly’’ technology, which limits altitude 

and restricts flight into controlled 

airspace. The Toy Industry Association 

cautioned against using altitude as a 

threshold for registration. The 

commenter noted that not all companies 

use technology that limits the height a 

UAS can fly and that it would be 

premature to spell out specific 

technological requirement to ensure that 

UAS fly below a certain altitude when 

other technology advancements may 

develop that achieve the same purpose. 

The Toy Industry Association also 

asserted that the issue of whether a UAS 

is equipped with a camera is not 

relevant to registration. The association 

stated that, while there are legitimate 

privacy concerns to consider, ‘‘this 

conversation should not take place in 

the context of the aviation industry 

safety at this time.’’ 

The National Retail Federation said 

that unmanned aircraft ‘‘that are 

designated as ‘toys’ with limited 

performance capabilities’’ should be 

exempt from the registration process. 

The commenter did not, however, 

specify what qualifies as ‘‘toys,’’ or what 

performance capabilities would remove 

an unmanned aircraft from the ‘‘toy’’ 

category. Rather, the commenter said 

the FAA should require registration 

based on potential safety and security 

risks associated with performance 

capabilities or material specifications of 

the unmanned aircraft, or the age of the 

operator. 

Some commenters stated more 

generally that aircraft capabilities 

should not be a consideration for 

exemption from registration. One 

individual said speed, altitude, and 

flight duration should not be criteria for 

registration because they can vary 

depending on a wide-variety of ‘‘userselectable UAS components’’ such as 

props choice, battery size, and flight 

mode, among others. Another 

individual said that because unmanned 

aircraft are constantly changing and 

evolving, it would be a poor choice to 

develop limitations based on 

performance. Several other individuals 

stated that registration should only be 

required if the operator intends to 

operate in the same airspace as manned 

aircraft. A few other individuals said all 

UAS flown in public spaces should be 

registered, regardless of aircraft 

capabilities. Another individual said 

capabilities of the aircraft have nothing 

to do with whether it is a safety risk or 

not; rather, it is the practices of the pilot 

that determine the safety risk. 

Unmanned aircraft should be 

excluded based on operations 

conducted: Some commenters said that 

unmanned aircraft should be excluded 

from the registration requirement based 

on operations, rather than weight or 

aircraft specifications and capabilities. 

Modovolate Aviation, LLC and a 

number of individual commenters 

recommended a limited exemption for 

UAS that are operated exclusively 

indoors. As noted above, many 

commenters said that small UAS that 

are operated within the operator’s visual 

line of sight, or below a minimum 

altitude, or below a certain speed, 

should be exempt from the registration 

requirement. Also noted above, some 

individual commenters recommended 

an exemption from the registration 

requirement for UAS that are flown 

under AMA safety guidelines on AMAsanctioned flying fields. A few other 

individual commenters recommended 

an exemption for UAS that are operated, 

with permission, over private property. 

Another individual commenter 

recommended an exemption for UAS 

engaged in semi-commercial/

agricultural operations that are 

conducted under 500 feet above ground 

level and over sparely populated areas. 

Another individual commenter 

recommended an exemption for UAS 

flying over ‘‘largely unpopulated areas.’’ 

Several individual commenters said the 

registration requirement should not 

apply to UAS that are used at schools 

and institutions for educational 

purposes. Another individual 

commenter recommended an exemption 

for UAS used for non-profit purposes. 

The US Drone Racing Association 

said that drones used for racing—which 

generally stay under 100 feet and within 

visual line of sight—should not be 

required to register, unless their 

operations exceed some minimum 

operational thresholds such as beyond 

visual line of sight, range over half mile, 

or above 400 feet. 

An individual commenter noted that, 

due to radio restrictions for video 

transmissions, first person view pilots 

are required by law to have a Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) 

license for any transmitter over 25mW. 

Because those pilots are already 

required to register and place 

identifying markings on the transmitter, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the commenter recommended an 

exemption from the FAA registration 

requirement for a first person view pilot 

with an FCC license. 

Other commenters phrased their 

recommendations in terms of UAS 

operations that should be included in 

the registration requirement. A number 

of commenters, including Aviation 

Management Associates, Inc. and many 

individuals, said any UAS used for 

commercial purposes should be 

registered. Several individual 

commenters said UAS operated in 

controlled airspace should be required 

to register. Another individual 

commenter said registration should be 

required for UAS that operate over 

private property, at altitudes over 400 

feet, over populated areas, and within 5 

miles of an airport. 

Other comments on whether certain 

UAS should be excluded from the 

registration requirement: Some 

commenters recommended registration 

requirements based on aircraft type. 

Several individuals said that all fixedwing UAS should be exempt from 

registration. A few other individuals 

said that only multirotor UAS should be 

required to register (because they are 

easy to fly and can take off from 

anywhere). Other categories of UAS that 

commenters said should be included in 

the registration requirements were highvolume production aircraft (i.e., models 

produced in volumes greater than a 

specified value, such as 5,000 or 10,000 

units per year) and UAS powered by 

gas/oil mixes. Some commenters 

suggested that UAS be excluded from 

the registration requirement based on 

frame size or prop size. 

A number of commenters 

recommended a combination of factors 

to consider when determining what, if 

any, category of UAS should be 

excluded from the registration 

requirement. 

Aviation Management Associates, 

Inc., said the FAA should exempt ‘‘any 

small UAS regardless of weight that is 

limited by manufacturing firmware or 

other acceptable means to operating 

below 500 feet above ground level, will 

not exceed a 1⁄2 range mile from the 

operator and the associated ground 

control station, as well as provides geofencing and altitude limitations that 

meets FAA exclusionary airspace.’’ 

The Property Drone Consortium 

stated that micro-drones of some 

maximum weight, speed, and altitude 

should be exempt from registration. The 

commenter suggested the following 

possible thresholds: Weight under 1 

pound, 15–20 mph maximum flight 

speed, and an altitude of under 100 feet. 

The commenter also stated that an 

assessment could be made based on 

joules of imparted energy. The 

commenter further stated that region of 

operation should also be a point of 

consideration for a possible exemption 

from the registration requirement. 

The Retail Industry Leaders 

Association said the FAA should adopt 

a risk-based approach and only require 

registration of UAS that present the 

greatest safety risks, based on 

consideration of factors including: 

Product weight and overall size, 

operating range, maximum speed, 

maximum altitude, fragility, and GPS 

and other navigation capability. 

Travelers Insurance Company similarly 

asserted that any unmanned aircraft that 

the FAA determines poses a risk to the 

national airspace or causes serious 

bodily injury or property damage should 

be registered. The commenter went on 

to say that the FAA should exercise 

discretion with respect to unmanned 

aircraft ‘‘that are so light in weight and 

lacking in capabilities so as to pose no 

meaningful threat to persons, property 

or the national airspace.’’ The 

commenter did not, however, specify 

what weight or what limited capabilities 

should be used as a threshold for 

registration. 

Latitude Engineering, LLC asserted 

that ‘‘there exists a threshold of mass 

and speed under which the risk 

associated with the flight of an 

unregistered commercial UAS is more 

than offset by the value returned to the 

public.’’ The company stated that it 

reached this conclusion after evaluating 

the kinetic energy of various UAS 

airframe configurations from first 

principals and drawing from studies 

such as ‘‘UAS Safety Analysis’’ by 

Exponent (Dec. 16, 2014). The 

company’s specific recommendation 

was to exempt UAS that are near the 

following values: Mass of an upper limit 

of 1 pound, speed limited to 50 knots, 

and altitude limited to 200 feet above 

ground level or 100 feet from the highest 

obstacle within 200 lateral feet. The 

company also asserted that no 

unregulated flights should be allowed 

within 5 miles of an airport. 

Delair-Tech asserted that it would 

make sense for a category of unmanned 

aircraft associated with a low risk of 

accidental damage to be exempt from 

registration. The company defined this 

category as unmanned aircraft that 

weigh less than 1 kilogram and have a 

flight performance that is limited to 50 

meters in height. The company based its 

recommendation on the ‘‘toys and minidrones’’ category defined by the 

European Aviation Safety Agency in Ref 

5, Proposal 14. 

ATA stated that the FAA should 

exempt from the registration 

requirement any UAS that is to be used 

solely in rural areas, which the 

commenter said should be defined as a 

certain distance from an airport or a 

major population center. ATA noted 

that Canada also has an exemption for 

operations in low-risk rural areas. 

EPIC noted that the registration 

scheme, as currently envisioned, does 

little to solve the problem of identifying 

a UAS or UAS operator because the only 

UAS that will be identifiable are those 

that are recovered after a crash. EPIC 

also noted that the current registration 

plan does nothing to inform the public 

of surveillance capabilities of the drone, 

which is necessary to make UAS 

operators accountable to the public. 

Another individual said the important 

criteria for a registration determination 

are wingspan dimensions, propeller 

diameter and type, energy source, and 

weight. Another individual stated that 

exemptions should be based on weight, 

speed, and operating height. This 

commenter suggested the FAA use a 

formula to calculate a UAS’s impact 

energy, where ‘‘E’’ is the impact energy, 

‘‘m’’ is the mass, ‘‘v’’ is the maximum 

flight speed, ‘‘g’’ is gravitational 

acceleration (constant), and ‘‘h’’ is the 

height. This commenter stated that FAA 

could conduct a comprehensive study to 

determine the critical value of impact 

energy, and users could calculate the 

impact energy of their UAS, simply by 

filling the mass, maximum flights speed, 

and maximum height into an online 

formula available on the FAA Web site. 

Another individual said most ‘‘hobby 

class UAS’’ should be excluded from 

registration based on the empty weight 

of the aircraft and the potential kinetic 

energy of the unit. This commenter 

asserted that there is precedent for this 

method and that it has worked 

reasonably well with part 103 ultralight 

vehicles and light sport aircraft. This 

commenter claimed that a 55-pound 

model aircraft flown at 60 mph has 

around 12% of the kinetic energy of a 

part 103 vehicle traveling at the same 

speed, even with a payload of 40% of 

the empty weight. This commenter 

further claimed that a typical 

motorcycle driven at 40 mph would 

have nearly 4 times the kinetic energy 

of a 55-pound UAS flying at 60 mph. 

This commenter asserted that society 

accepts this level of risk for pedestrians, 

and questioned why one-quarter of that 

level of risk posed by an out-of-control 

UAS would also not be acceptable. 

Task Force Recommendation: The 

Task Force accepted as a baseline that 

the registration requirement will only 

apply to small unmanned aircraft (i.e., 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78611 

aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) 

that are operated outdoors in the NAS. 

Beyond that baseline, however, the FAA 

asked the Task Force for 

recommendations regarding additional 

minimum requirements for small 

unmanned aircraft that would need to 

be registered. In particular, the agency 

asked the Task Force to consider factors 

including, but not limited to, technical 

capabilities and operational capabilities 

such as size, weight, speed, payload, 

equipage, and other factors such as the 

age of the operator. 

The safety of the non-flying public 

and of other users of the NAS was 

central to the Task Force’s 

determination of what category of small 

unmanned aircraft to recommend for 

exemption from the registration 

requirement. With considerations of 

safety in mind, the Task Force 

addressed the possibility of 

recommending an exclusion based on 

various factors, including: Weight (alone 

and in combination with altitude or 

kinetic energy), mass, speed, kinetic 

energy, payload, equipage (e.g., camera, 

GPS), and operational capabilities, such 

as the ability to navigate the airspace, 

the ability to operate above a certain 

altitude above ground level, the ability 

to operate beyond the visual line of 

sight of the operator, the ability to 

operate autonomously, and flight 

duration. 

The Task Force ultimately agreed to 

use a mass-based approach to determine 

an appropriate category of small 

unmanned aircraft to recommend for 

exclusion from the registration 

requirement. This was based upon the 

probability of a catastrophic event 

occurring (i.e., death or serious injury) 

due to a collision between a small 

unmanned aircraft and a person on the 

ground. The Task Force further stated 

that because of the lack of data on 

unmanned aircraft-aircraft collisions, 

engine ingestion, and propeller impacts 

by unmanned aircraft, the probability of 

a catastrophic event occurring due to 

those events was not part of its 

consideration. Rather, the task force 

noted that research in this area 

continues and as it becomes available, 

this threshold should be evaluated and 

adjusted accordingly. This approach 

best satisfied the Task Force’s concerns 

about safety and provided a minimum 

weight threshold for registration that is 

easy to understand and apply and 

would therefore encourage compliance. 

The formula considered by the task 

force is a standard aviation risk 

assessment formula used in 

consideration of manned aircraft safety. 

For ease of administration and small 

unmanned aircraft owner 

understanding, the Task Force strongly 

advised a mass-based approach for 

determining the generally safe threshold 

below which a small unmanned aircraft 

system would not need to be registered. 

The Task Force recommended that the 

FAA should exempt from the 

registration requirement any small 

unmanned aircraft weighing 250 grams 

(g) or less. The 250 grams or less 

exclusion was based on a maximum 

weight. The Task Force assumed 

maximum weight was defined as the 

maximum weight possible including the 

aircraft, payload, and any other 

associated weight. 

The Task Force proposed this mass by 

considering: The maximum free-fall 

kinetic energy of a small unmanned 

aircraft from 500 feet (ft) above ground 

level; research papers assessing the 

lethality of inert debris based on kinetic 

energy; and a determination of the 

probability that a small unmanned 

aircraft with potentially lethal kinetic 

energy would strike a person on the 

ground. The Task Force’s 

recommendation assumed population 

density for a densely packed urban 

environment, as well as a conservative 

estimate of the percentage of people in 

that crowded environment who may be 

unprotected and susceptible to injury 

from a falling small unmanned aircraft. 

To determine the probability of an 

accident, the Task Force provided an 

estimate of the mean time between 

failure (MTBF) for small unmanned 

aircraft. Mathematically, the Task Force 

predicts that the likelihood of a fatal 

accident involving a small unmanned 

aircraft weighing 250g or less is 4.7 × 

10¥8, or less than 1 ground fatality for 

every 20 million flight hours of small 

unmanned aircraft 250g or less. The 

Task Force noted that the acceptable 

risk level for commercial air 

transportation is on the order of 1 × 

10¥9, and general aviation risk levels 

are on the order of 5 × 0¥0. 

The Task Force emphasized that this 

recommendation is conditioned on the 

premise that this and the Task Force’s 

other recommendations will be 

accepted, without alteration. Certain 

members of the Task Force asked that it 

be noted that this is a nascent industry 

with very little experiential data to 

inform the assumptions and that 

periodic review of the data may be 

warranted. Certain Task Force members 

noted that the FAA’s 25 years of bird 

strike data show that fatal aircraft 

accidents caused by small and medium 

birds (weighing four pounds on average) 

are extremely rare despite the presence 

of billions of birds within the low 

altitudes where small UAS typically fly, 

and urged the FAA to select a weight 

that posed a similar safety risk. Task 

Force members representing manned 

aircraft organizations expressed specific 

concerns that data on UAS-aircraft 

collisions, engine ingestion, propeller, 

and rotor impacts by UAS was not 

available when determining the weight 

threshold. All members urged the FAA 

to expedite its work currently underway 

in this area. The Task Force also 

emphasized that 250-gram weight 

threshold was agreed to for registration 

purposes only and was not a validation 

of the underlying assumptions for any 

purpose other than the registration 

requirement. All Task Force members 

agreed that the threshold should not be 

used by the FAA as an index for 

operational restrictions or categories in 

any future rulemaking unless safety 

concerns require the FAA to take 

appropriate action. 

IFR Requirement: The FAA has 

considered the comments received to 

the Clarification/Request for 

Information and the Task Force 

recommendations. As noted above, the 

formula considered by the Task Force is 

a risk assessment approach that results 

in a method to determine which small 

unmanned aircraft are required to be 

registered. In recognition of the 

potential risks posed by small 

unmanned aircraft highlighted by the 

Task Force’s work, the FAA agrees with 

the Task Force recommendation and 

generally agrees with its approach for 

purposes of aircraft registration only. 

The Task Force recommendation results 

in a simple, straight forward method to 

determine which aircraft should be 

registered. Accordingly, this rulemaking 

adopts the Task Force recommendation 

to exclude small unmanned aircraft 

weighing an equivalent of 250 grams or 

less. (FAA is using the pound 

equivalent of 250 grams–0.55 pounds.) 

The agency emphasizes, however, that 

the Task Force approach may be 

different from the approach that will be 

used in the sUAS Operation and 

Certification rulemaking to develop 

operating requirements. 

The FAA recognizes that the Task 

Force recommendation strikes a balance 

between many stakeholders, including 

modelers, unmanned aircraft 

manufacturers, operators, retailers, and 

the manned aviation community. As 

this aviation sector continues to 

develop, operating experience and new 

technologies may compel the agency to 

reconsider the appropriate weight 

threshold for unmanned aircraft 

registration. Additionally, new research 

may necessitate a change from the 

weight-based approach recommended 

by the Task Force. Since the Task 

Force’s methodology only assessed the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

risk to individuals on the ground, the 

agency recognizes that additional 

research is necessary to evaluate the risk 

of collisions between small unmanned 

aircraft and manned aircraft. The FAA 

has several tests, both in-progress and 

planned, in collaboration with our UAS 

Test Sites and UAS Center of 

Excellence. 

The FAA considered comments that 

advocated for the use of weight in 

combination with other factors and 

determined that these scenarios would 

be more difficult to implement and 

could cause confusion. The FAA also 

considered comments that 

recommended exclusions from the 

registration requirement based on 

operational limitations, e.g., altitude, 

speed, visual line of sight operations 

only. However, at this time, the FAA is 

concerned that these approaches could 

stifle innovation in the ongoing and 

rapid development of sUAS technology. 

Thus, the FAA determined that these 

were not viable methods to create 

exclusions. 

Regarding commenters who 

recommended that the FAA exclude 

certain aircraft from the requirement of 

registration based on the locations at 

which those aircraft would be operated 

(e.g., private property), such an 

approach would defeat the purpose of 

registration, which is to identify aircraft 

throughout the NAS and the owners of 

such aircraft. Registration based on 

intended location would not address 

that intent because the NAS extends 

over private property. In response to the 

comments urging the exclusion of some 

or all model aircraft from the 

registration requirement, the FAA has 

determined that doing so would be 

contrary to the policy adopted in the 

October 22, 2015 Clarification/Request 

for Information. 

In response to the comments urging 

the exclusion of some or all model 

aircraft from the registration 

requirement, as stated in the 

Clarification/Request for Information, 

model aircraft are indeed aircraft and 

thus they are subject to the statutory 

requirement of aircraft registration. 80 

FR at 63913–63914. 

In response to the commenters who 

advocated for a limited exemption for 

unmanned aircraft operated exclusively 

indoors, the FAA reiterates that the 

requirement of registration pertains to 

aircraft operated in the NAS, thus 

outdoors. An exception is not required 

to stipulate that small unmanned 

aircraft operated exclusively indoors are 

not required to register with the FAA. 

Regarding comments received to the 

Clarification/Request for Information 

pertaining to the micro UAS proposal 

contained in the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM, the FAA notes that 

issues pertaining to weight 

classifications for purposes of sUAS 

operation and certification purposes are 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 

Regarding comments pertaining to 

privacy and operational concerns, the 

agency clarifies that this rulemaking is 

intended only to provide relief from the 

existing part 47 registration 

requirements. Pursuant to the 

Presidential Memorandum issued on 

February 15, 2015, Promoting Economic 

Competitiveness While Safeguarding 

Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties 

in Domestic Use of UAS, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) is leading a 

multi-stakeholder engagement process 

to develop and communicate best 

practices for privacy, accountability, 

and transparency issues regarding 

commercial and private use of UAS in 

the NAS, and will address these issues 

through that process. 

D. Eligibility To Register 

1. Citizenship 

This final rule includes the statutory 

eligibility requirements for aircraft 

registration as required by 49 U.S.C. 

44102. An aircraft may be registered 

under 49 U.S.C. 44103 only when the 

aircraft is not registered under the laws 

of a foreign country and is owned by (1) 

a citizen of the United States; (2) an 

individual citizen of a foreign country 

lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence in the United States; or (3) a 

corporation not a citizen of the United 

States when the corporation is 

organized and doing business under the 

laws of the United States or a State, and 

the aircraft is based and primarily used 

in the United States. The FAA may also 

register aircraft owned by the United 

States government or a State or local 

governmental entity. See 49 U.S.C. 

44102. Part 47 includes these statutory 

eligibility requirements. 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: The sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM addressed the 

applicability of the statutory aircraftregistration requirement by proposing to 

require all small unmanned aircraft 

subject to the proposal to be registered 

pursuant to the existing registration 

process of part 47. See 80 FR 9574. The 

NPRM did not address issues pertaining 

to the eligibility to register (including 

citizenship). 

Although the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM did not address the 

issue of aircraft owner citizenship as it 

relates to small unmanned aircraft in 

part 47, one commenter to the NPRM 

raised the issue. DJI acknowledged the 

constraints the statutory aircraft 

registration requirements place on the 

FAA, but believed that those restrictions 

prevent most foreign citizens from 

operating a small UAS commercially in 

the United States. DJI presumed that 

tourists operating small UAS as model 

aircraft would be allowed to do so. DJI 

urged the FAA to consider asking 

Congress either to drop the aircraft 

registration requirement for all small 

UAS altogether or to withdraw the 

citizenship requirement (including its 

limited exceptions). 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Rotor Sport recommended against 

requiring U.S. citizenship for 

registration of small UAS because it 

would be ‘‘severely detrimental’’ to the 

rotor sport industry. In particular, Rotor 

Sport stated that requiring citizenship 

for small UAS that are already governed 

by the Amateur Competitive Sport 

regulations of the AMA ‘‘would severely 

and financially impact international 

drone racing events, including the 2016 

World Drone Racing Championship 

being held in Hawaii.’’ 

Task Force: As part of its discussions 

regarding who should register a small 

unmanned aircraft, the Task Force 

addressed the issue of citizenship status 

of applicants for registration. 

Considering the goals of encouraging the 

growth of the UAS industry and 

compliance with the registration 

requirement, the Task Force 

recommended there be no U.S. 

citizenship or residency requirement for 

registration eligibility. If, however, the 

FAA does include a U.S. citizenship 

requirement, the Task Force 

recommended that the agency use its 

discretion to permit non-citizen owners 

to operate in the U.S. by applying for a 

waiver from the registration requirement 

for a specified period of time (consistent 

with 49 U.S.C. 41703(a)(4)). The Task 

Force believed that eliminating the 

citizenship requirement would help 

achieve the goal that small unmanned 

aircraft owners are known to the FAA 

for safety purposes. 

IFR Requirement: While the FAA can 

make certain changes to the registration 

system regarding the types of 

information to be collected, and how 

that information is collected, the 

statutory requirements pertaining to 

citizenship in 49 U.S.C. 44102 are clear. 

The statutory citizenship criteria must 

be satisfied in order to obtain a 

certificate of U.S. registration. 

As noted above, registration is just 

one requirement that must be satisfied 

in order to operate an aircraft in the U.S. 

With respect to the operation of 

unmanned aircraft, Article 8 of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78613 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 

December 1944 and amended by the 

ICAO Assembly (Doc 7300) addresses 

‘pilotless aircraft’ and states that: 

No aircraft capable of being flown without a 

pilot shall be flown without a pilot over the 

territory of a contracting State without 

special authorization by that State and in 

accordance with the terms of such 

authorization. Each contracting State 

undertakes to insure that the flight of such 

aircraft without a pilot in regions open to 

civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to 

obviate danger to civil aircraft. 

For those that do not satisfy the 

citizenship requirements for U.S. 

registration, consistent with the 

authority in 49 U.S.C. 41703, the 

Secretary may authorize certain foreign 

civil aircraft to be navigated in the U.S. 

only (1) if the country of registry grants 

a similar privilege to aircraft of the U.S.; 

(2) by an airman holding a certificate or 

license issued or made valid by the U.S. 

government or the country of registry; 

(3) if the Secretary authorizes the 

navigation; and (4) if the navigation is 

consistent with the terms the Secretary 

may prescribe. See also 14 CFR part 375, 

Navigation of Foreign Civil Aircraft in 

the United States. 

In this instance, with respect to those 

individuals who do not satisfy the 

citizenship requirements and yet wish 

to conduct model aircraft operations in 

the U.S., the Secretary has determined, 

consistent with Article 8, and the 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 41703, as 

implemented in 14 CFR part 375, that it 

is appropriate to allow these operations 

to occur provided that individuals 

complete the process set forth in 14 CFR 

part 48 and comply with the statutory 

requirements for conducting model 

aircraft operations in Public Law 112– 

95, section 336 (Feb. 14, 2012). For 

these individuals, recognizing that most 

ICAO member states have not imposed 

a registration or airworthiness 

requirement for these small unmanned 

aircraft, we will recognize these aircraft 

as ‘‘other foreign civil aircraft’’ as 

defined in 14 CFR 375.11. Consistent 

with the Secretary’s authority in section 

333 of Public Law 112–95, provided the 

aircraft are operated exclusively as 

model aircraft in accordance with 

section 336 of Public Law 112–95, an 

airworthiness certificate will not be 

required. Section 375.38 will require 

individuals to comply with § 48.30 and 

pay a $5 fee, complete the application 

and the registration process in 

§§ 48.100(b) and (c), 48.105, and 48.115; 

mark the aircraft in accordance with the 

provisions in §§ 48.200 and 48.205, and 

comply with the statutory model aircraft 

requirements in section 336 of Public 

Law 112–95. The agency will consider 

the certificate that is issued to be a 

recognition of ownership rather than a 

certificate of U.S. aircraft registration. 

These conditions are consistent with 

and impose no greater burden than the 

requirements imposed on U.S. citizens 

conducting model aircraft operations in 

the U.S. 

2. Commercial Activity Conducted by 

Non-U.S. Citizens 

A corporation that is not a citizen of 

the United States may register an 

aircraft in the United States when the 

corporation is organized and doing 

business under the laws of the United 

States or a State, and the aircraft is 

based and primarily used in the United 

States. 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(1)(C). This 

statutory limitation exists in order to 

prevent the United States registry from 

‘‘becoming an international registry’’ 

and ‘‘United States aircraft registration 

from becoming a so-called ‘flag of 

convenience.’ ’’ See 44 FR 61937, 

61937–61938 (October 29, 1979). 

Part 47 implements the requirement 

to define ‘‘based and primarily used in 

the United States.’’ Under part 47, 

aircraft are deemed to be ‘‘based and 

primarily used in the United States’’ if 

one of the following conditions is 

satisfied: (1) The aircraft is used 

exclusively in the United States during 

the period of registration; or (2) the 

aircraft flight hours accumulated within 

the United States amount to at least 60 

percent of the total flight hours of the 

aircraft, measured over six month 

intervals. § 47.9. Because operations by 

small unmanned aircraft registered in 

accordance with part 48 are limited to 

operations within the United States, it is 

not necessary to further define ‘‘based 

and primarily used in the United 

States’’ as provided in part 47. 

With respect to foreign-owned or 

controlled entities or individuals who 

want to conduct non-recreational UAS 

operations but who do not satisfy the 

definition above and thus cannot 

register their aircraft in the United 

States under either 14 CFR part 47 or 

part 48, the Department and the FAA 

may consider allowing these operations 

to occur with additional authorization 

under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 41703, 

the provisions of 14 CFR part 375, and 

other safety authorizations as deemed 

necessary by the FAA. Comments are 

requested on what factors the FAA or 

the Department should consider in 

determining whether and when to grant 

such authorizations. The Department 

will address these authorizations in 

more detail in the sUAS Operation and 

Certification final rule, the final rule on 

sUAS registration, or other rulemaking 

as appropriate. For more information 

and guidance regarding authorities for 

non-U.S. citizens, please contact the 

Department’s Foreign Air Carrier 

Licensing Division. 

3. Minimum Age To Register 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

In the Clarification/Request for 

Information document, the agency 

sought comments on whether there 

should be a minimum age at which a 

person would be permitted to register a 

small unmanned aircraft. An individual 

commenter opposed a minimum age 

requirement, noting that a 10 year old 

can be safer than a 30 year old. A few 

other individual commenters did, 

however, recommend a minimum age 

requirement to register and operate a 

UAS—one commenter recommended 21 

years old (to purchase and operate a 

UAS), two commenters recommended 

18 years old (to register a UAS), and one 

commenter recommended 16 years old 

(to register a UAS). Another individual 

commenter said there should be an age 

requirement to purchase UAS weighing 

more than 4 pounds. That commenter 

did not, however, suggest an age at 

which this requirement should be set. 

One commenter pointed to the existence 

of child protection laws and questioned 

how the FAA will protect privacy 

interests in the registration process. 

Task Force: Due to the anticipated use 

of a Web-based application process for 

part 48, the Task Force considered agerelated limitations applicable to Webbased information collection. Consistent 

with the Children’s Online Privacy 

Protection Act (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. 

6501–6505, the Task Force 

recommended a requirement that 

individuals be 13 years or older to 

register a UAS. 

IFR Requirement: In response to the 

comments from the Clarification/

Request for Information, the agency 

notes that the comments did not provide 

justification for an age restriction for 

purposes of registration given that there 

is no minimum age for the operation of 

some sUAS and the agency proposed a 

minimum age of 17 for operation of 

sUAS used for commercial (non-hobby 

or non-recreational) purposes. Although 

one commenter proposed that the 

registration age should be linked to the 

weight of the aircraft, given that the 

registration process provided by this 

final rule is exclusively Web-based, 

protections for minor registrants must 

control. The FAA agrees with the Task 

Force recommendation to limit Webbased small unmanned aircraft 

registration to persons age 13 and older 

and has included this requirement in 

this IFR. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

As a matter of policy (OMB Guidance 

for Implementing the Privacy Provisions 

of the E-Government Act of 2002), all 

Web sites and online services operated 

by the federal government and 

contractors operating on behalf of 

federal agencies must comply with the 

standards set forth in the Children’s 

Online Privacy Protection Rule (16 CFR 

part 312). COPPA applies to Web site 

operators (including mobile apps) 

directed to children under 13 that 

collect, use, or disclose personal 

information from children. It also 

applies to operators of general audience 

Web sites or online services with actual 

knowledge that they are collecting, 

using, or disclosing personal 

information from children under 13. 

COPPA also applies to Web sites or 

online services that have actual 

knowledge that they are collecting 

personal information directly from users 

of another Web site or online service 

directed to children. Operators who are 

covered by COPPA must: 

1. Post a clear and comprehensive 

online privacy policy describing their 

information practices for personal 

information collected online from 

children; 

2. Provide direct notice to parents and 

obtain verifiable parental consent, with 

limited exceptions, before collecting 

personal information online from 

children; 

3. Give parents the choice of 

consenting to the operator’s collection 

and internal use of a child’s 

information, but prohibiting the 

operator from disclosing that 

information to third parties (unless 

disclosure is integral to the site or 

service, in which case, this must be 

made clear to parents); 

4. Provide parents access to their 

child’s personal information to review 

and/or have the information deleted; 

5. Give parents the opportunity to 

prevent further use or online collection 

of a child’s personal information; 

6. Maintain the confidentiality, 

security, and integrity of information 

they collect from children, including by 

taking reasonable steps to release such 

information only to parties capable of 

maintaining its confidentiality and 

security; and 

7. Retain personal information 

collected online from a child for only as 

long as is necessary to fulfill the 

purpose for which it was collected and 

delete the information using reasonable 

measures to protect against its 

unauthorized access or use. 

The Registry, through the small 

unmanned aircraft registration Web site, 

is expected to gather personal 

information as defined by COPPA, such 

as first and last name, a physical or 

mailing address and online contact 

information. In light of these 

requirements, the registration Web site 

will require a responsible person age 13 

or over to complete the registration 

application, providing their name in 

place of the child’s name when the 

aircraft owner is a child under 13, as 

required by § 48.15. 

All aircraft owners who are age 13 

and older will be required to register in 

their name as the aircraft owner. The 

agency does not expect a person who 

turns 13 after the date on which the 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration is 

issued but before renewal is required, to 

reregister their small unmanned aircraft 

in their own name. The agency expects 

this change to take place at the time of 

registration renewal. Until such time, 

the responsible person can continue to 

meet the obligations of the owner for 

purposes of device identification. 

We recognize that in order to register 

in the system, the payment of the fee 

requires the use of a credit, debit, gift, 

or prepaid card using the Visa, 

MasterCard, American Express, JCB, 

Discover, or Diners Club network. For 

owners who are age 13 and older who 

do not have access to one of these 

payment methods, a parent, guardian, or 

responsible person could submit 

payment on their behalf using one of 

these options. 

E. Registration Required Prior to 

Operation 

1. Registration Prior to Operation 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

The FAA requested comments on the 

point at which registration should occur 

(e.g., point-of-sale or prior to operation). 

Several trade associations whose 

members use UAS (News Media 

Coalition, Air Medical Operators 

Association, Aerospace Industries 

Association (AIA), and Property Drone 

Consortium), Modovolate Aviation, 

LLC, and Morris P. Hebert, Inc. 

supported point-of-sale registration. A 

number of individuals stated that 

registration at point of sale was the only 

approach that would ensure that 

registration would occur at least for 

ready-to-fly UASs. These commenters 

stated that many operators would not 

register later. Some of these 

commenters, however, questioned 

whether point-of-sale registration could 

be applied to home-built or traded 

UASs. A few commenters compared the 

registration process to that which occurs 

for car and gun sales. Some commenters 

stated that an unlock process should be 

included so that the UAS could not be 

used until registration was complete. 

Another suggested registering the 

beacon, not the UAS. Commenters 

stated that point-of-sale registration, 

with the seller handling the 

information, would reduce the burden 

on buyers. Some individuals stated that 

purchasers should have to demonstrate 

that they were familiar with the rules for 

operation. 

Chronicled, Inc. stated that a 

registration system should be designed 

to integrate all POS systems that 

currently exist; this commenter assumed 

that each buyer would have an email 

address and government ID number that 

could be used to set up a registration 

account by downloading a mobile app. 

This company also assumed that the 

product would include a public key 

infrastructure (PKI) chip. The Real Time 

Technology Group stated that vendors 

could easily verify IDs presented by 

checking public records, and 

government watch lists. 

The National Agricultural Aviation 

Association (NAAA), the Colorado 

Agricultural Aviation Association, and 

an individual stated that the burden on 

vendors would be no greater than 

submitting credit card charges. NAAA 

recommended that initial registration 

occur at the manufacturers, with all 

subsequent sales involving a transfer of 

ownership. A law firm and individual 

commenters generally supported having 

the vendor submit the information 

because, they argued, this would ensure 

that the registration occurred. One 

suggested that the vendor submit a 

temporary registration with the 

purchaser required to submit a final 

version. 

Most commenters that addressed this 

issue expressed either opposition to the 

approach or concerns about the viability 

of point-of-sale registration for some 

sales. AT&T Services, Inc. questioned 

the FAA’s legal authority to impose a 

registration requirement at the point-ofsale, given that the statutory authority 

underlying the UAS registration 

requirement, as well as its 

implementing regulation, applies to 

persons who ‘‘operate’’ aircraft. In this 

case, AT&T asserted, it is the owner of 

the UAS who ‘‘operates’’ it, and should 

therefore be responsible for registering 

it. 

The Retail Industry Leaders 

Association (RILA) stated that point-ofsale registration would require the FAA 

to build new information technology 

systems to collect the information and 

retail outlets would have to build and 

test systems to link to the FAA. RILA 

stated that this was unlikely to happen 

in the short timeframe the FAA is 

proposing. RILA further stated that the 

practical realities of implementing a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78615 

36Some commenters said the registration 

requirement should apply to the ‘‘owner’’ while 

other commenters said it should apply to the 

Continued 

point-of-sale registration system in time 

for this holiday season would impose 

heavy and costly administrative burdens 

on the FAA and retailers while at the 

same time raising serious consumer 

privacy concerns. 

The National Retail Federation (NRF) 

stated that many retail point-of-sale 

systems are not configured to capture 

individual product identifying 

information. From a product’s UPC 

code, many point-of-sale systems will 

identify the type of item, but cannot be 

configured to automatically capture 

information identifying each unique 

instance of an item type, such as a serial 

number. NRF stated that point-of-sale 

registration would require retailers to 

build a manual intervention process 

into their point-of-sale systems; cashiers 

would have to manually capture the 

serial number of the UAS and other 

required registration information. The 

commenter said this process would 

require training sales personnel, which 

imposes labor costs. 

RILA and NRF stated that collecting 

personal information in a checkout line 

was problematic and presented data 

safety issues. RILA stated that it would 

cause significant delays in checking out 

for both UAS buyers and other 

customers. For both store and online 

sales, RILA stated that the retailer 

would have to explain the requirements 

to the customers because many would 

not be aware of the FAA rule. RILA also 

stated that point-of-sale registration 

would not capture the needed 

information for those UAS that are 

bought as gifts. Finally, RILA stated that 

a point-of-sale requirement would 

regulate sales rather than operations and 

questioned whether the FAA has the 

authority to regulate sales. 

A number of individual commenters 

stated the point of sale would not work 

for people who build their own models 

from purchased parts or 3D-generated 

parts, for many online sales, and for 

purchases from foreign Web sites. One 

commenter stated that he bought parts 

without necessarily knowing exactly 

what kind of model he will build. 

Another commenter stated that some 

kits are sold by individuals operating 

small businesses from their homes. 

Several individuals suggested that the 

FAA provide identification numbers to 

purchasers so that the seller would only 

need to record the numbers. Other 

commenters recommended that AMA 

membership or proof of registration 

with the FAA be required at point of 

sale. 

RILA, Horizon Hobby, and many 

individual commenters supported 

registration prior to operation. They 

stated that this approach would make it 

possible to capture the many UAS that 

are purchased as gifts, from foreign Web 

sites, or sold privately and those that are 

constructed by the operator. A number 

of commenters suggested that this 

would allow the operator to affix the 

registration number on the UAS. Other 

commenters stated that they own 

multiple aircraft and asked that the 

operator, rather than the aircraft, be 

registered. A few individuals stated that 

the registration process could be 

handled when the owner filed the 

warranty card. One commenter stated 

that a prior to operation placement of 

name and contact information in the 

aircraft would be a more efficient means 

of ensuring the identity of the person 

piloting the aircraft is tied to the 

aircraft. Another individual stated that 

in some cases models are started by one 

person, passed on to others, and 

perhaps never finished or flown; 

including such models would serve no 

purpose. 

The NRF stated UAS should be 

manufactured so that they can only be 

turned on and operated after the 

consumer registers the UAS and 

receives and applies an activation code. 

A manufacturer, Drone House Joint 

Stock Company, stated that this 

approach is its model for registration. 

Another individual questioned how 

the FAA has authority to require 

registration of UAS that are ‘‘on the 

ground, not being flown, with the drone 

being turned off, in a box, and inside a 

building.’’ This commenter asserted 

that, consistent with 14 CFR parts 1, 47, 

and 91 and 49 U.S.C. 44101(a), the FAA 

only has jurisdiction over a UAS that is 

in operation. 

Task Force: The Task Force 

approached its discussions of the 

registration process with two goals in 

mind—to ensure accountability by 

creating a traceable link between aircraft 

and owner, and to encourage the 

maximum levels of regulatory 

compliance by making the registration 

process as simple as possible. To 

achieve the twin goals of accountability 

and compliance, the Task Force 

recommended the FAA institute a 

simple, owner-based registration system 

in which the FAA issues a single 

registration number to each registrant 

which covers all unmanned aircraft 

owned by that registrant. 

The Task Force also addressed the 

question of registration process design. 

Because 49 U.S.C. 44101(a) stipulates 

that a person may only operate an 

aircraft when it is registered with the 

FAA, the majority of Task Force 

members believed the FAA cannot 

require registration of unmanned 

aircraft at the point-of-sale. Some 

members of the Task Force expressed 

the opinion that maximum compliance 

can best be achieved with point-of-sale 

registration and those members 

therefore encouraged the FAA to 

include it as one of several options for 

registration. Several other members of 

the Task Force pointed out that, because 

the FAA’s authority extends only to 

operation of aircraft, point-of-sale 

registration cannot be mandated. 

IFR Requirement: The FAA agrees 

with the Task Force recommendation 

and comments stating that registration 

should be required prior to operation of 

the small unmanned aircraft, as opposed 

to at the point of sale. As referenced by 

the Task Force report, 49 U.S.C. 

44101(a) stipulates that a person may 

only operate an aircraft once it is 

registered with the FAA. 

Registration prior to operation as 

opposed to point-of-sale registration 

also avoids a number of logistical 

considerations associated with 

consumer product purchases identified 

by commenters, such as distinguishing 

the purchaser from the ultimate owner, 

and the burden placed on retailers when 

such a transaction occurs at a cash 

register in a store. 

The agency emphasizes, however, that 

conformance to the statutory 

requirement to register prior to 

operation does not foreclose the 

opportunity for the development of a 

point-of-sale web-based application for 

registration that relieves the associated 

burdens identified by commenters. The 

agency encourages innovation in pointof-sale registration as it may provide the 

agency with a means by which to 

receive information regarding small 

unmanned aircraft in a seamless 

fashion, and hopes to work with 

retailers and manufacturers in the future 

to make the process as simple as 

possible. 

In response to commenters’ concern 

about whether a small unmanned 

aircraft that is not used in the NAS (i.e. 

indoors) would be inadvertently 

registered via point-of-sale registration, 

the agency confirms that only those 

small unmanned aircraft that are 

operated outdoors must register. 

Further, there is no obligation to register 

a small unmanned aircraft that will not 

be operated outdoors. 

2. Registration of Each Aircraft 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Most commenters favored a requirement 

to register the owner 36 of the UAS 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘pilot’’ or ‘‘operator.’’ Because these commenters 

were largely members of the model aircraft 

community, and therefore both the owners and 

operators of their aircraft, this seems to be a 

distinction without a difference. 

instead of a requirement to register the 

UAS itself. Under this registration 

scheme, each owner would receive a 

single, unique registration number that 

would cover every UAS that person 

owns. Many commenters pointed out 

that this is how the AMA handles 

registration. Commenters asserted that a 

requirement to register each individual 

UAS is impractical and overly 

burdensome, particularly in light of the 

fact that most recreational users own 

multiple (often many) UAS. 

Commenters also pointed out that many 

UAS owners, especially those who build 

their own aircraft, regularly replace 

parts, as well as trade and sell their 

aircraft with other UAS owners. Those 

commenters asserted that a requirement 

to register the owner instead of the 

aircraft would alleviate the burdens 

associated with re-registering an aircraft 

each time such an event occurs. 

Commenters also claimed that 

registration of the owner of a UAS is all 

that is necessary to satisfy the DOT and 

FAA goals of traceability and 

accountability. 

EPIC stated that a UAS registration 

requirement is an ‘‘absolutely essential’’ 

requirement to establish accountability 

for use of ‘‘autonomous surveillance 

devices’’ in the United States. EPIC 

further stated, however, that to ensure 

that the registry fosters accountability 

and responsibility among UAS 

operators, the registry must include 

provisions addressing privacy issues ‘‘to 

ensure a comprehensive baseline set of 

protections that facilitate the safe 

integration of drones.’’ 

Union Pacific Railroad similarly 

stated support for ‘‘reasonable measures 

by the FAA to encourage accountability 

and responsibility among all UAS 

operators, including recreational users 

of sUAS.’’ 

A number of commenters 

recommended that the FAA implement 

a licensing system like the FCC uses to 

register amateur radio operators. 

Commenters drew comparisons between 

amateur radio operators, most of whom 

own many different pieces of radio 

equipment, and hobby aircraft modelers, 

many of whom own many different 

model aircraft. Commenters explained 

that under the FCC licensing system the 

operator, not the equipment, is licensed 

for non-commercial operations after 

passing a safety test. Commenters 

asserted that registration alone does not 

guarantee a model aircraft operator 

understands the rules of safety for 

operating in the NAS, so a licensing 

system with a testing component may be 

the best way to ensure safe operations 

in the NAS. One commenter 

acknowledged that licensing model 

aircraft operators would require a 

change in the law, but stated his belief 

that there is wide support for this in 

both Congress and the modeling 

community. 

One commenter recommended that 

individuals be required to pass a 

background check before getting a 

license for UAS operations. Other 

commenters said the registration system 

should be more like the systems to 

obtain a license to hunt or to operate a 

boat, and less like firearm registration. 

In contrast to those commenters who 

advocated for an owner-based 

registration system, Delair-Tech stated 

that each entry in the registration 

database ‘‘should be attached to exactly 

one UAV.’’ Aviation Management said 

the FAA should consider independent 

registration for a UAS operator in 

addition to registration of the unmanned 

aircraft and all of its support systems, 

including the ground control station. 

The National Air Transportation 

Association expressed its support of the 

registration requirement, but 

acknowledged the ability to track an 

unsafe or noncompliant UAS back to the 

operator is limited to incidents in which 

the UAS is disabled, but not too 

damaged to obtain registration 

information. Several commenters, 

including the Competitive Enterprise 

Institute, questioned the usefulness of a 

registration number for identification 

purposes asserting a registration number 

would be impossible to read during 

flight, would only be useful after an 

incident has occurred and only if the 

UAS is recovered. Some commenters 

said affixing the name and contact 

information of the owner to or in the 

aircraft will serve the same purpose 

with much less expense. Other 

commenters said because it will be very 

easy for an individual to ignore the 

registration requirement, the small 

benefit of registration will be greatly 

outweighed by the burden placed on the 

model aircraft industry and the cost of 

implementing and maintaining the 

system. 

NAAA and CoAA said registration 

will help track down who is responsible 

after an accident, but noted that FAA 

will not be able to enforce illegal and 

unsafe operations without requiring 

UAS to be equipped with an ADS–B like 

system through which to trace them. 

Task Force: The Task Force 

recommended an owner-based 

registration system to achieve the goals 

of accountability and compliance. 

Under the Task Force scheme, the FAA 

would issue a single registration number 

to each registrant that would be used to 

identify all unmanned aircraft owned 

and operated by that registrant. 

IFR Requirement: The FAA sought to 

integrate the Task Force 

recommendation and comments 

regarding an owner registration 

approach while also considering the 

best public policy with respect to small 

unmanned aircraft registration. As 

addressed in the preamble discussion 

‘‘Registration Process,’’ the registration 

system will differentiate between small 

unmanned aircraft intended to be used 

exclusively as model aircraft and small 

unmanned aircraft intended to be used 

as other than model aircraft in that 

different information will be collected 

for each population. 

Small unmanned aircraft intended to 

be used exclusively as model aircraft 

will be registered with a single 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

issued to the aircraft owner. As with all 

other small unmanned aircraft, 

registration must be completed prior to 

operation of a small unmanned aircraft 

exclusively as a model aircraft. Owners 

of small unmanned aircraft intended to 

be used as model aircraft must complete 

the registration application process by 

submitting basic contact information, 

such as name, address, and email 

address. The owner will receive a 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration with 

a single registration number that 

constitutes the registration for each of 

this particular owner’s aircraft. There 

would be no limit to the number of 

small unmanned aircraft registered 

under the owner’s registration. This 

approach serves the purpose of the 

statutory aircraft registration 

requirement because each small 

unmanned aircraft must bear the 

owner’s registration number, thus 

allowing for the aircraft and its owner 

to be identified. 

The agency notes that, once an aircraft 

is no longer exclusively used as a model 

aircraft, then the owner must complete 

a new registration application in 

accordance with the requirements for 

aircraft used as other than model 

aircraft. 

The owner of a small unmanned 

aircraft intended to be used as other 

than a model aircraft must complete the 

registration application by providing 

aircraft-specific information in addition 

to basic contact information. The owner 

will receive a Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration with a registration number 

for each individual aircraft registered. 

The agency determined that this 

registration approach is necessary for 

entities intending to use small 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78617 

unmanned aircraft as other than model 

aircraft because, based on the agency’s 

experience with exemptions issued 

under section 333 of Public Law 112– 

95, these entities are expected to 

conduct a higher volume of operations, 

utilize multiple aircraft and at times 

conduct multiple simultaneous 

operations across the country, which 

introduces more risk into the NAS. In 

contrast, a small unmanned aircraft 

owner who operates small unmanned 

aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft is 

expected to use only one of his or her 

aircraft at a time and to do so on a less 

frequent basis than a person conducting 

operations with small unmanned 

aircraft intended to be used as other 

than as a model aircraft. 

Components of the owner registration 

approach will still be available for small 

unmanned aircraft used as other than 

model aircraft in that the agency will 

utilize an owner profile for the 

registration Web site under which 

multiple aircraft can be registered. 

Owners will have a single profile that 

contains all of their aircraft, and 

although they may register multiple 

aircraft under that profile, each aircraft 

must have a unique number that exists 

under that profile. The FAA notes that 

persons using small unmanned aircraft 

other than as model aircraft will not be 

able to use the part 48 registration 

system until March 31, 2016. 

The FAA notes that commenters 

comparing the registration requirement 

to licensure misconstrue the purpose of 

registration. While registration allows 

the agency an opportunity to educate 

sUAS operators, the primary purpose of 

registration is to identify the aircraft 

owner. 

F. Registration Process 

1. Design of Registration System 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: The sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM requested 

comments on the registration process. 

Both supporters and opponents of the 

proposed registration provision said 

FAA should take steps to ease the 

registration process. The Property Drone 

Consortium stated that a streamlined 

registration process was necessary to 

ensure growth in the UAS industry. 

Amazon, Association of Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems International, the 

American Farm Bureau Federation, and 

several others urged FAA to allow 

online registration of aircraft. Similarly, 

Small UAV Coalition and AUVSI, 

among other commenters, urged FAA to 

establish an electronic UAS registration 

database. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

In the Clarification/Request for 

Information, the Administrator and the 

Secretary requested information related 

to the logistics of the small unmanned 

aircraft registration process. 

Specifically, the FAA and DOT 

requested comments on how the 

registration process should be designed 

to minimize burdens and best protect 

innovation and encourage growth in the 

UAS industry. The FAA and DOT also 

requested comments on whether 

registration should be electronic or webbased, and whether there were existing 

tools that could support an electronic 

registration process. 

In response to issues raised in the 

October 22, 2015 Clarification/Request 

for Information, commenters provided 

numerous suggestions for designing the 

registration process to minimize 

burdens and best protect innovation and 

encourage growth in the UAS industry. 

Suggestions included: Registering 

operators instead of individual aircraft; 

providing a variety of ways to register, 

including online, via telephone, through 

a mobile application, or at various 

locations, such as post offices or retail 

outlets; implementing a licensure 

procedure similar to that required by 

FCC for ham radio operators; allowing 

aircraft that already comply with AMA 

or FCC labeling practices to meet the 

labeling requirements to avoid 

conflicting requirements; and permitting 

operation of UAS upon submission of 

registration information rather than 

instituting a waiting period. Some 

commenters recommend that small 

unmanned aircraft manufacturers 

provide information to the FAA or assist 

owners in providing information to the 

FAA. 

A law firm recommended the agency 

use the same registration system it uses 

for registering manned aircraft. The 

commenter noted the current 

registration system requires the 

following information: A notarized 

statement by the builder, manufacturer, 

or applicant for registration describing 

the UAS in detail, evidence of 

ownership, and an Aircraft Registration 

Application (FAA AC Form 8050–1), 

which identifies UAS and the owner. 

This commenter suggested 

manufacturers provide the information 

regarding the UAS and its capabilities, 

which would reduce burdens on 

retailers and consumers and result in a 

high degree of compliance. 

Comments submitted as part of the 

AMA form letter campaign stated that 

the registration process should be as 

automated as possible and minimally 

intrusive. Those commenters stated that 

the system of aircraft identification used 

by AMA members (i.e., where members 

place their names and addresses or 

AMA numbers on their model aircraft) 

should be acceptable for AMA members 

as an alternative means of complying 

with the registration requirement. The 

Experimental Aircraft Association 

agreed that the identification used by 

AMA members could be allowed to 

meet the UAS registration requirements, 

which would alleviate some of the 

burden on the FAA while maintaining 

the accountability that DOT seeks 

through registration. However, EAA 

expressed doubts about the practicality 

of requiring registration of millions of 

UAS and model aircraft currently in use 

in the United States and feared the 

magnitude of the system would 

overshadow other safety measures. 

An individual stated the main 

problem registration is intended to solve 

is the unsafe use of UAS by 

inexperienced or uninformed operators; 

therefore, the commenter recommended 

registrants be required to pass a test as 

part of the registration process. 

The National Agricultural Aviation 

Association and the Colorado 

Agricultural Aviation Association stated 

FAA should focus on its aviation safety 

mission, including focusing on the 

safety of manned aircraft even if that 

resulted in requiring registration and 

more safety equipment for unmanned 

aircraft. These commenters said 

requiring items, such as indestructible 

data plate, ADS–B, and visible strobes, 

in addition to registration would 

encourage growth of the industry 

through accident prevention. In 

contrast, several individual commenters 

contended any registration requirement 

will stifle innovation and discourage 

growth. 

Several individual commenters 

questioned whether the agency can 

handle the registration of millions of 

recreational UAS. One commenter noted 

that the registration database could 

become overloaded and unmanageable 

if every person registers every model 

aircraft they purchase or receive—many 

of which will not last past a single 

flight—but then fail to notify the FAA 

when a model is lost, destroyed, or sold. 

Also pointing to the short life span of 

most small UAS, another commenter 

similarly said the registration system 

will become overwhelmed if 

recreational users are required to 

register and re-register each model 

aircraft they obtain. Another commenter 

said that requiring UAS owners to 

renew their registration will 

‘‘complicate everything’’ and lead to 

people involuntarily breaking the law 

when they forget to re-register their 

UAS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78618 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Task Force: The Task Force broadly 

agreed that in order to promote greater 

acceptance of the registration 

requirement, the registration process 

should be as quick and easy as possible. 

The Task Force encouraged the FAA to 

consider implementing additional 

methods and strategies to maximize 

compliance with the registration 

requirement but without adding 

cumbersome steps into the process. 

IFR Requirement: As has been noted 

previously, the FAA has developed and, 

by this rule, is creating an alternative, 

web-based registration system to register 

small unmanned aircraft prior to their 

operation. This web-based registration 

system is responsive to comments 

seeking an automated approach that is 

capable of managing the expected 

volume of registration. The agency 

expects that the web-based registration 

system will facilitate compliance with 

the aircraft registration requirement 

because of its accessibility and ease of 

use. Additionally, an electronic 

registration system complies fully with 

the Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act, Public Law 105–277, which 

requires that when practicable, federal 

agencies use electronic forms, filing, 

and signatures to conduct official 

business with the public. 

As has been noted, the agency 

considered a point-of-sale registration 

approach, but ultimately determined 

that it would be not be feasible for 

manufacturers, retailers, and the agency 

to implement at this time. As discussed 

earlier in this preamble, the agency is 

evaluating how to address the burdens 

associated with point-of-sale registration 

identified by commenters. 

2. Web-Based Registration Application 

The FAA received many comments 

regarding whether or not the agency 

should create an online registration 

system to register UAS or their 

operators. The vast majority of 

commenters were supportive of the use 

of an electronic or web-based 

registration system to collect registration 

information. However, commenters 

articulated significant differences in 

how they preferred the system be 

established, implemented, and enforced. 

Several commenters said that web-based 

registration would be the least intrusive 

and burdensome method of registration. 

These commenters also suggested that 

an online system may be the cheapest 

way to register individuals, reducing 

paperwork and processing time. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

In responding to the Clarification/

Request for Information, multiple 

commenters, including Horizon Hobby 

LLC, recommended that FAA create a 

registration platform that would be 

accessible from anywhere and any webbased device, including mobile devices. 

As stated by commenters, this platform 

could then be accessed repeatedly by 

individuals, allowing them to update 

registration information as their device 

specifications change. Commenters said 

that this type of online system would 

allow individuals to add new small 

unmanned aircraft to the registry easily 

and in a minimally burdensome fashion. 

ATA stated that an electronic 

registration system would dramatically 

shorten the registration process and 

make it more manageable for the FAA. 

ATA also noted that any cost associated 

with updating the FAA’s system is 

likely to be fairly minimal and could be 

offset by charging a small registration 

fee. 

Other commenters suggested that 

web-based registrations be integrated 

into online points of sale to ensure that 

those devices purchased from kits are 

registered without placing an outside 

burden on operators. Commenters said 

that this registration would be a part of 

the retailer’s sale process and would be 

a requirement of purchase; however, 

registration and approval would be 

instantaneous. These commenters, 

including Aviation Management 

Associates, indicated that this type of 

online registration could also include 

educational material and a quiz that 

must be passed as a condition of 

registration. According to the 

commenters, the educational material 

and quiz could serve as a mechanism to 

ensure that operators understand basic 

aviation laws and safety guidelines. 

While most commenters were 

supportive of electronic or web-based 

registrations, some expressed concern 

with an entirely electronic system. 

Many commenters expressed concern 

for the registration needs of those 

without consistent internet access. They 

instead recommended a paper 

alternative, in conjunction with online 

registration, be implemented to ease the 

registration burden of some operators. 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

outside of new technologies, the agency 

could use existing electronic registration 

systems as a template from which to 

craft a specific FAA registration 

program. For example, a few 

commenters recommended using 

existing e-commerce registration 

templates as a model. One commenter 

suggested that FAA work with 

commercial retailers like DJI to use their 

current registration platforms as a basis 

for point of sale registration. Other 

commenters suggested that FAA 

implement the registration procedures 

of the AMA for all operators, or use the 

AMA system as a template upon which 

the FAA can develop an equivalent 

system. 

NetMoby and other commenters 

suggested that FAA leverage existing 

FAA and other Federal agencies’ 

electronic registration systems to build 

a registration system unique to UASs. 

Examples provided by these 

commenters included creating a 

registration system similar to the one 

currently in place for FAA tail numbers, 

or developing a registration Web site 

with similar functionality to radio 

licensing sites. Skyward Inc, for 

example, recommended that FAA 

leverage its current FAA IT systems that 

it uses for other programs for use with 

UAS. 

Several commenters remarked that 

there are multiple available technologies 

that FAA could use to aid an electronic 

registration process. Some of these 

included QR codes and RFID 

technologies. Commenters stated that 

both could be used to register and track 

the flight paths of UAS in the NAS. 

They said an RFID can be placed on 

aircraft that can then be read by 

interested parties from long distances. 

However, these same commenters 

indicated that there are potential 

security concerns with using RFID 

technology as well. Along with these 

technologies, commenters asserted that 

there are several private software 

development companies in operation 

that could produce a sufficient webbased registration product for FAA to 

use and implement. Two individuals 

noted the cost to design, implement, 

and maintain a centralized registration 

system will be significant, without an 

increase the safety of the NAS. Another 

individual said the cost of the 

registration program will hurt small 

businesses by adding an external 

expense to their operations. 

Task Force: The Task Force also 

addressed the question of whether 

registration should be electronic or webbased, and what tools exist to support 

an electronic registration process. The 

Task Force believed the registration 

process should be web-based, and that 

the FAA should create an online 

registration system that allows for 

multiple entry points through an 

application programming interface 

(API). This would allow, for example, a 

sUAS manufacturer or trade 

organization to develop an application 

that communicates through an API by 

which it can register its customers or 

members by submitting registration 

information directly to the FAA 

database on their behalf. The 

registration information required and 

the certificate of registration received 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78619 

would be the same regardless of what 

point of entry is used into the 

registration system. The online 

registration system should provide for 

an option for owners to edit and delete 

their registration information, as well as 

to view and print physical copies of 

their registration certificates through 

access to a password-protected webbased portal. 

IFR Requirement: In § 48.30, the FAA 

sets out a process for streamlined 

registration of small unmanned aircraft. 

This streamlined process is exclusively 

web-based. The FAA agrees with 

commenters and the Task Force that a 

web-based system is much more 

functional than a paper system would 

be, and also agrees that registration 

compliance rates will increase 

dramatically when registration can be 

accomplished through a simple, webbased system. Additionally, the current 

FAA Registry would be unable to 

quickly process the dramatic increase in 

paper volume that the FAA would 

receive from small unmanned aircraft 

registration. With the implementation of 

the small unmanned aircraft registration 

process, small unmanned aircraft 

registration will be fully automated, 

allowing for the registration of small 

unmanned aircraft without delay. 

Therefore, a web-based system benefits 

both applicants and the FAA. The 

paper-based part 47 process will remain 

available for those applicants who are 

unable to avail themselves of the part 48 

process. 

The web-based registration system 

itself will be simple, easy to use, and 

mobile friendly. To complete the 

registration process, the owner of a 

small unmanned aircraft will enter the 

information identified in § 48.100 

(identified within the registration 

system as data fields) and pay a fee 

through the web-based registration 

system. A Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration will be available to print 

within the registration system or sent to 

the registrant via email following the 

initial registration and subsequent 

renewals. The applicant will have 24 

hours to correct registration information 

after the initial payment without having 

to pay a second time. 

Once registered, owners will be able 

to access the registration Web site to 

update the information provided to 

register the aircraft as well as cancel 

registration as circumstances require 

(e.g., aircraft destruction, transfer, sale, 

change in owner eligibility to register). 

Aircraft owners may also view and print 

physical copies of their registration 

certificate through access to this 

password-protected web-based portal, 

but must only pay a fee for the initial 

registration and renewals. There is no 

fee for updating personal information or 

accessing the registration certificate. For 

the initial release the user can add an 

alternate email address which can be 

used to reset the account password and 

all functionality of the system could still 

be utilized if the user lost access to their 

primary email address. For future 

releases we will have the ability to 

change the primary email address on 

file and revalidate the new one. 

Canceling a registration would change 

the state of the registration in the 

database to ‘‘cancelled’’ or another state 

that is not associated with an active 

registration. Aircraft registration records 

are permanent records and would not be 

deleted or destroyed. Please refer to the 

NARA schedule for additional details 

With respect to Task Force and 

Federal Register comments regarding 

different technical aspects the database 

should contain, the agency expects to 

continuously evaluate the database and 

the web-based registration process and 

look for opportunities to further develop 

the technical functionality of both. The 

FAA’s goal in utilizing the least 

burdensome approach is to encourage 

prompt compliance by removing 

barriers. As with other aspects of sUAS 

integration into the NAS, our approach 

to registration will be incremental. The 

Administrator may authorize expanded 

technical capabilities going forward, but 

the initial goal is to make this process 

as minimally burdensome as possible to 

encourage compliance with the 

registration requirement, and provide 

the FAA and law enforcement the 

ability to quickly connect individuals to 

their aircraft with the least amount of 

steps possible. 

With regard to comments addressing 

the use of RFI technology or use of small 

unmanned aircraft beacons to assist 

with registration and identification, the 

FAA believes that RFI and other 

technology could be cost prohibitive, 

and could add weight to smaller aircraft. 

The FAA believes that the same goal— 

identification of small unmanned 

aircraft and their owners—can be 

achieved through an online registration 

process with less expense and less 

technological investment. 

3. Information Required 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: The sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM requested 

comments on what information should 

be required for registration. A few 

commenters provided feedback as to 

whether small UAS owners should be 

required to provide additional 

information during the registration 

process so that UAS could be 

categorized. Amazon, American Farm 

Bureau Federation and an individual 

stated that small UAS owners should 

not be required to provide any 

additional information beyond what is 

currently required of manned aircraft. 

The University of North Dakota’s John 

D. Odegard School of Aerospace 

Sciences recommended that FAA adopt 

a simplified information-gathering 

process to include the following data: 

Manufacturer identification (if 

applicable); known performance and 

limitations; physical size, weight, and 

characteristics; and, if self-built, a list of 

major components similar to that 

provided by commercial manufacturers. 

The commenter stated that this minimal 

information would allow for future 

safety-related research by establishing 

base categories from which comparisons 

could be made. NOAA and Schertz 

Aerial Services, Inc. suggested that FAA 

impose similar requirements as those 

imposed on amateur-built aircraft. 

According to NOAA, UAS owners 

should be required, at a minimum, to 

describe the aircraft by class (UAS), 

size, color, number of motors/props/

wings, serial number, make, and model. 

Predesa, LLC recommended that digital 

photos or video recordings of the 

aircraft, as well as written records of 

manufacturers’ part numbers of 

supporting equipment used by the 

operator, can satisfy the need for 

additional information to accurately 

describe a non-standardized small UAS. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

A majority of commenters stated that 

only basic information should be 

collected during the registration process 

because of commenters’ concerns about 

data security. Several commenters 

suggested that commercial UAS 

operators should provide more in-depth 

information than recreational operators. 

The vast majority of commenters, 

including individuals and 

organizational stakeholders, stated that 

owner/business name, address, 

telephone number, email address, and 

description of the UAS should be 

collected during the registration 

process. Some commenters further 

broke down the UAS’s description to 

include make, model, manufacturer’s 

serial number, weight, range, 

performance capability, flight controller 

serial number and whether the UAS was 

purchased or home-built. Many 

commenters also suggested that 

registrants should upload a picture of 

the UAS. Several commenters suggested 

that date of sale/purchase, point of sale, 

date of operation, intended use and 

geographic location of primary use 

would also be helpful information. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78620 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

37To support its position, EPIC cited to and 

quoted from 18 U.S.C. 2725(4). Title 18 of the 

United States Code covers Crimes and Criminal 

Procedure. Section 2725 covers the definitions used 

in Chapter 123—Prohibition on Release and Use of 

Certain Personal Information from State Motor 

Vehicle Records. 

AMA members also stated that their 

AMA member numbers should be 

collected. 

To provide further information about 

the aircraft owner, many commenters 

suggested that the operator’s date of 

birth, driver’s license, Social Security 

Number, and number of aircraft owned 

should be provided during the 

registration process. Other commenters 

specifically objected to providing their 

Social Security Numbers because of 

concerns about data security. A few 

individuals who identified as hobbyists 

stated that insurance information and 

professional license numbers should 

also be collected during registration. A 

small number of commenters suggested 

registrants should provide their passport 

numbers, credit card numbers, 

nationality, and proof of citizenship. 

EPIC stated that the FAA should limit 

the collection of registrant information 

to what is necessary to maintain the 

aircraft registry and UAS safety. In 

particular, EPIC stated that the FAA 

should not collect ‘‘highly restricted 

personal information,’’ including ‘‘an 

individual’s photograph or image, social 

security number, medical or disability 

information.’’ 37

EPIC also recommended that the FAA 

require disclosure of each UAS’s 

technical and surveillance capabilities, 

including data collection and storage. 

EPIC asserted that UAS are 

‘‘surveillance platforms’’ that are able to 

carry a multitude of different datacollection technologies, including highdefinition cameras, geolocation devices, 

cellular radios and disruption 

equipment, sensitive microphones, 

thermal imaging devices, and LIDAR. 

EPIC further asserted that UAS owners 

should be required to make clear at 

registration the specific capabilities of 

any video or audio surveillance 

technologies the UAS is carrying. EPIC 

stated that the public should not be left 

to wonder what surveillance devices are 

enabled on a UAS flying above their 

heads. EPIC further stated that the 

registration framework the FAA is 

considering does not go far enough, and 

should include a requirement that a 

UAS broadcast its capabilities and its 

registration number during operation, to 

allow members of the public and law 

enforcement officials to easily identify 

the operator and responsible party. 

EPIC also suggested that the FAA 

consider collecting aggregate data to 

assist research into UAS flights and 

usage. EPIC clarified, however, that 

such research data should not include 

personal information. 

Task Force: To ensure accountability, 

the Task Force recommended the FAA 

require all registrants to provide their 

name and street address, with the 

option to provide an email address or 

telephone number. While the Task 

Force recognized that a registrant’s 

email address and telephone number 

may be useful for the FAA to 

disseminate safety-related information 

to UAS owners, the Task Force 

nevertheless believed disclosure of such 

information should be optional. 

Because the Task Force recommended 

the FAA institute an owner-based 

registration system, it believed 

registrants should not be required to 

provide any vehicle information, such 

as serial number or make and model of 

the UAS, during the registration 

process. Registrants should, however, 

have the option to provide the aircraft’s 

manufacturer serial number, so that the 

serial number can then be used to 

satisfy the marking requirement. 

Additionally, to ensure the broadest 

possible participation, this registration 

system should make no distinction for, 

or impose additional requirements 

upon, sUAS manufactured or purchased 

outside the United States. 

IFR Requirement: For small 

unmanned aircraft used exclusively as 

model aircraft, the FAA adopts the Task 

Force recommendation to provide only 

basic contact information (name, 

address, and email address) for the 

small unmanned aircraft owner. This 

basic contact information is appropriate 

for registration of small unmanned 

aircraft intended to be used exclusively 

as model aircraft because owners 

typically only operate one aircraft at a 

time, which limits the variables in terms 

of owner identification. Accordingly, 

the FAA is requiring an applicant’s 

name, physical address, mailing address 

if the applicant does not receive mail at 

their physical address, and email 

address. An accurate mailing address is 

necessary because the FAA often relies 

on regular mail via the United States 

Postal Service to provide notice of 

administrative actions, serve 

enforcement documents and provide 

other information. Although email will 

reduce the agency’s reliance on regular 

mail for certain purposes such as the 

provision of educational material, a 

mailing address is still required to 

support the agency’s compliance and 

enforcement actions. 

At this time, the FAA will not be 

accepting manufacturer name, model 

name, and serial number from 

individuals registering small unmanned 

aircraft intended to be used exclusively 

as model aircraft. However, as discussed 

in the preamble discussion on 

registration marking, the Administrator 

will continue to evaluate whether serial 

number can serve the purpose of aircraft 

identification and in the future, may 

require use of serial number for aircraft 

marking purposes in place of an FAAissued registration number. In that case, 

this information would be acquired at 

point of sale by a manufacturer. 

The agency considered comments 

pertaining to the use of a membership 

number issued by an aeromodeling club 

such as the AMA as the registration 

number for an individual. After 

considering the design of the web-based 

information system, which will 

automatically assign a registration 

number to each individual applying for 

registration, the FAA determined that 

use of an aeromodeling club registration 

number would add unnecessary 

complexity. 

For persons expecting to operate 

small unmanned aircraft as other than 

model aircraft, in addition to the same 

basic contact information required for 

model aircraft, registrants must provide 

aircraft-specific information. A 

manufacturer and model name, and 

serial number must be provided for each 

aircraft being registered. As previously 

noted, based on the agency’s experience 

with exemptions issued under section 

333 of Public Law 112–95, persons 

seeking to operate small unmanned 

aircraft other than as model aircraft are 

expected to conduct a higher volume of 

operations, utilize multiple aircraft and 

at times conduct multiple simultaneous 

operations across the country, which 

thereby introduces more risk into the 

NAS. Moreover, these entities may 

operate multiple identical small 

unmanned aircraft at one time in 

different locations, with different 

persons operating the owner’s aircraft. 

Accordingly, the FAA has determined 

that aircraft data is necessary to identify 

aircraft used as other than model aircraft 

due to the range of variables with 

respect to the operations they conduct. 

The aircraft-specific data will also allow 

the agency to assess the demand of these 

small unmanned aircraft on the NAS 

and whether additional safety-related 

actions are necessary as the FAA works 

to integrate sUAS into the NAS. 

With respect to the Task Force’s 

recommendation that the provision of 

an email address should be optional, the 

FAA generally agrees that personal 

information that is not necessary for law 

enforcement and FAA to identify an 

owner should not be a mandatory entry. 

However, in this instance, an email 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78621 

address is necessary to create an 

account for a web-based registration 

system that includes email delivery of 

the Certificate of Aircraft Registration. 

Additionally, email allows for targeted 

delivery of educational other safetyrelated materials directly to small 

unmanned aircraft owners. Thus, the 

FAA has determined that an email 

address will be required for registration 

under part 48. However, individual’s 

email addresses would not be released 

to the general public. For more 

information regarding the privacy 

protections afforded to this system and 

intended use of the data, please review 

the privacy impact assessment for this 

rulemaking, as well as the 

accompanying System of Records Notice 

(SORN), available for review in Docket 

No. DOT–OST–2015–0235. 

Regarding other suggested 

information, such as date of birth, Social 

Security number, driver’s license 

number, or specific information about 

components or capabilities of small 

unmanned aircraft being registered, the 

FAA believes the data identified in new 

part 48 is sufficient for the purposes of 

this registry and is the minimum that 

would be necessary for connecting an 

individual to their aircraft. 

4. Fee for Registration 

Currently, the FAA assesses a fee of 

$5 for a Certificate of Registration for 

each aircraft. See 14 CFR 47.17(a). The 

FAA has not updated this fee since it 

was initially established in 1966. See 31 

FR 4495 (Mar. 17, 1966). 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: The sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM did not differentiate 

the process of registering a small 

unmanned aircraft from that of a 

manned aircraft and thus did not 

directly address fees. Under that 

proposed rule, an applicant registering a 

small unmanned aircraft would pay the 

same $5 fee as an applicant seeking a 

Certificate of Registration for a manned 

aircraft. 

Three commenters responded to the 

issues related to fees for aircraft 

registration. One individual 

recommended FAA require all ‘‘amateur 

enthusiasts’’ to pay a fee to use the NAS. 

Another individual argued that the fees 

associated with any licensing, required 

yearly maintenance, and registry should 

be kept affordable for the small business 

operator. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Commenters also responded to the issue 

of a registration fee and how the fee 

should be collected based on questions 

posed in the Clarification/Request for 

Information. Of the commenters that 

supported a registration fee, the majority 

stated that the fee should be nominal 

and suggested between $1 and $40. 

Other commenters suggested fees as 

high as $250 for hobbyists and $1,000 

for commercial users. Several 

commenters stated that the amount of 

registration fee should be based upon 

the value of the UAS e.g., a more 

expensive UAS would necessitate a 

higher registration fee. The Minnesota 

Department of Transportation stated 

that its department charges registration 

fees commensurate with the base price 

of the aircraft. This commenter 

explained that it charges $100 for 

registration for UASs valued less than 

$500,000. Other commenters proposed 

that only commercial operators should 

pay a registration fee. Several AMA 

members stated that registration should 

be free for AMA members. Many 

commenters stressed that the fee should 

only be used for maintenance of the 

Web site, education, and enforcement 

actions. 

Many commenters said registration 

should be free. A number of 

commenters participating in a form 

letter campaign stated that a registration 

fee ‘‘would place an unfair burden on 

those who may barely be able to afford 

to purchase model aircraft in the first 

place and may place barriers to 

continued education and technological 

advancement.’’ 

A large number of commenters were 

concerned that registration fees for each 

individual UAS would be unduly 

burdensome because many hobbyists 

own several UASs and the cumulative 

cost of registration would be 

prohibitively expensive. As an 

alternative, many commenters suggested 

that the FAA should charge one 

registration fee per operator and allow 

the operator to register multiple UASs. 

The vast majority of commenters 

objected to the imposition of any 

registration fee. Many commenters 

expressed concern that imposition of a 

fee would only serve to increase the size 

of the Federal Government and not 

contribute in any way to the safe 

operation of UASs. Commenters stated 

that a fee will deter registration and 

place an unnecessary financial burden 

on hobbyists. Several commenters 

suggested that instead of charging a 

registration fee, the FAA should collect 

fines from operators who fail to register. 

The majority of commenters suggested 

that if registration occurs at point of 

sale, the cost of registration should be 

collected in the same manner as a sales 

tax. Other commenters suggested that 

registration fees should be collected by 

the retailer or built in to the purchase 

price. Retail Industry Leaders 

Association and National Retail 

Federation expressed opposition to 

point of sale registration and collection 

of registration fees by retailers. They 

cited concern about collecting personal 

information from customers in a 

checkout line and the complexity of 

refunding the registration fee if the UAS 

is returned by the customer. 

Commenters also expressed concerns 

that foreign vendors would not comply 

with registration requirements and 

consumers would be adversely 

impacted. 

Many commenters commented 

generally on the collection of a 

registration fee and expressed that UAS 

operators should be able to pay the 

registration fee online. Commenters 

specifically identified support for online 

payments via PayPal, Amazon 

payments, and Bitcoin. Commenters 

also stated that mailing in checks or 

money orders should also be supported. 

Skyward, Inc. and individual 

commenters said the system must have 

safeguards against false registrations, 

unauthorized ownership transfers, and 

other malicious activity. 

Task Force: The Task Force believed 

the FAA should not impose a 

registration fee so as to encourage the 

highest level of compliance with the 

registration requirement. In the event 

that the FAA must charge a fee, the Task 

Force suggested a fee of 1/10th of one 

cent ($0.001). 

IFR Requirement and Responses to 

Comments/Recommendations: 

Although the Task Force and some 

commenters recommended no fee for 

small unmanned aircraft registration for 

varying reasons, the FAA is required by 

statute to charge a fee for registration 

services. Section 45305 of title 49 U.S.C. 

directs the FAA to establish and collect 

fees for aircraft registration and airman 

certification activities to recover the cost 

of providing those services. 

Accordingly, the revenue stream 

generated by the fees collected under 

this IFR support the development, 

maintenance and operation of the 

Registry. The agency notes that section 

45305 also directs the FAA to adjust 

these fees when the Administrator 

determines that the cost of the service 

has changed. 

Given that the registration process 

established under part 48 differentiates 

between registration of small unmanned 

aircraft used exclusively as model 

aircraft and registration of small 

unmanned aircraft used as other than 

model aircraft, registration fees also 

differ between the two populations. 

An individual owner registering small 

unmanned aircraft operated exclusively 

as model aircraft must pay a single fee 

of $5 for the issuance of a Certificate of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78622 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Aircraft Registration and registration 

number and an additional $5 fee every 

three years for renewal of the 

registration. As previously noted, for 

owners of small unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively as model aircraft, this 

registration constitutes registration for 

all small unmanned aircraft of a single 

owner, provided those aircraft are all 

used exclusively as model aircraft. 

Thus, for this population, part 48 

provides cost reduction as compared to 

part 47, which requires aircraft owners 

to submit a separate application and $5 

fee for each aircraft the owner would 

like to register. 

The FAA will require persons owning 

small unmanned aircraft used as other 

than model aircraft (e.g., for a 

commercial purpose) to pay a fee of $5 

to register each aircraft in accordance 

with part 48, and a $5 fee every three 

years for renewal of each aircraft 

registration. The fees for small 

unmanned aircraft registration and 

renewal for this population is the same 

as that currently required by part 47. 

This fee structure is in line with the 

recommendations from commenters 

who believed that the FAA should 

charge one fee for individuals who own 

small unmanned aircraft for hobby or 

recreational purposes. As sought by 

commenters, the registration 

requirement and fee structure for small 

unmanned aircraft used exclusively as 

model aircraft alleviates the need for 

these owners to complete frequent, 

multiple registration applications and 

submit a new fee each time they build 

or rebuild an aircraft or change out 

parts. 

The fee for small unmanned aircraft 

registration must be submitted through 

the web-based registration application 

process. The registration system will 

permit the use of any credit, debit, gift 

or prepaid card using the Visa, 

MasterCard, American Express, JCB, 

Discover, or Diners Club network. If 

none of these methods of payment are 

available to the small unmanned aircraft 

owner, that owner may register the 

aircraft using the existing paper-based 

system under 14 CFR part 47, which 

allows payment by check or money 

order. Credit card payment is one of the 

attributes of the part 48 registration 

process that streamlines the registration 

process. Consistent with the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 45305, the 

fees are based on the estimated costs to 

develop and maintain the registry under 

14 CFR part 48. The FAA will adjust 

these fees based on the actual costs of 

the system. 

Regarding the Minnesota Department 

of Transportation’s recommendation for 

a fee structure based on the value of the 

small unmanned aircraft, FAA’s 

statutory authority for charging a fee for 

the registration of a small unmanned 

aircraft relates to the amount it costs for 

the FAA to maintain the registry, and 

not the value of an unmanned aircraft. 

In response to comments stating that, 

in place of the registration fee, the FAA 

should collect fines for failure to 

comply with registration requirements, 

the FAA clarifies that such a fine would 

constitute a civil penalty. Civil penalties 

for failure to register are discussed in 

the Enforcement section of this 

preamble. In addition to civil penalties, 

however, the law requires the FAA to 

collect a fee for registration of aircraft. 

49 U.S.C. 45305. Congress requires this 

fee assessment in order for the agency 

to offset the cost of registration. The 

agency does not have authority to use 

civil penalties to offset its costs. 

5. Transfer of Ownership 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Commenters to the Clarification/Request 

for Information responded to the FAA’s 

request for input on transfer of small 

unmanned aircraft. 

The Aerospace Industries Association 

stated that transfer of ownership would 

require that the new end-user registers 

his or her identification and the 

platform registration. This would allow 

a re-check of intended use, changes/

modifications to the platform, and the 

indication that the new user is aware of 

the rules of use. Delair-Tech stated that 

the seller should surrender ownership 

by deactivating the ground control 

software; the new owner would then 

register to reactivate it. 

A law firm stated that the existing 

FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale and Aircraft 

Registration Application would be 

equally applicable to UAS. The firm 

also said that the current regulatory 

framework contains an aircraft 

registration renewal requirement that 

would be beneficial for updating records 

regarding ownership of UAS. The firm 

went on to say that the regulatory 

obligation to collect and submit the 

registration information should be 

placed on the seller who would have an 

incentive to properly transfer the 

registration, or otherwise risk facing 

certain penalties or fines related to the 

illegal operation of the UAS by a future 

owner. 

Individual commenters stated that if 

the registration database is available 

online, the seller could easily record 

transfers of registration. A few 

commenters stated that the FAA should 

impose a fee for transfers. Individuals 

differed on whether the seller or buyer 

should be responsible for registering the 

transfer. A few commenters stated that 

the seller could remove the 

identification markings before sale. One 

suggested that the seller remove the 

beacon before sale. Another stated that 

the only registration should be the name 

and contact information placed on the 

UAS. 

Modovolate Aviation stated that 

recording transfers would be 

burdensome and unenforceable. An 

individual stated that UASs are often 

altered after purchase so that 

transferring a registration for the 

original UAS may not accurately reflect 

the UAS that is being resold. The 

commenter also stated that there is no 

way for the seller to ensure that the 

buyer will register. 

Task Force: Because the Task Force 

recommended an owner-based 

registration system, it believed that 

questions concerning how to deal with 

transfers of ownership are easily 

addressed by the registrants’ marking 

methods. 

IFR Requirement: The registration 

requirements in part 48 do not 

differentiate between methods of aircraft 

transfer. The registration requirements 

are the same whether a person or other 

entity acquires an aircraft by gift, 

purchase or other method. 

The FAA agrees in part with the 

commenters who state that the seller 

should register or take other action upon 

a transfer and in part with the 

commenters who state that the buyer 

must register. Different actions will be 

necessary upon transfer or sale of a 

small unmanned aircraft, because the 

registration system differentiates 

between aircraft used exclusively as 

model aircraft and aircraft used other 

than as model aircraft and thus collects 

different information for each 

population. 

As discussed elsewhere in the 

preamble, individual owners of small 

unmanned aircraft used exclusively as 

model aircraft are not required to submit 

aircraft-specific information. Thus, there 

is no need to update the registration 

system upon a transfer or sale. The 

owner, however, should remove his or 

her unique identifier from the aircraft 

before transfer or sale. The buyer or 

recipient of a transfer must create a new 

registration prior to operation only if 

that buyer does not already have an 

owner registration number. A buyer or 

recipient of a transfer of a small 

unmanned aircraft who wishes to use 

the aircraft as other than a model 

aircraft must register that aircraft and 

obtain a registration number specific to 

that aircraft. The only time a fee would 

be required is if the buyer or recipient 

must create a new registration. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78623 

Part 48 requires owners of small 

unmanned aircraft used other than as 

model aircraft to update the registration 

system upon transfer of ownership, 

destruction or export of a registered 

small unmanned aircraft. Thus, once a 

transfer of ownership has taken place, 

the aircraft owner must access their 

profile on the registration system and 

update the aircraft information to 

indicate that the aircraft has been 

transferred. By indicating that the 

aircraft has been transferred, the 

registration of that aircraft will be 

cancelled in its entirety. 

Any new owner, who acquires a small 

unmanned aircraft by any means, and 

intends to use the aircraft other than as 

a model aircraft must register that 

aircraft prior to operation and mark the 

device with the appropriate information 

as discussed in the preamble discussion 

entitled, ‘‘Marking.’’ Consistent with the 

comment on the payment of a fee for a 

transfer, a new owner intending to use 

a small unmanned aircraft other than as 

a model aircraft must register the 

aircraft and thus pay the same 

registration fee as any other person who 

acquires such a device and wishes to 

operate it in the NAS. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

about the identification of a transferred 

aircraft, owners may determine the best 

approach for ensuring that once they 

transfer an aircraft, that they are no 

longer identified as the owner. One 

commenter noted that the seller may 

want to remove the registration 

information from the aircraft. The 

agency supports this as a best practice 

but it is not required. 

The agency considered comments 

suggesting other methods to approach 

the registration of transferred small 

unmanned aircraft (e.g., deactivation of 

ground control software), but has 

determined that this approach will 

ensure complete and current registration 

information for each aircraft in the least 

burdensome manner. 

G. Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: The agency received comment 

on issues pertaining to certificates of 

registration from commenters to the 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM. In the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM, the agency 

proposed to extend the part 47 

registration process to sUAS but did not 

propose any changes to the delivery, 

content, or duration of registration. In 

the NPRM preamble, however, the 

agency specifically addressed its intent 

to retain the existing requirement for 

registration renewal every three years 

for small unmanned aircraft registration 

because it would increase the likelihood 

that the FAA’s registration database 

contains the latest information on small 

unmanned aircraft and aircraft owners. 

An individual recommended that 

aircraft registration for small UAS 

expire after a period of 12 to 24 months, 

reasoning that an annual or bi-annual 

renewal of registration will ensure the 

registration system does not become 

bogged down with UAS’s that are no 

longer in operation. Furthermore, the 

commenter argued that the renewal 

process would give FAA a secondary 

means of verifying that operators are 

current and/or maintaining their 

licensing requirements to operate. The 

Kansas Farm Bureau suggested 

lengthening the time before a 

registration would expire to 6 years to 

assist in managing program costs from 

both the FAA and the small UAS 

operator standpoint. The News Media 

Coalition encouraged FAA to consider 

requiring re-registration only upon the 

sale of a UAS. 

Another individual commenter 

suggested that UAS operators be 

required to store their ‘‘official 

registration document’’ on the card 

reader contained in the UAS’s camera. 

That commenter also recommended that 

the ‘‘official registration document’’ 

contain the registrant’s name, 

registration number, date of registration, 

and type of operator license (i.e., 

commercial or hobby). 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Commenters to the Clarification/Request 

for Information also provided comments 

related to the Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration. One individual commenter 

recommended that UAS operators 

should be issued a registration card that 

contains basic safety information and 

UAS rules and regulations. Another 

individual suggested that UAS operators 

be required to store their ‘‘official 

registration document’’ on the card 

reader contained in the UAS’s camera. 

This commenter also recommended that 

the ‘‘official registration document’’ 

contain the registrant’s name, 

registration number, date of registration, 

and type of operator license (i.e., 

commercial or hobby). 

Task Force: The Task Force 

developed and recommended methods 

for proving registration and marking of 

small unmanned aircraft. In doing so, it 

addressed the issue of how Certificates 

of Aircraft Registration would be issued. 

The Task Force recommended that the 

FAA issue a certificate of registration to 

each registrant at the time of registration 

and that the certificate should be issued 

electronically (perhaps in PDF form), 

unless the registrant specifically 

requests a paper copy. 

The Task Force also provided 

recommendations regarding the content 

of the certificate. The certificate should 

contain the registrant’s name, the 

registrant’s FAA-issued registration 

number, and the address of the FAA 

registration Web site that is accessible 

by law enforcement or other authorities 

for the purposes of confirming 

registration status. For registrants who 

elect to provide the serial number(s) of 

their aircraft, the certificate should also 

contain those serial number(s). The Task 

Force encouraged the FAA to include 

safety and regulatory information with 

the certificate of registration. Any time 

a registered sUAS is in operation, the 

operator of that sUAS should be 

prepared to produce a legible copy of 

the certificate of registration for 

inspection, in either electronic or 

printed form. 

IFR Requirement: The agency agrees 

with Task Force recommendations and 

comments recommending delivery and 

availability of the Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration. Since the part 48 

registration process is exclusively webbased, the FAA can immediately issue 

an electronic Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration, an efficiency not available 

under part 47. 

Recognizing the prevalence of 

handheld electronic devices, once the 

registrant completes the part 48 

registration process, the Certificate will 

be available for download. Owners may 

also print a hard copy of the Certificate 

if they wish. The applicant will also 

receive a copy of the Certificate via 

email, with accompanying educational 

information. Although some 

commenters addressed certificate 

storage options, the final rule does not 

restrict how the Certificate is stored as 

long as the certificate is readily 

available to the owner or operator, as 

applicable. See §§ 91.9(b) and 

91.203(a)(2); see also Legal 

Interpretation from Mark W. Bury to 

John Duncan, August 8, 2014. Persons 

operating a small unmanned aircraft are 

required under 49 U.S.C. 44103(d) to 

present the certificate of registration 

when requested by a United States 

Government, State, or local law 

enforcement officer. 

The Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

will include information that will allow 

the FAA and law enforcement agencies 

to identify the owner of each small 

unmanned aircraft registered under part 

48. As a result, although the FAA 

received comments suggesting varying 

information that should appear on the 

Certificate, the FAA has determined that 

the Certificate will include the small 

unmanned aircraft owner name and 

FAA-issued registration number. At this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

time, these two pieces of information 

suffice to identify the small unmanned 

aircraft and its owner. The agency does 

not agree with the comment suggesting 

that the Certificate include information 

pertaining to the ‘‘type of operator 

license’’ because this information is not 

relevant to the identification of the 

aircraft’s owner and notes that at the 

time of this rulemaking, there is no 

‘‘license’’ required for sUAS operations. 

Additionally, the FAA emphasizes that 

the Certificate does not imply 

authorization to operate. 

Certificates of Aircraft Registration 

issued to owners who are using their 

small unmanned aircraft exclusively as 

model aircraft constitute valid 

registration for all of the small 

unmanned aircraft owned by the 

individual specified on the application, 

regardless of how many small 

unmanned aircraft the owner owns, 

though all being operated are required 

to be marked with the registration 

number. Certificates of Aircraft 

Registration issued to owners who are 

not using their aircraft exclusively as 

model aircraft constitute valid 

registration only for the specific aircraft 

identified on the Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration. 

A Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

issued in accordance with part 48 will 

be effective once the registration process 

is complete and must be renewed every 

three years to provide for regular 

validation of aircraft registration and 

owner contact information. To facilitate 

the identification of a valid Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration, each Certificate 

will contain the issue date. 

The agency agrees with comments 

suggesting that aircraft registrations 

should be renewed but does not agree 

with the purpose of the renewal and the 

time frame for renewal provided by 

commenters. The registration process 

does not collect information on airman 

qualifications so it may not be used to 

validate any related requirements. A 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

issued to a person using their small 

unmanned aircraft as a model aircraft 

must simply be renewed by the owner 

every three years, regardless of when 

aircraft are added to the owner’s 

registration. Certificates of Aircraft 

Registration issued for aircraft used for 

other than model aircraft purposes must 

be renewed for the specific aircraft 

designated on the Certificate every three 

years. 

Further, the agency has determined 

that three years is the appropriate 

duration of a certificate. This period of 

time is consistent with the aircraft 

registration renewal requirement in part 

47. It also balances the cost concerns 

raised by the Kansas Farm Bureau with 

the individual’s comments suggesting 

renewal on 12–24 month intervals. 

The renewal process consists of a 

simple verification of existing 

registration information. The renewal 

must be completed through the webbased registration system at any time 

within 6 months prior to the expiration 

date. The system will send out a 

reminder at 6 months prior to 

certification expiration. Once 

completed, the Certificate will be 

extended for three years from the 

expiration date. The agency expects 

renewal to be efficient, particularly if 

the aircraft owner has ensured that the 

information provided to the Registry in 

accordance with the final rule 

registration process remains current 

during the term of the registration. If the 

information provided to register the 

aircraft changes during the period of 

registration, the aircraft owner must 

update the Registry through the webbased registration system within 14 days 

of the change. No fee is charged for 

updating information during the period 

of registration. 

The agency agrees with the intent of 

the recommendation from the Task 

Force and the commenter to the 

Clarification/Request for Information 

regarding owner and operator 

education. One of the purposes of small 

unmanned aircraft registration is to 

educate sUAS owners regarding safe 

operations within the NAS as well as 

other safety information relevant to UAS 

operations and equipment. As discussed 

later in this preamble, the agency 

expects to accomplish its sUAS 

education goals by providing 

information to the aircraft owner during 

the registration process and through 

follow-up email communication. 

Although the News Media Coalition 

suggested reregistration only upon a 

sale, there are other circumstances that 

would result in a need to re-register an 

aircraft (e.g., expiration of registration 

due to failure to renew) and have been 

captured in the final rule. 

H. Registration Marking 

The purpose of aircraft registration 

marking is to provide a means for 

connecting an aircraft to its owner. The 

agency received comments on the 

information that should be used to 

identify that the aircraft is registered as 

well as the methods by which to display 

the identifying information. 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: The sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM proposed a 

requirement for small unmanned 

aircraft to be marked in accordance with 

part 45, subpart C. Subpart C provides 

requirements for size, spacing, and 

location of nationality and registration 

marks. 

Many commenters, including the 

Small UAV Coalition, Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association, California 

Agricultural Aircraft Association, 

Aerospace Industries Association, 

Modovolate Aviation, LLC, Professional 

Photographers of America, Airlines for 

America, National Association of 

Mutual Insurance Companies, National 

Association of Realtors, DJI, and Google, 

generally supported the marking 

requirement as proposed in the NPRM. 

Information that may be used for 

aircraft identification: Other 

commenters suggested alternatives to 

the marking requirement proposed in 

the NPRM. Commenters including the 

Association of Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems International, Associated 

General Contractors of America, the 

University of North Carolina System, 

Property Drone Consortium and 

Cherokee Nation Technologies 

suggested the FAA require registration 

based only on the manufacturer’s serial 

numbers, instead of requiring an ‘‘N’’ 

registration number. Several individuals 

proposed the use of cell phone numbers 

in lieu of, or to augment, the registration 

number. The Virginia Department of 

Aviation supported the use of a bar code 

system, while Schertz Aerial Services, 

Inc., favored a parts-tracking 

requirement to facilitate a more efficient 

and accurate assessment of 

responsibility in the event of an 

accident. An individual commenter 

recommended a labeling requirement 

for all UAS, similar to the labeling the 

FCC requires for all transmitters that can 

be purchased at electronic outlets. 

Another individual commenter said that 

instead of requiring small unmanned 

aircraft to be registered with ‘‘N’’ 

numbers, the aircraft should be 

identified with an exterior label with 

the owner/operator’s name, address, and 

phone number, as well as an operator 

certificate number where appropriate. 

Several other individual commenters 

suggested that affixing operator name 

and phone number to a small unmanned 

aircraft is a more efficient way to 

identify the aircraft in the event of an 

incident. 

The New Jersey Institute of 

Technology and the Kansas State 

University UAS Program recommended 

the FAA add a unique designator to the 

‘‘N’’ registration number (e.g., ‘‘NX’’) to 

clearly identify the aircraft as a UAS. 

ASTM pointed out that it is in the 

process of developing consensus 

practice standards for the registration 

and marking of unmanned aircraft 

systems, which an individual 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78625 

commenter recommended the FAA 

follow. 

Methods to display aircraft 

identification: Another individual 

commenter said the marking 

requirement should be consistent with 

recent certificates of waiver or 

authorization provided to persons 

issued exemptions under section 333 of 

the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act, which allow for ‘‘appropriate’’ 

sized markings, or as large as practicable 

for the particular aircraft. Other 

commenters, including a joint 

submission from the State of Nevada, 

the Nevada Institute for Autonomous 

Systems and the Nevada FAAdesignated UAS Test Site, similarly said 

small unmanned aircraft should be 

required to display registration numbers 

in the largest size that is appropriate. An 

individual commenter questioned 

whether the markings should be on the 

underside of the small unmanned 

aircraft to increase visibility from the 

ground. The University of North 

Dakota’s John D. Odegard School of 

Aerospace Sciences urged the FAA to 

require small UAS manufacturers to 

provide at least one additional manner 

of identifying a device other than the 

registration number. The commenter 

suggested a VIN-type system or simply 

etching the manufacturer’s serial 

number on a substantial component of 

the small UAS. 

Several commenters proposed various 

electronic means to aid in small 

unmanned aircraft identification. 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation, Aviation Division and 

Drone Labs proposed having the 

registration numbers transmitted as part 

of the transponder signal or other 

means. The Center for Democracy and 

Technology advocated for an unmanned 

aircraft to emit a signal, such as a radio 

signal, to aid in identification. SkyView 

Strategies, Inc., recommended a 

microchip on each unmanned aircraft 

programmed with the registration 

number so that a device, such as a smart 

phone app, could read the microchip 

and display the aircraft’s registration 

number. SkyView recognized this 

requirement could not go into effect 

until it is technologically feasible. 

Several commenters opposed the 

requirement that small unmanned 

aircraft display their registration 

numbers because it would be 

impractical due to the small size of the 

aircraft. Some of those commenters, 

including the Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems 

International, noted that many small 

unmanned aircraft have limited surface 

area available and often have no 

adequate fuselage for placement of 

registration markings. Those 

commenters said the FAA should 

develop alternative means of displaying 

a registration number more conducive to 

small unmanned aircraft. An individual 

commenter pointed out that for small 

unmanned aircraft with no ‘‘hull’’ or 

fuselage, the only place available for 

markings is on the booms, which are not 

permanently attached to the hub plate. 

Thus, the commenter noted, the 

marking would not be permanent, but, 

rather, on an ‘‘easily removed and easily 

replaced’’ component. Associated 

General Contractors of America said the 

requirement ‘‘would serve little or no 

useful purpose’’ because even when 

displayed in the ‘‘largest practicable 

manner’’ such numbers would be 

invisible from anything more than a few 

feet away. 

Kansas State University UAS Program 

said the final rule should describe 

acceptable means for locating 

registration markings for nontraditional 

aircraft (or reference an industry 

consensus standard that does so) that 

cannot meet current subpart C in part 45 

requirements. Prioria Robotics, Inc. also 

expressed concern about the 

applicability of the markings 

requirement to certain small unmanned 

aircraft airframes, and questioned 

whether, if a vehicle undergoes repair 

and a fuselage is changed, the operator 

will need to re-register the aircraft. 

Several commenters recommended 

the sUAS operator make the aircraft’s 

registration number visible to others on 

the ground. Trimble Navigation Limited 

and Federal Airways & Airspace favored 

having the sUAS operator display an ID 

badge with the registration number of 

the aircraft on their person. Trimble 

Navigation clarified that a badge display 

would be helpful if the FAA intends to 

use registration of an aircraft to identify 

the operator, but that visual or 

electronic identification of the aircraft is 

appropriate if the intent is to assist in 

the investigation of accidents. Federal 

Airways & Airspace clarified that this 

may be useful for very small unmanned 

aircraft but may not be necessary if the 

unmanned aircraft is large enough to 

display markings to the standard size. 

Predesa, LLC stated that the sUAS 

operator should be required to post 

aircraft registration information in their 

vicinity on the ground. 

Regarding whether the rule should 

require small unmanned aircraft to have 

a fireproof identification plate, as 

required by part 45 subpart B, the Small 

UAV Coalition, Aviation Management 

Associates, Predessa, LLC, and the 

University of North Dakota’s John D. 

Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences 

agreed with the FAA that a requirement 

for small UAS manufacturers to install 

a fireproof identification plate would 

not be cost-effective. The National 

Business Aviation Association, DJI, 

Modovolate Aviation, LLC, and several 

individual commenters also agreed that 

fireproof plating should not be required. 

Crew Systems, on the other hand, said 

small unmanned aircraft should have a 

data plate installed, as required by 14 

CFR 45.11. Aerospace Industries 

Association also said UAS 

manufacturers should install fireproof 

identification information on every 

unmanned aircraft, ‘‘[p]erhaps through 

an electronic device (i.e., imbedded 

chip) or other easy-to-read and damageresistant means of identification.’’ 

Other commenters addressed the need 

for ‘‘indestructible’’ identification 

plates, although they did not comment 

specifically on whether small UAS 

manufacturers should be required to 

attach fireproof identification plates in 

compliance with subpart B of part 45. 

The Air Line Pilots Association said a 

fire proof plate should be attached to the 

small UAS ‘‘as a permanent 

identification of the registration of the 

sUAS.’’ The Civil Aviation Authority of 

the Czech Republic said a fireproof 

identification plate should be required 

and enforced according to ICAO Annex 

7, which requires the nationality, 

registration mark, and operator name 

and phone number. The National 

Agricultural Aviation Association, 

Colorado Agricultural Aviation 

Association, and CropLife America said 

small UAS should have a registered Nnumber on ‘‘an indestructible and 

unmovable plate’’ attached to the UAS 

for identification in case of an accident 

or incident. Reabe Spraying, Inc. said 

each UAS should have an 

‘‘indestructible and non-removable data 

tag with a unique ID code.’’ Texas A&M 

University Corpus Christi/LSUASC said 

that if the registration number is not 

easily displayed on the aircraft, then an 

‘‘identifying tag’’ should be permanently 

attached to the small UAS. The Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association said the 

FAA should implement ‘‘additional 

requirements’’ to ensure that a UAS can 

be identified in the event of an accident, 

incident, or violation, but the 

commenter did not specify what those 

additional requirements should be. 

The Motion Picture Association of 

America, Inc., the National Association 

of Broadcasters, National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association, and 

Radio Television digital News 

Association, and the International 

Association of Amusement Parks and 

Attractions favored not having 

registration marks on small unmanned 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

aircraft that will be seen in theatrical 

and television productions. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

In addition to the comments on 

identification and marking provided in 

response to the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM, the agency also 

received comments on aircraft 

identification and marking in response 

to the clarification/Request for 

Information. The Clarification/Request 

for Information sought specific 

information pertaining to aircraft 

identification and marking. Specifically, 

the document asked for information 

regarding methods currently available 

for identifying unmanned aircraft, 

whether every unmanned aircraft sold 

has an individual serial number, and 

methods to identify unmanned aircraft 

sold without serial numbers or those 

built from kits. 

Information that may be used for 

aircraft identification: Commenters said 

that no standard method of aircraft 

identification exists for UAS and they 

recommended ways to identify UAS for 

registration purposes. Chronicled, Inc., 

wrote that it explored several options 

for including unique identifiers in 

consumer products, including serial 

number, radio frequency identification 

(RFID), near field communication 

(NFC), Bluetooth low energy (BLE), QR 

code, and DNA marker. This commenter 

determined that serial number or 

encrypted (PKI) microchips are the best 

options currently available and 

recommended the agency initially 

require the use of serial numbers for 

registration and then over a two year 

period, require PKI microchips to be 

included in all UAS. Aerospace 

Industries Association said various 

methods to identify platforms exist, but 

recommended that FAA seek to collect 

as much information as possible. 

According to this commenter, high 

value commercial platforms have a 

serial number to manage warranty 

claims while other commercial 

platforms, at a minimum, have a stock 

keeping unit (SKU) that can be used to 

identify the product model number. 

Morphism, LLC recommended using 

identifiers that encode information 

regarding the type of airframe, operating 

limitations and operators’ contact 

information. Researchers at the 

University of California, Berkeley said 

UAS should receive and display an 

identification code to enable people and 

other aircraft to identify them. These 

researchers developed an identification 

system based on LEDs and unique color 

sequences. NetMoby, Inc. recommended 

that FAA adopt the Federal 

Communications Commission’s 

registration process and tailor it to meet 

FAA’s needs. 

Several commenters noted that many 

UAS are assembled by consumers using 

parts from a range of sources, which 

presents a challenge for identifying 

individual products. Additionally, UAS 

components are frequently modified, 

replaced or upgraded. Some 

commenters recommended that the 

registration system require use of either 

a serial number for UAS that have serial 

numbers, or an FAA-generated 

identification number that can be 

applied to the UAS for those without 

serial numbers. Other commenters 

recommended that FAA issue a single 

registration number to the UAS operator 

rather than to each aircraft because 

hobbyists often have dozens of aircraft 

and it would be too burdensome to 

register every aircraft they buy or build. 

Several AMA members suggested the 

agency allow AMA members to place 

their names and addresses or AMA 

numbers on their aircraft as an 

alternative means of complying with the 

registration requirement. 

Another individual suggested 

identifying consumer grade UAS by 

serial number and hobby built UAS by 

radio transmitter and receiver. A 

number of commenters participating in 

a form letter campaign stated that ‘‘there 

is fundamentally no way to define any 

major component on a model aircraft 

that could reasonably be registered.’’ 

Commenters addressing whether each 

unmanned aircraft sold has a unique 

serial number generally stated that every 

unmanned aircraft sold does not have 

individual serial numbers, though some 

UAS do. The University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign said serial numbers 

are not required on UAS and they are 

not required to be distinct across 

manufacturers, so the agency could not 

rely on them for identifying UAS. 

Modovolate Aviation, LLC said most 

UAS have serial numbers and asserted 

it would impose a relatively small 

burden on manufacturers to imprint a 

serial number as part of the 

manufacturing process. A law firm 

suggested the agency require 

manufacturers assign a serial number to 

all UAS operated in the United States. 

This commenter also said that products 

manufactured before this requirement 

and other UAS without serial numbers 

could be assigned a registration number 

by FAA and the number would be 

affixed to the UAS. Delair-Tech 

suggested if no serial number is 

available for the UAS, the serial number 

of the autopilot module should be used. 

The Retail Industry Leaders Association 

said most UAS models on the market 

today do not contain product-specific 

unique identification numbers that 

consumers can use when registering 

UAS. This commenter noted 

manufacturers will need time to 

implement process changes to 

incorporate identification numbers and 

urged the agency to take the time to 

work with manufacturers with respect 

to this requirement. The commenter 

cautioned that if FAA adopts the 

registration requirement without 

waiting for manufacturers to make the 

necessary process changes, the only 

information consumers will be able to 

provide during registration is the model 

or inventory number of the UAS, which 

will not be helpful to identify a UAS 

owner involved in an incident. 

Commenters suggested various 

methods for identifying UAS sold 

without serial numbers or those built 

with kits. The Wireless Registry 

suggested including a UAS’ wireless 

signal identifier as part of the 

information collected as part of the 

registration process. The commenter 

explained the UAS’ MAC address, a 

wireless identifier that cannot be 

altered, tied to a specific device would 

enable FAA to match the UAS to other 

information in the registry, including 

operator information. An individual 

stated the FCC already requires that all 

model aircraft operate on a very narrow 

frequency band and UAS manufacturers 

adhere to those rules. This commenter 

suggested FAA and FCC work together 

to establish a method of encoding each 

radio system with an identifier that 

would enable the FAA to monitor 

airspace in which UAS are not allowed. 

The Air Medical Operators Association 

said any UAS with the potential to 

conflict with a manned aircraft in flight 

must possess a unique identification 

that can allow for registration. This 

commenter also recommended that 

product packaging should clearly 

inform the consumer of his or 

responsibilities as operator. Other 

commenters suggested the following 

methods for identifying UAS sold 

without serial numbers or those build 

from kits: 

Digital photo. 

Detailed description of aircraft (e.g., 

black quadcopter, white hexcopter). 

QR code with 8-digit unique 

alphanumeric identifier that can be 

affixed to aircraft. 

RFID tags or transponders. 

FAA-issued registration number. 

Name and address or AMA number 

affixed to the inside or outside of the 

airframe. 

Methods to display aircraft 

identification: Several people 

commented on how operators should 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78627 

display markings of their registration 

number on the UAS. Commenters’ 

recommendations included: registration 

numbers should be prominently 

displayed on the exterior of the 

unmanned aircraft and be sized based 

on the largest single dimension of the 

unmanned aircraft; the markings should 

be visible from the ground; registration 

numbers should be displayed using a 

placard of some sort, or bar code, placed 

on the aircraft; and registration 

markings should be replaceable because 

UAS operators change parts on a regular 

basis. A number of commenters 

suggested using a sticker similar to 

automobile registration tags, which 

would provide visual confirmation of 

compliance and allow for consistency of 

data. Other commenters expressed 

concern about required markings adding 

weight to their unmanned aircraft or 

ruining the appearance of their scale 

models of real aircraft. 

One commenter recommended a 

registration system in which individuals 

can request from the FAA a reasonable 

number of stickers that are pre-printed 

with successive serial numbers, and the 

FAA will then record to whom those 

stickers were sent in a publicly 

accessible database. The individuals can 

then apply those serial-numbered 

stickers to any model aircraft they own. 

The commenter contemplated that the 

stickers will self-destruct if the owner 

attempts to remove them to reuse them 

on a different aircraft. The commenter 

also suggested that if an aircraft is 

destroyed or sold, the original owner 

can log onto the FAA database to update 

the information associated with that 

aircraft’s serial number. 

Several other commenters noted that 

a marking system is problematic 

because many aircraft do not have a 

large enough area on which to place an 

identifier that would be visible from a 

distance. Some of these commenters 

stated the only reason for a unmanned 

aircraft to carry a registration number is 

to identify the owner after a crash. 

These commenters asserted that it 

would make more sense to require UAS 

operators to affix a label with their 

contact information inside their aircraft 

than to develop and implement a 

registration system. Noting markings 

will not be visible on most unmanned 

aircraft during flight, Delair-Tech 

recommended using a position reporting 

mechanism to enable authorities to 

access information on in-flight devices. 

This commenter said following an 

accident, a marking of the manufacturer 

name, serial number and type 

designator, designed to withstand a 

certain degree of damage, would enable 

authorities to find the UAS owner 

through the registration system. 

Comments on the use of the Nnumbering system to register UAS: A 

few commenters recommended that the 

registration system for UAS be separate 

from the current N-numbering system 

used for manned aircraft. To ensure that 

the FAA does not run out of N-numbers, 

one individual suggested moving to a 6- 

or 7-digit number for UAS, while 

another individual suggested the FAA 

open up the first 3 spaces to allow the 

use of letters, which the commenter 

asserted will increase the availability of 

the numbers by 44,279,424 spaces. 

Another individual said the registration 

number should be ‘‘sufficiently long/

random’’ to prevent people from 

creating registration numbers without 

actually registering. 

One individual commenter suggested 

that the registration numbering system 

delineate between commercial users (for 

which the N-numbering system could be 

used) and private users. Another 

individual said the N-number given to 

small UAS intended for commercial use 

should be followed by a ‘‘- C’’ 

designation to clearly show that this 

aircraft is going to be used 

commercially. Several other individuals 

recommended the FAA use alternate 

prefixes for the registration number 

(e.g., ‘‘U,’’ ‘‘UX,’’ ‘‘UAS,’’ ‘‘UAV,’’ 

‘‘NQ,’’ or ‘‘M’’ for model aircraft). 

The Property Drone Consortium 

pointed out that an N-number on a UAS 

will not be visible to observers while the 

UAS is in flight, and will therefore only 

be used to identify the owner of a UAS 

that has been involved in an incident 

and recovered. This commenter also 

questioned whether it will be sufficient 

to self-register based on a serial number, 

requiring an FAA assigned N-number 

only when a serial number is not 

available or easily accessible. An 

individual commenter said the 

manufacturer serial number should be 

sufficient for identification purposes, 

instead of a separate N-number. Another 

individual also supported the use of a 

manufacturer serial number, but said an 

‘‘N’’ should still be placed in front of the 

serial number to show that it is 

registered. 

One individual commenter stated that 

because some UAS are too small to 

effectively display an N-number, an 

electronic version of an N-number 

should be used. This commenter 

asserted that the electronic serial 

number (ESN) can be encoded into the 

receiver/transmitter used to control the 

UAS, and then broadcast whenever the 

transmitter commands the aircraft. The 

commenter suggested that authorities 

could then identify the UAS in 

question, and that that interception 

would be legal as the ESN is broadcast 

over the 2.4 GHZ publicly shared 

frequencies. 

One individual commenter 

recommended a separate category of Nnumbers for historic airplanes, similar 

to what has been done for full-scale 

historic cars and aircraft. 

A few individual commenters 

supported the use of the current Nnumbering system for UAS, with one 

commenter asserting that it is already 

working well for commercial UAS 

operations. 

Task Force: The FAA asked the Task 

Force to develop and recommend 

methods for proving registration and 

marking. Factors to consider included, 

but were not limited to, how a small 

unmanned aircraft will be able to be 

identified with the registered owner 

(i.e., a marking requirement). 

Information that may be used for 

aircraft identification: Because the main 

goal of registration is to create a 

connection between the aircraft and its 

owner, the Task Force recognized that it 

is necessary to mark each registered 

small unmanned aircraft with a unique 

identifier that is readily traceable back 

to its owner. The Task Force 

recommended two options for 

complying with this marking 

requirement. Specifically, registrants 

can either affix a single FAA-issued 

registration number to all the aircraft 

they own or they can rely on a 

manufacturer’s serial number that is 

already permanently affixed to the 

aircraft. A small unmanned aircraft 

owner may only rely on the 

manufacturer’s serial number, however, 

if the owner provided that serial number 

to the FAA during registration and if it 

appears on the owner’s certificate of 

registration. 

Methods to display aircraft 

identification: The Task Force further 

recommended a requirement that the 

owner and operator ensure that all 

markings are readily accessible and 

maintained in a condition that is 

readable and legible upon close visual 

inspection prior to any operation. The 

Task Force believed that markings 

enclosed in a compartment, such as a 

battery compartment, should be 

considered ‘‘readily accessible’’ if they 

can be easily accessed without the use 

of tools. 

IFR Requirement: Information that 

may be used to identify an aircraft. The 

IFR requires all small unmanned aircraft 

to display a unique identifier. As 

discussed throughout this preamble, 

individuals registering aircraft that will 

be used exclusively as model aircraft 

will receive a Certificate of Registration 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78628 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

with a single registration number that 

constitutes registration of all of the 

individual’s small unmanned aircraft. 

This number must be displayed on each 

small unmanned aircraft owned by this 

individual and used exclusively as 

model aircraft as proof of registration 

and to connect the small unmanned 

aircraft with an owner. 

Each aircraft used as other than a 

model aircraft will receive a Certificate 

of Aircraft Registration with a unique 

registration number that must be 

displayed on the aircraft. 

The FAA received a variety of 

recommendations pertaining to the 

information that should be affixed to the 

small unmanned aircraft for purposes of 

identification (e.g., phone numbers, bar 

codes, QR codes, operator contact 

information and AMA number). In some 

cases, commenters recommended 

information in addition to a registration 

number. The agency considered these 

recommendations but determined that 

once an aircraft is registered, the 

registration number provides sufficient 

information to locate the aircraft’s 

owner in the FAA’s registration 

database. Therefore, requiring the owner 

to display additional contact 

information on the aircraft would create 

an unnecessary burden. 

Regarding the comment seeking to 

display an AMA number in particular, 

the Civil Aircraft Registry and the 

registration system implemented in this 

IFR are premised on the ability to 

uniquely identify and owner and their 

aircraft. The FAA does not govern the 

membership structures of section 336 

organizations and cannot be assured of 

the uniqueness of those organizations’ 

identification systems. Therefore, the 

FAA has no assurance that such a 

member number will provide the 

requisite unique identifier. Thus, the 

FAA will maintain an FAA-issued 

registration number for the marking 

scheme for small unmanned aircraft 

used as model aircraft. 

With regard to ASTM consensus and 

marking standards, the FAA notes that, 

as of this writing, those standards are 

still in development, and thus, they 

cannot be used for this rulemaking. 

Finally, a number of commenters 

assumed that an FAA registration 

number would include the ‘‘N’’ prefix 

that is used for identification of U.S. 

registered aircraft. The agency clarifies 

that the registration numbers issued to 

small unmanned aircraft under the IFR 

are not intended to be used for 

nationality identification and thus will 

not include the ‘‘N’’ prefix because the 

part 48 registration process is available 

only to small unmanned aircraft 

operating within the United States. 

Methods to display aircraft 

identification: To ensure that the small 

unmanned aircraft can be identified, the 

FAA will require that the unique 

identifier must be maintained in a 

condition that is legible. The unique 

identifier must be affixed to the small 

unmanned aircraft by any means 

necessary to ensure that it will remain 

affixed to the aircraft during routine 

handling and all operating conditions. 

For small unmanned aircraft 

registered under this part, the FAA does 

not specify a particular surface upon 

which the unique identifier must be 

placed. Rather, recognizing commenters’ 

concern about the small size of many of 

the small unmanned aircraft that must 

be registered, the FAA simply requires 

that the unique identifier must be 

readily accessible and visible upon 

inspection of the small unmanned 

aircraft. 

In accordance with Task Force 

recommendations, a unique identifier is 

deemed readily accessible if it can be 

accessed without the use of any tools 

(e.g., battery compartment). This 

flexibility is expected to resolve the 

concerns of the television and motion 

picture industry and preserve the 

authenticity of a replica if so desired, 

given that the unique identifier need not 

be displayed on the exterior of the small 

unmanned aircraft. 

Additionally, the flexibility with 

respect to the location of the unique 

identifier will facilitate the use of a 

small unmanned aircraft serial number 

as the unique identifier at such time as 

the Administrator determines that serial 

numbers can be effectively used to 

identify aircraft owners within the small 

unmanned aircraft registration system. 

The FAA notes that, currently, serial 

numbers may be repeated since there is 

no mechanism in place for 

manufacturers to ensure that a given 

serial number is unique to a specific 

aircraft. However, the FAA supports any 

efforts by sUAS manufacturers to 

collectively standardize aircraft serial 

numbers, such that each small 

unmanned aircraft will receive a unique 

serial number in production. 

With regard to comments on the 

visibility of the markings, the FAA 

cannot require all small unmanned 

aircraft to display a registration number 

visible to people on the ground because 

some small unmanned aircraft may be 

too small to satisfy this requirement. 

The agency notes, however, that during 

operation of the sUAS, a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration must be readily 

available to the person operating the 

sUAS, so that they may provide it to 

federal, state, or local law enforcement 

when requested. See 49 U.S.C. 44103(d); 

14 CFR 91.9(b) and 91.203(a); see also 

Legal Interpretation from Mark W. Bury 

to John Duncan, August 8, 2014. The 

Certificate of Registration can be a 

legible paper copy (or photocopy), or it 

may be provided by showing it in a 

legible electronic form, such as on a 

smartphone. Thus, while the agency 

considered comments suggesting 

additional documentation requirements 

such as an ID badge or placard on or 

near the sUAS operator, the FAA has 

determined that such requirements 

would not serve a valid purpose. 

Additionally, commenters’ 

recommendations pertaining to a 

requirement to identify a small 

unmanned aircraft using certain 

equipment are beyond the scope of this 

rule. Neither the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM nor this rule contain 

minimum equipage requirements for 

small UAS, such as a transponder. Thus, 

small unmanned aircraft may not have 

the equipage necessary to electronically 

transmit a registration number. 

Regarding comments related to the 

installation of fireproof plates, 

Executive Order 12,866 prohibits an 

executive agency from adopting a 

regulation unless the agency determines 

‘‘that the benefits of its intended 

regulation justify its costs.’’ 38 In the 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM, the FAA explained its belief that 

requiring the installation of 

identification plates would not be costjustified. None of the commenters 

advocating for the use of fireproof 

identification plating or other forms of 

fireproof marking submitted data that 

would allow the FAA to find that 

adopting this requirement would result 

in benefits sufficient to justify the costs 

of this requirement. Additionally, the 

FAA notes that for some of the smaller 

and lighter weight unmanned aircraft 

that operate under this rule, an 

identification plate would add 

additional weight, which could result in 

reduced flight performance and/or 

endurance. Accordingly, the FAA has 

decided against including a requirement 

for a fireproof identification plate in this 

rule. 

I. Education 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: Availability of education 

materials was addressed in the sUAS 

Operation and Certification NPRM. The 

National Association of REALTORS, 

SkyView Strategies, Inc., and others 

recommended that FAA initiate a 

campaign to educate the general public 

on UAS due to the abundance of 

misinformation currently available. The 

Air Line Pilots Association urged FAA 

to take advantage of internet-based 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78629 

communication of safety material, 

training resources, databases of airport 

locations and airspace restrictions, best 

practices, in-service irregularity reports 

and the like, because this is possibly the 

only practical means of reaching the 

small UAS pilot population. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Many commenters, including the 

National Air Transportation Association 

(NATA) and the National Retail 

Federation, stated that a public 

education campaign and the 

development of guidance materials and 

handbooks to ensure users know the 

rules for flying UAS is essential to 

promote responsible use of UAS. Other 

commenters said that requiring 

manufacturers to include a pamphlet 

with each aircraft that describes these 

rules would also be effective. Another 

commenter suggested that online 

retailers require purchasers to navigate 

to a page describing UAS safety 

requirements before completing the 

purchase. Many commenters, including 

the Experimental Aircraft Association, 

lauded FAA’s existing Know Before You 

Fly program and recommended 

continuing to expand it. Some 

commenters suggested creating a GPSenabled app that would identify safe 

and unsafe areas for flying, while others 

said FAA should further develop its 

existing B4UFly app for all mobile 

platforms. A commenter said that offlimit areas should be marked or 

advertised as such. Some commenters 

said that operators should be required to 

pass a training course, a practical exam, 

or obtain an operator certificate before 

flying a UAS. 

Task Force: Recognizing how 

important it is that all users of the NAS 

receive information on safety in the 

NAS, the Task Force recommended the 

registration process contain some sort of 

education component and 

acknowledgment, with controls in place 

such that the registration process would 

be incomplete until the registrant has 

acknowledged receipt of this 

information. The information provided 

could be similar to the existing content 

in the Know Before You Fly program. 

IFR Requirement: The FAA 

establishes regulatory standards to 

ensure safe operations in the NAS. The 

FAA’s safety system is largely based on, 

and dependent upon, voluntary 

compliance with these regulatory 

standards. An essential element of this 

strategy is FAA’s effort to encourage a 

safety culture, and, to that end, ensure 

comprehensive educational material is 

readily available to every user of the 

NAS. The FAA agrees with commenters 

and the Task Force with respect to the 

importance of educational information 

in the registration process. 

The small unmanned aircraft 

registration platform described in this 

rule will require the registrant to review 

a summary of sUAS operational 

guidelines before completing small 

unmanned aircraft registration. The 

FAA believes this is an invaluable 

access point to deliver sUAS operational 

safety information. The information will 

also direct registrants to additional 

sources of safety information generated 

by the FAA and other stakeholders, 

such as faasafety.gov and 

knowbeforeyoufly.org. 

To reach registrants after they 

complete the registration process, the 

FAA will develop a process to use the 

small unmanned aircraft registry 

information (such as email and mailing 

address) to offer safety-related 

information. Delivering post-registration 

safety information to registrants on a 

continuing basis will help to remind the 

registrant of their safety-of-flight 

obligations and help reduce sUAS risks 

in the NAS. The FAA will develop, 

maintain, and deliver easily-accessible 

safety information directed specifically 

to sUAS owners and operators. To 

maximize usage of the information by 

the recipient, the FAA will carefully 

meter its delivery of information via 

these access points to maximize 

effective consumption. 

J. Compliance Philosophy and 

Enforcement 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

The FAA received several comments 

about enforcement. Modovolate 

Aviation, LLC expressed support of 

FAA’s proposed registration 

requirement of UAS stating it will 

improve the ability for law enforcement 

officials ‘‘to investigate unsafe and 

reckless practices and to take 

enforcement action when appropriate.’’ 

The Minnesota Department of 

Transportation’s (MnDOT) Office of 

Aeronautics, the Arlington Police 

Department (APD) and several 

individual commenters raised concerns 

about enforcing a registration 

requirement. MnDOT Office of 

Aeronautics noted one challenge 

associated with enforcement of the 

current program is a general lack of 

awareness of the State’s role in 

regulating UAS and aviation, as well as 

a lack of awareness among operators, 

airports, law enforcement and the 

general public of the aircraft registration 

requirements and commercial operators 

licensing requirements. This commenter 

noted that registration could be used as 

a vehicle for providing information to 

the public about program requirements 

and the States in regulating UAS and 

aviation 

APD said it and other local law 

enforcement agencies across the country 

do not have the capacity or the authority 

to enforce FAA’s UAS rules and 

regulations. While APD will assist the 

FAA as witnesses or reporting entities 

for UAS rules violations, the commenter 

said the FAA must retain the 

responsibility for enforcement. 

A number of individual commenters 

raised general concerns about the 

enforceability of a registration 

requirement. Several commenters 

asserted extending registration 

requirements to recreational users will 

be difficult to enforce and will not be 

worth the expense required to develop 

and implement the program, including 

the cost to train local law enforcement 

officials. Others noted no Federal, State 

or local law enforcement agency has the 

budget or work force to enforce a 

registration requirement for all aircraft, 

including model aircraft. One 

commenter compared this registration 

requirement to the Federal 

Communications Commission’s effort to 

require Citizen Band radio users to 

apply for a license to operate, which, 

according to the commenter, ultimately 

was too costly to enforce. Other 

commenters questioned whether the 

FAA has sufficient manpower to enforce 

the registration requirement and how 

enforcement responsibilities will be 

shared with local law enforcement. 

Some individuals provided general 

comments about penalties for failing to 

register a UAS. One commenter 

recommended a one-time allowance for 

anyone caught violating the registration 

requirement and a large fine for 

subsequent violations, while other 

commenters suggested a large fine for all 

offenses. 

Several commenters addressed the 

issue of penalties. One commenter 

remarked that registration will be 

worthless unless there are negative 

consequences (e.g., fines or revocation 

of registration certificate) for operators 

who fail to register or mark their 

aircraft. Another commenter suggested 

that a penalty similar to the penalty for 

driving an unlicensed car be imposed 

for operating a UAS without the proper 

registration. 

Task Force: The Task Force 

recommended that the FAA establish a 

clear and proportionate penalty 

framework for violations. It cited the 

FAA’s current registration-related 

penalties and stated they were 

established in order to deter suspected 

drug traffickers and tax evaders who 

failed to register aircraft as part of larger 

nefarious schemes. The Task Force 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78630 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

39See FAA Order 8000.373 available at http://

www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_

Order_8000.373.pdf. 

recommended a separate FAA policy 

driving a proportionate response for 

inadvertent sUAS registration 

violations, without which operators 

could find themselves exposed to 

aggressive enforcement. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

Administrator has the authority to 

prescribe, revise, and enforce standards 

in accordance with Title 49 of the 

United States Code, Subtitle VII, 

Chapter 447, Safety Regulation. This 

authority is used to protect the public’s 

safety and the agency’s enforcement 

authority is exercised to obtain 

compliance with applicable aviation 

safety and security requirements. 

Earlier this year, the FAA announced 

a new compliance philosophy that uses 

a strategic approach to safety 

oversight.39 The FAA believes that its 

compliance philosophy, supported by 

an established safety culture, is 

instrumental in ensuring both 

compliance with regulations and the 

identification of hazards and 

management of risk. If an individual or 

entity is found to have not registered the 

aircraft prior to its operation, the FAA’s 

compliance philosophy will be applied 

appropriately. 

To mitigate risks in the NAS and 

ensure compliance FAA has used and 

will continue to use outreach and 

education to encourage compliance with 

regulatory requirements that pertain to 

the registration of unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA may also use administrative 

action or legal enforcement action to 

gain compliance. Failure to register an 

aircraft can result in civil penalties up 

to $27,500. Criminal penalties for failure 

to register can include fines of up to 

$250,000 under 18 U.S.C. 3571 and/or 

imprisonment up to 3 years. 49 U.S.C. 

46306. 

K. Privacy 

sUAS Operation and Certification 

NPRM: In the NPRM for the sUAS 

Operation and Certification rule, one 

commenter addressed database 

accessibility. Event 38 Unmanned 

Systems suggested that FAA create a 

database of registered operators, but 

limit accessibility to FAA and law 

enforcement. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

The Clarification/Request for 

Information requested information 

about the storage of registration data. 

Registration Data Storage Method: 

Many commenters expressed concern 

about the security of personal 

identifying information in light of recent 

breaches, and recommended that data 

be stored in some sort of secure database 

(e.g., encrypted database, secured 

server, database under the control of 

FAA, central database with 256 bit AES 

digital encryption, protected with 

HIPAA-type controls) in compliance 

with government requirements. Several 

commenters noted the data should be 

stored in a nationally accessible 

database so that it can be shared with 

local law enforcement agencies 

responsible for enforcing the rules. 

Other commenters recommended the 

FAA store registration data the same 

way the FCC stores amateur (HAM) 

radio licenses. Another commenter 

suggested registration data for model 

aircraft should be maintained by the 

AMA. Some commenters said there 

should not be a central registry due to 

data security concerns, while others 

recommended storing the registration 

information on paper to reduce the 

possibility of personal information 

being hacked or stolen. 

EPIC stated that recreational UAS 

operators have an expectation of 

privacy, so the FAA should adopt 

safeguards to protect those registrants’ 

information from improper release and 

use by both the public and other 

government agencies. 

Multiple commenters, including 

South Florida UAV Consortium and 

Morris P. Hebert, Inc., expressed 

concern with the security of online 

registration systems. Some commenters 

indicated that they would be supportive 

of electronic or Web-based registration if 

the agency could guarantee that the 

registration site would be secure. A 

commenter also suggested to ensure that 

an electronic signature be included in 

the registration process to increase 

security. Along with adding security 

measures to any online site, an 

individual expressed concern with the 

authentication process of online 

registrations. A few commenters 

suggested that it would be difficult for 

the agency to create and implement an 

authentication program sufficient to 

verify the identity of those registering 

prior to the proposed December 2015 

deadline. 

The Air Medical Operators 

Association and the Colorado 

Agricultural Aviation Association said 

the data should be stored and 

maintained by the FAA and easily 

accessible to the agency and law 

enforcement agencies for enforcement 

purposes. The National Retail 

Federation asserted retailers should not 

be required to store any kind of UAS 

registration information; the system 

should be maintained by the FAA for 

use by the FAA and local law 

enforcement agencies. Similarly, the 

Toy Industry Association said 

manufacturers should not be required to 

maintain UAS registration information. 

Chronicled, Inc. suggested using a 

distributed blockchain based system in 

which the FAA would not own the data, 

but would have complete access to the 

data. In a blockchain-based system, the 

registrants would own their registration 

data and the UAS product history 

would pass on to any subsequent 

owners of the UAS. Travelers Insurance 

Company recommended the data be 

stored in a searchable database that 

would allow for data mining with 

respect to all the registration 

information, including manufacturer, 

type, serial number, vendor and 

purchaser with protections for 

personally identifiable information. 

Registration Data Accessibility: In the 

Clarification/Request for Information, 

DOT and FAA asked who should have 

access to the registration data. Many 

commenters, including Modovolate 

Aviation, LLC, and NetMoby, said that 

the UAS registration data should be 

available to the public via the same 

search methods as the current manned 

aircraft registration data. Many 

commenters noted the data must be 

available to the public in order for the 

public to identify the owner of a UAS 

involved in an incident and to notify the 

appropriate government authority. 

NetMoby also said State laws require 

the exchange of information for 

automobile accidents and asserted the 

same should be required for UAS 

incidents. 

Aerospace Industries Association, 

Property Drone Consortium, Real Time 

Technology Group and individual 

commenters suggested all stakeholders 

require access to the data, but different 

stakeholders have different information 

needs. These commenters said the type 

of information each stakeholder should 

have access to should be controlled on 

a need to know basis. Aerospace 

Industries Association also cited FAA’s 

Federal Records Center (FRC) as an 

example of how the data could be 

managed. The commenter explained 

licensees are registered and have access 

to their detailed information, while 

third parties have access to a limited 

amount of the information necessary to 

conduct business, but not to all of the 

detailed information. A law firm noted 

concerns about confidential proprietary 

information could be addressed by 

allowing for redaction of certain 

confidential financial information, as is 

currently done with the FAA Civil 

Aircraft Registry. 

Several commenters said only the 

registrant and authorized government 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78631 

40EPIC cited legal precedent to support the 

propositions that individuals have a legitimate 

privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of their 

names, addresses, and telephone numbers (see 

Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 

U.S. 487, 500 (1994)) and that this privacy interest 

remains intact even when the information is 

properly disclosed to the public under certain 

circumstances (see U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters 

Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 767, 

770 (1989)). EPIC further stated that limiting the use 

and disclosure of personal information submitted 

by registrants is consistent with their expectations 

of privacy. 

agencies, including DOT, FAA, the 

National Transportation Safety Board, 

and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 

local law enforcement officials should 

have access to the registration data 

because of privacy concerns. One 

commenter said the data should only be 

available to law enforcement and FAA 

personnel via the existing National 

Crime Information Computer datalinks. 

Some commenters said law enforcement 

officials should have access to this data 

only when there is an active 

investigation into a particular 

registration and registrants should be 

informed when their data is accessed. 

Many commenters said the data should 

be treated as confidential information 

and a few suggested DOT or FAA 

personnel should have the ability to 

access the data only with a court order, 

warrant or FOIA request. A few 

commenters expressed concern that if 

the registration data were publically 

available, owners of expensive UAS 

would be targets of robbery. 

EPIC stated that there must be strict 

restrictions against the general 

disclosure of registrants’ personal 

information to government agencies and 

private entities, except as necessary to 

promote the FAA’s mission of 

establishing safety and privacy in UAS 

operations. Noting that privacy concerns 

are greater for hobbyists (who are more 

likely to register with private home 

addresses) than for commercial 

operators, EPIC recommended that the 

registration database of commercial 

operators be publicly accessible, but the 

database of recreational operators only 

be accessible for limited purposes 

related to protecting the safety and 

privacy of the public. EPIC claimed that, 

given the fast-growing market for UAS, 

a publicly accessible database of 

operators would implicate privacy and 

safety concerns comparable to those that 

inspired the Driver’s Privacy Protection 

Act, which generally prohibits the 

release and use of registered drivers’ 

personal information except for limited 

purposes. As such, EPIC asserted that 

UAS registration information should be 

treated the same as the driver records 

collected by state departments of motor 

vehicles. 

The Arlington, Texas, Police 

Department said that local law 

enforcement agencies should be given 

real-time access to the database to 

enable them to seek information about 

a specific UAS registration and to 

provide notification about unregistered 

UAS. 

Usage of Registration Data: Many of 

the commenters who responded to this 

question, including the National Retail 

Federation and individuals, said the 

data should only be used for law 

enforcement purposes. Other 

commenters suggested additional uses 

of the data. For example, Travelers 

insurance company recommended the 

data be available for use for 

underwriting, risk assessment, and for 

establishing loss history. AIA said 

regulators could use the metadata to 

determine market size, concentration 

and type and volume of operations. 

Aerospace Industries Association also 

said registration should not prompt 

additional State tax collection processes 

as it does with manned aircraft 

purchases. Real Time Technology 

suggested the data could be used at 

FAA’s discretion for a number of 

purposes, including: To maintain an 

accurate association of UAS with 

multiple users over time; to compile 

accurate records of corporate UAS 

assets; to assure compliance with 

registration requirements for UAS 

operations; to authenticate registration 

for operational integrity in the field; to 

track incidents associated with UAS or 

owners; and to collect operational flight 

data from participating facilities. An 

individual said FAA could use the data 

to generate aggregate statistical data on 

commercial UAS activities to gauge 

commercial UAS impact on the NAS. A 

few commenters noted registration data 

could be used to recover stolen or lost 

property, alert owners of recalls, or to 

disseminate safety information, 

including Notices to Airmen, to 

registrants. Some commenters expressed 

concern that registration data could be 

used to abuse or harass UAS owners. 

Others expressed concern that in asking 

how the data should be used, the agency 

does not seem to know why it is seeking 

to collect the data. 

EPIC stated its position that 

recreational operators have a legitimate 

privacy interest in avoiding the 

disclosure of their names, addresses, 

and telephone numbers, and that it 

would serve no legitimate purpose to 

make such personal information 

available beyond the scope of a 

particular privacy or security threat.40

As such, EPIC stated the FAA should 

adopt a general prohibition against the 

disclosure of personal information, 

including the name, address, and 

number of the registration. EPIC further 

stated that permitted uses of the registry 

should be limited to serve the FAA’s 

stated purposes of allowing 

‘‘individuals and title search companies 

to determine the legal ownership of an 

aircraft’’ and to ‘‘provide aircraft owners 

and operators information about 

potential mechanical defects or unsafe 

conditions of their aircraft in the form 

of airworthiness directives.’’ To that 

end, EPIC suggested that appropriate 

uses of registration data by the FAA 

would include providing information to 

identify the operator of a UAS that has 

caused injury, or in connection with a 

legal proceeding, and providing UAS 

owners and operators information on 

any relevant mechanical defects or 

unsafe aircraft conditions. 

Other General Comments: 

Commenters raised additional concerns 

regarding a UAS registration system. 

Skyward, Inc. said in 2013 the DOT’s 

Office of the Inspector General found 

that the aircraft registration system had 

experienced significant data quality and 

security issues. The commenter noted 

data quality and security issues are 

exacerbated when data are hard to 

update or there is little incentive for 

individuals to provide updated 

information. Skyward, Inc. was 

‘‘concerned (1) that the Department’s 

focus on enforcement may alienate 

potential registrants, (2) about questions 

related to managing registration of 

aircraft owned by individuals who are 

not US citizens or are not permanent 

residents, and (3) about how such a 

registration system may manage [s]UAS 

that are passing through the US by 

visitors who bring drones into the US 

temporarily.’’ 

Skyward, Inc. also expressed concern 

about unintended consequences that 

could result from ‘‘hasty 

implementation’’ of the registration 

system. Similarly, an individual stated 

that based on the questions posed in the 

Clarification/Request for Information, it 

appears ‘‘the FAA has not done the 

necessary preparation to stand-up a 

registration system to handle the 

necessary volume of registrants.’’ 

Task Force: The Task Force 

recommended that the FAA collect only 

name and street address of applicants 

for registration. While the Task Force 

recognized that a registrant’s email 

address and telephone number may be 

useful for the FAA to disseminate 

safety-related information to UAS 

owners, the Task Force nevertheless 

believed disclosure of such information 

be optional. With the exception of 

information released to law 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

41Persons wishing to access or comment on the 

System of Records Notice should consult docket 

No. DOT–OST–2015–0235. 

enforcement, the Task Force urged the 

FAA to prevent the release of any 

personal information that the agency is 

not specifically required by law to 

disclose. Because this new requirement 

will impact unmanned aircraft owners 

who do not have the means to protect 

their identities and addresses behind 

corporate structures (as some manned 

aircraft owners currently do), the Task 

Force believed that it is important for 

the FAA to take all possible steps to 

shield the information of privately 

owned aircraft from unauthorized 

disclosure, including issuing an 

advance statement that the information 

collected will be considered to be 

exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

IFR Requirement: This rule provides a 

Web-based process for registration of 

small unmanned aircraft and issuance of 

Certificates of Aircraft Registration. The 

privacy impacts have been analyzed by 

the FAA in the Privacy Impact 

Assessment (PIA) for the Civil Aviation 

Registry Applications (AVS Registry) 

and the Privacy Act System of Records 

Notice (SORN) DOT/FAA 801 Aircraft 

Registration System has been updated 

accordingly. 

The FAA conducted a PIA of this rule 

as required by section 522(a)(5) of 

division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, Public Law 108– 

447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and 

section 208 of the E-Government Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–347, 116 Stat. 

2889 (Dec. 17, 2002). The assessment 

considers any impacts of the rule on the 

privacy of information in an identifiable 

form. The FAA has determined that this 

rule would impact the FAA’s handling 

of personally identifiable information 

(PII). As part of the PIA that the FAA 

conducted as part of this rulemaking, 

the FAA analyzed the effect this impact 

might have on collecting, storing, and 

disseminating PII and examined and 

evaluated protections and alternative 

information handling processes in 

developing the rule in order to mitigate 

potential privacy risks. The PIA has 

been included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The FAA agrees with the Task Force 

that accessibility of this information to 

law enforcement and the FAA is the 

utmost priority in establishing this 

registry. As such, the security, 

simplicity, and accessibility of the 

system to those groups were the 

foremost goals in the FAA’s 

determinations of system design. 

Routine uses are described in the 

SORN.41

Commenters were mainly concerned 

with two issues: information security 

and access to the registry information. 

First, regarding the security of the 

registry information, the FAA developed 

this Web-based registration system in 

compliance with all federal information 

technology requirements and guidelines 

regarding security and protection of 

information including the Federal 

Information Security Management Act 

of 2002 as amended by the Federal 

Information Security Modernization Act 

of 2014 and OMB and National Institute 

of Standards and Technology 

guidelines. Access to the system 

depends on a validated email address 

and a password created by the user. The 

system is identified by a digital 

certificate so that the public has 

confidence that they are interacting with 

the authentic registration site. The 

system encrypts all of the information 

provided by the users while they use the 

system as well as user information 

stored within the system. The system 

has also been designed to protect 

information based on the potential for 

serious impact from a security 

compromise. In addition, the system 

protects credit card information in 

accordance with PCI Data Security 

Standards. 

Second, regarding the accessibility of 

the system data, the Privacy Act System 

of Records Notice DOT/FAA 801 

Aircraft Registration System, provides 

notice to the public of the agency’s 

privacy practices regarding the 

collection, use, sharing, safeguarding, 

maintenance, and disposal of 

information that affects individuals and 

their personally identifiable information 

(PII). The SORN identifies the routine 

uses for the PII collected for small 

unmanned aircraft registration. The 

SORN has been published in the 

Federal Register and addresses the 

disclosure of the small unmanned 

aircraft owner’s name and address. 

The FAA disagrees with commenters 

who say that the Registry should reside 

with the AMA or any other 

organization. By statute, the FAA is 

charged with establishing such a 

registry. 

As provided in the SORN, all 

information in the database will be 

available to law enforcement in order to 

achieve one of the FAA’s primary 

priorities in creating this system, which 

is to ensure a safe and secure NAS. 

Accomplishing this goal involves 

prioritizing the ability of law 

enforcement to help us identify the 

owner of a sUAS that has violated an 

operating rule or has been used to either 

accidentally or intentionally endanger 

other NAS users or people on the 

ground. 

Additionally, as provided in the 

SORN, the general public will be able to 

search the part 48 registry database by 

the unique identifier. The name and 

address associated with that unique 

identifier will populate in accordance 

with that search. 

L. Other Methods To Encourage 

Accountability and Responsible Use of 

the National Airspace System 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

The FAA received comments from many 

organizations and individuals on 

additional means beyond aircraft 

registration to encourage accountability 

and responsible use of UAS. 

The agency received comments 

affirming the registration requirement as 

a method to encourage accountability 

and responsible use of UAS. The Air 

and Surface Transport Nurses 

Association said that a registration 

requirement would be a ‘‘step in the 

right direction in terms of safety.’’ EAA 

stated that while registration will create 

a system of accountability, safety is 

dependent on the knowledge and 

decisions made by UAS users. An 

individual commenter noted registration 

would help recreational operators to 

take UAS use seriously. Another 

individual stated requiring all operators 

to register their UAS and to obtain a 

pilot license are both necessary to 

document the aircraft are airworthy and 

the operators are properly trained in 

safe operation. Rotor Sport and other 

commenters recommended the FAA 

look to the AMA for guidance and 

counsel so that the agency can create 

policies that foster acceptable use and 

safety for the public while at the same 

time are intelligent and flexible to meet 

the needs of all model aviation 

stakeholders. 

Most of the commenters addressing 

this issue asserted that a registration 

requirement would not encourage 

accountability and responsible use of 

UAS. Two of the main reasons given for 

this assertion were that registration 

would only be useful in rare cases when 

a registered UAS is recovered after an 

incident, and ‘‘bad actors’’ will simply 

not register. Several commenters, 

including the Competitive Enterprise 

Institute, noted registration numbers on 

a UAS would be invisible to those 

observing a reckless or malicious UAS 

operation, thereby limiting the 

enforcement benefits. These 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78633 

commenters said FAA has not provided 

any evidence to demonstrate that 

registration of these aircraft will 

improve safety of the NAS or people on 

the ground. They believe the safety rules 

are important, but a registration 

requirement would have no effect on 

safety. One commenter noted 

registration of UAS will enable FAA to 

identify the operator in case of an 

accident, but it does not address the 

actual problem: untrained pilots 

operating in the NAS. This commenter 

stressed the importance of a type 

certificate stating, ‘‘It certifies that the 

UAS is airworthy, and also requires a 

trained pilot to operate in the NAS.’’ 

A few commenters asserted FAA has 

not been able to accurately track many 

of the 357,000 aircraft registered under 

the current registration program, and 

questioned the agency’s ability to 

manage the registration of hundreds of 

thousands of UAS. A number of 

commenters participating in a form 

letter campaign stated that registration 

of model aircraft, in particular, ‘‘would 

have had little to no effect on the few 

rogue pilots that have caused concern 

with the FAA and DOT and would only 

serve to prevent law abiding citizens 

from enjoying the freedom and liberty 

set forth by the US Constitution.’’ Many 

commenters said instead of encouraging 

accountability and responsible use, a 

registration requirement would increase 

burdens on responsible operators, waste 

tax payer dollars, and punish those who 

follow the rules. 

Several individual commenters 

asserted that the proposed registration 

requirement is unnecessary as the 

registration issue is already being 

addressed in the current section 333 

exemption process and proposed part 

107 (the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM). 

A few commenters proposing other 

methods to encourage accountability 

and responsible UAS use said that 

manufacturers should be required to 

install geo-fencing software in their 

models to prevent UAS from flying in 

restricted areas. Other commenters said 

they should be required to install 

transponders that would transmit the 

registration number. 

Modovolate Aviation said the 

following would encourage 

accountability and responsible use of 

UAS: ‘‘(1) Prompt promulgation of a 

general rule for sUAS, following the 

FAA’s 25 February 2015 proposal; (2) 

streamlining and acceleration of the 

section 333 exemption process; and (3) 

eventual replacement of this system of 

regulation with one requiring vendor 

self-certification of specific 

technological safety features as a 

condition of sale.’’ 

Delair-Tech recommended various 

options that would require the 

manufacturer to install software that 

would trigger the need to register before 

the UAS would be operational. The 

South Florida UAV Consortium 

recommended that UASs be restricted to 

a limited operation until the operator 

completes a training course and receives 

a code to unlock the software to allow 

it to fly its full range. An individual 

commenter said there should be an 

identification process that requires a 

name and address to be registered to a 

serial number before electronic 

operating software can be downloaded 

to the UAS. 

Skyward, Inc. said the Task Force 

should examine approaches that 

promote safety ‘‘by providing opt-in 

conduits for registrants to receive 

educational material, safety/recall 

information from manufacturers, 

insurance discounts, and other 

benefits.’’ In addition, Skyward 

suggested that the proposed registration 

system serve as a facilitator for 

subsequent services such as automated 

delivery of temporary flight restrictions. 

Other commenters similarly 

recommended the registration system 

contain some sort of educational or 

training component. Aviation 

Management Associates said the FAA 

should encourage registration of all UAS 

(including those that are not required to 

register) by providing information and 

services of value, such as enabling 

operators to receive discounted 

insurance rates by virtue of meeting 

educational requirements that qualify 

for registration. 

EPIC recommended that any UAS 

operating the NAS include a mandatory 

GPS tracking feature that would 

broadcast the location, course, speed 

over ground, and owner identifying and 

contact information, similar to the 

Automated Identification System (AIS) 

for commercial vessels. EPIC noted that, 

unlike with aircraft that are equipped 

with ADS–B, aircraft information about 

aircraft equipped with AIS is available 

to the public through freely available 

apps. 

Union Pacific Railroad stated that it 

supports other reasonable measures to 

encourage accountability and 

responsibility in small UAS operations, 

including restrictions on any 

unauthorized commercial or 

recreational operations over certain 

safety-sensitive locations, such as 

railroad facilities. 

Task Force: While the Task Force did 

not make a specific recommendation on 

encouraging accountability and 

responsible use of UAS outside the 

registration process, it asserted within 

its report that operator accountability 

and responsible use were its principal 

goals of registration. The NPRM did not 

request comment on this issue. 

IFR Requirement: Accountability and 

responsible sUAS operation along with 

identification of the aircraft owner are 

the desired outcomes for this rule. 

While commenters provided a number 

of recommendations for further action 

toward these goals that are outside of 

the scope of this rulemaking, the FAA 

found that one predominant recurring 

theme addressed education regarding 

safe sUAS operations. As described in 

the preamble discussion pertaining to 

education, the FAA agrees that 

education is a key component for 

reaching the agency’s aircraft 

registration goals and is an overarching 

tenet in ensuring the safety of the NAS. 

The FAA will continue to evaluate these 

additional methods recommended by 

the commenters for encouraging safe 

and responsible use among sUAS 

operators for future guidance material 

and rulemaking. 

M. Legal Implications of the Registration 

Requirement 

A number of comments were received 

to the Clarification/Request for 

Information regarding the legal 

implications of the registration 

requirement. 

1. Comments addressing Section 336 of 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 

Many commenters stated that the 

FAA’s decision to require registration of 

model aircraft is in violation of section 

336 of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112–95, 

which stipulates that the FAA ‘‘may not 

promulgate any rule or regulation 

regarding a model aircraft’’ that meets 

certain criteria. Commenters pointed out 

that one such criterion is that the model 

aircraft be operated ‘‘in accordance with 

a community-based set of Safety 

Guidelines and within the programming 

of a nationwide community-based 

organization.’’ Commenters stated that 

the AMA is one such organization, and 

that the FAA must therefore exempt 

AMA members from the registration 

requirement. Other commenters stated 

more generally that FAA must identify 

all nationwide community-based 

organizations and exempt their 

members from any rule or regulation 

(including registration) when the 

aircraft is operated in accordance with 

a community-based set of safety 

guidelines. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78634 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

42The commenter cited to Administrator v. 

Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA–5739 at 12 (Nov. 17, 

2014). 

The Competitive Enterprise Institute 

asserted that the FAA conceded in its 

interpretation of section 336 that ‘‘a 

model aircraft operated pursuant to the 

terms of section 336 would potentially 

be excepted from a UAS aircraft rule,’’ 

an interpretation that the commenter 

said ‘‘would logically lend itself to a 

UAS aircraft registration rule as well.’’ 

This commenter accused the FAA of 

ignoring both the plain language of the 

statute and its own interpretation of it, 

and asked the FAA to explain how it 

has the jurisdiction to regulate small 

UAS operated by hobbyists. 

Several commenters found fault with 

the FAA’s justification for requiring 

registration of model aircraft—i.e., that 

it is applying existing law that applies 

to all ‘‘aircraft’’ and not promulgating 

new regulations regarding model 

aircraft. The Mercatus Center at George 

Mason University asserted that the 

current proceeding ‘‘relied quite directly 

on laws that by statute may not be used 

as justification for an expansion of the 

regulatory obligations of model aircraft 

operators;’’ namely, its UAS integration 

mandate under the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act. This commenter 

further asserted that if the FAA does not 

restart the process without references to 

that mandate there is a possibility that 

registration of non-commercial UAS 

will be overturned if challenged in 

court. An individual commenter stated 

that if, as the FAA asserts, the definition 

of model aircraft as ‘‘aircraft’’ means 

that all existing federal aviation 

regulations retroactively apply to model 

aircraft, the congressional prohibition 

on regulating them would be pointless. 

This commenter further stated that the 

clear intent of Congress was to prohibit 

the FAA from regulating model aircraft 

at all, and that if Congress meant instead 

to apply the full array of existing 

aviation regulations to model aircraft, it 

would have said so. This commenter 

also asserted that, even if the FAA is 

correct that all existing aviation 

regulations apply to model aircraft, it is 

not acting consistently with that 

principle because it is picking only one 

of the many regulations that apply to 

manned aircraft and arbitrarily applying 

it to model aircraft. This commenter 

further asserted that this ‘‘is the very 

epitome of arbitrary and capricious, and 

clearly shows that the FAA is being 

disingenuous when it claims it is merely 

applying existing regulations.’’ This 

commenter went on to say that ‘‘[t]he 

fact that the FAA finds it necessary to 

request public comments in a sort of 

expedited unofficial NPRM, followed by 

assembling a special Task Force 

(somewhat like an Advisory Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC) to determine what 

steps are necessary to implement the 

registration process, clearly reveals the 

FAA’s proposal to be in fact a new 

regulation regarding model aircraft in 

direct contravention of [FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act] Sec. 

336.’’ 

Another individual stated that the 

FAA is not being forthright in averring 

that its decision not to register model 

aircraft until now was ‘‘discretionary.’’ 

This commenter expressed doubt that a 

regulatory document exists in which the 

agency explicitly stated that ‘‘model 

aircraft need not be registered, as a 

discretionary exclusion from 49 U.S.C. 

44101,’’ and that if such a document 

does exist it should have been 

referenced in the Clarification/Request 

for Information. This commenter further 

asserted that the absence of such a 

document destroys the premise of the 

‘‘clarification’’ the FAA has now put 

forth. 

Two individual commenters 

challenged the agency’s reliance on the 

NTSB ruling in Administrator v. Pirker 

(NTSB Order No. EA–5739), noting that 

the ruling only held that model aircraft 

qualify as ‘‘aircraft’’ as the term is used 

in 14 CFR 91.13(a), which prohibits 

careless and reckless operation.42

Two individual commenters stated 

that the FAA’s authority to pursue 

enforcement action against persons who 

endanger the safety of the NAS (under 

section 336(b) of Public Law 112–95) 

cannot reasonably be interpreted to 

mean the agency has the blanket 

authority to mandate registration of 

model aircraft. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

comments asserting that the registration 

of model aircraft is prohibited by 

section 336 of Public Law 112–95. 

While section 336 bars the FAA from 

promulgating new rules or regulations 

that apply only to model aircraft, the 

prohibition against future rulemaking is 

not a complete bar on rulemaking and 

does not exempt model aircraft from 

complying with existing statutory and 

regulatory requirements. As previously 

addressed, Public Law 112–95 identifies 

model aircraft as aircraft and as such, 

the existing statutory aircraft 

registration requirements implemented 

by part 47 apply. 

This action simply provides a burdenrelieving alternative that sUAS owners 

may use for aircraft registration. Model 

aircraft operated under section 336 as 

well as other small unmanned aircraft 

are not required to use the provisions of 

part 48. Owners of such aircraft have the 

option to comply with the existing 

requirements in part 47 that govern 

aircraft registration or may opt to use 

the new streamlined, web-based system 

in part 48. 

2. Comments Addressing Requirements 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

A number of commenters questioned 

the FAA’s approach to rulemaking 

pertaining to small unmanned aircraft 

registration. Several commenters said 

the FAA does not have good cause to 

issue a rule without notice and 

comment. The Competitive Enterprise 

Institute (CEI) stated that under section 

553(b)(3)(B) of the APA, agency 

rulemakings are required to include a 

notice and comment period of at least 

30 days unless ‘‘the agency for good 

cause finds (and incorporates the 

finding and a brief statement of reasons 

therefor in the rules issued) that notice 

and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to public interest.’’ Citing to a legal 

treatise on administration law, CEI 

asserted that the good cause exception 

‘‘is not an escape clause,’’ and ‘‘should 

be narrowly construed and only 

reluctantly countenanced,’’ with ‘‘the 

agency bear[ing] the burden of 

demonstrating the ground for good 

cause.’’ CEI further asserted that notice 

and comment in this case is not 

‘‘impractical,’’ because ‘‘[i]mpracticality 

exists when the agency cannot both 

follow the notice-and-comment 

procedure and execute its statutory 

duty.’’ CEI stated that in this case the 

FAA is arguably proceeding with a UAS 

registration mandate in direct 

contradiction of its statutory duty ‘‘not 

[to] promulgate any rule or regulation 

regarding a model aircraft.’’ CEI also 

stated that the notice and comment 

process cannot be said to be 

‘‘unnecessary,’’ because a rule that 

mandates hobbyists register their model 

aircraft creates a substantial new burden 

on the public. Finally, CEI stated that 

notice and comment is not ‘‘contrary to 

public interest.’’ CEI claimed that, 

although the FAA will presumably 

argue that providing notice and 

comment would result in significant 

harm to the public interest by failing to 

immediately mitigate UAS safety risks 

that only mandatory registration can 

address, ‘‘there is little evidence that 

registration will, on its own, do much of 

anything to mitigate UAS safety risk, 

which itself is likely very low relative 

to other aircraft safety risks, such as 

birds.’’ 

The Mercatus Center at George Mason 

University stated that ‘‘agency inaction 

leading to perceived deadline pressure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78635 

43The commenter cited Air Transport 

Association of America v. Department of 

Transportation, 900 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1990 

(‘‘Insofar as the FAA’s own failure to act materially 

contributed to its perceived deadline pressure, the 

agency cannot now invoke the need for expeditious 

action as ‘good cause’ to avoid the obligations of 

section 553(b)). 

44A few commenters provided a link to the AMA 

report. http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/

AMAAnalysis-Closer-Look-at-FAA-Drone-Data_

091415.pdf. 

does not constitute good cause to 

dispense with public notice and 

comment.’’ 43 The Mercatus Center 

asserted that a public notice-andcomment period is necessary and in the 

public interest because any requirement 

to register UASs potentially adversely 

affects numerous non-commercial 

operators. The Mercatus Center further 

asserted that the issuance of a final rule 

without notice and comment opens up 

the registration requirement to reversal 

if challenged in court. 

A number of individual commenters 

similarly asserted that the FAA has not 

presented any data to substantiate the 

need to proceed with this rulemaking on 

an emergency or expedited basis. Like 

CEI, these commenters pointed to a lack 

of data showing either that there is an 

increased safety risk that needs to be 

addressed or that registration will, on its 

own, adequately address that risk. Some 

commenters specifically found fault 

with FAA’s reliance on increased 

number of UAS ‘‘incidents’’ reported to 

the FAA by manned aircraft pilots. 

Several commenters noted that the 

AMA analyzed those reported 

‘‘incidents’’ and found that out of the 

764 reported records, only 27 (or 3.5%) 

were identified as a near mid-air 

collision, with nearly all of those 

involving government-authorized 

military drones.44 The commenters 

noted that most of the ‘‘incidents’’ have 

merely been sightings of UAS. One 

individual pointed out that the FAA has 

published no analysis of its own 

‘‘sightings’’ data; nor has it disputed the 

AMA’s analysis of that data. This 

individual also asserted that a doubling 

in the rate of UAS ‘‘sightings’’ in 2015 

is consistent with the rate of growth of 

consumer small UAS, and is not cause 

for overreaction. 

Another individual claimed that FAA 

statistics show that birds are far more of 

a threat to air traffic than toy 

helicopters, and that not one single 

incident of a toy model causing an 

accident has been reported, while bird 

strikes number over 7,000 a year. 

Several other commenters noted that 

there has only been one recorded 

collision between a manned aircraft and 

a model aircraft. One such individual 

stated that it was a well-known incident 

in which a biplane struck a large model 

airplane that was hovering over a 

runway at an air show. This individual 

further stated that even though that 

model airplane was larger than the vast 

majority of models most hobbyists fly, 

the biplane received only a minor dent 

to its wing. Another individual 

questioned whether the FAA has 

examined empirical evidence from the 

millions of model flight operations to 

determine if lack of compliance with the 

labeling requirement had any 

correlation to the frequency or severity 

of mishaps. Another individual pointed 

to a recent NTSB interpretation (NTSB– 

AS–2015–0001) that clarifies that 

‘‘model aircraft’’ do not fall within the 

definition of unmanned aircraft for 

accident notification/investigation 

purposes. Quoting that interpretation, 

this commenter stated that the NTSB 

‘‘has historically not investigated the 

rare occasions in which a model aircraft 

has cause serious injury or fatality,’’ and 

clearly does not believe unregistered 

small UAS to be a significant threat to 

the NAS. 

A number of commenters 

characterized the registration 

requirement as a ‘‘knee jerk’’ reaction to 

a perceived problem based solely on 

anecdotal evidence, which will punish 

the many for the acts of a few. Other 

commenters said that any UAS-related 

incidents can easily be remedied by 

stricter enforcement of existing laws. 

In contrast to those commenters who 

claimed that the FAA does not have 

good cause to issue a rule without going 

through notice and comment 

rulemaking, Modovolate Aviation, LLC 

that the FAA does have good cause to 

issue a rule without notice and 

comment, and should therefore set up a 

simple database and registration 

interface immediately and issue an 

emergency rule requiring compliance. 

This commenter asserted that such 

authority comes from both the APA (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) and the FAA’s own 

rules (14 CFR 11.29(a)), and that the 

FAA’s statements that the growing 

number of pilot reports of UAS sightings 

reveals an imminent problem and serves 

as an appropriate basis for such an 

‘‘emergency rule.’’ This commenter also 

asserted that the FAA will not achieve 

its goals by engaging in another 

protracted rulemaking process that takes 

two years. 

In the preamble discussion of the 

agency’s good cause for proceeding with 

an IFR, the agency explains its rationale 

for forgoing notice and comment prior 

to the effective date of this rulemaking 

and issuing this immediately effective 

IFR. The agency also notes that it is 

seeking comment on this rulemaking 

and may modify the rule based on 

comments received. 

3. Comments Addressing Other Legal 

Issues With the Proposed Registration 

Requirement 

The Mercatus Center at George Mason 

University stated that under Executive 

Order 12866, a rule on non-commercial 

UAS registration may be economically 

significant and therefore require a costbenefit analysis. The Mercatus Center 

claimed that past experience with 

national registry systems suggests that 

there will be dramatic implementation 

and compliance costs that the DOT may 

be systematically underestimating. The 

Mercatus Center further claimed that 

these costs will be exacerbated by 

factors such as fast UAS depreciation 

and replacement rates, difficulty of 

enforcing retroactive compliance, and 

the sheer volume and speed at which 

UASs are being produced, among other 

factors. 

Several other commenters also stated 

that the FAA needs to conduct costbenefit analysis before proceeding with 

this rulemaking. For example, one 

individual stated that a cost benefit 

analysis ‘‘based on a scientific 

collection of unbiased safety data’’ 

should be conducted before any new 

registration program is put in place. 

This individual asserted that the FAA 

has not provided a convincing case that 

small UAS pose a safety risk to the NAS, 

or that that a registration program will 

be any more successful than an 

approach, such as the AMA’s Safety 

Code, that requires owners to put their 

name and address on the aircraft. A few 

other individuals said the FAA needs to 

consider that a registration requirement 

may expose UAS owners to additional 

state-imposed taxes and fees. Another 

individual pointed to the potential 

economic impact a registration 

requirement may have on small 

businesses. This individual asserted that 

the requirement may impact small 

hobby shops, as well as major 

distributors like Horizon Hobby and 

Hobbico, because people will not want 

to register their aircraft with the FAA 

and will therefore choose to participate 

in other consumer hobbies that do not 

require registration with the 

government. The News Media Coalition 

stated that any registration process 

established by the FAA ‘‘must avoid 

placing undue burden on the First 

Amendment right to gather and 

disseminate news.’’ 

Several individual commenters stated 

that a registration requirement is an 

invasion of privacy. EPIC discussed its 

concerns about the privacy and civil 

liberty risks posed by the use of UAS in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78636 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

45EPIC made reference to its 2012 petition to the 

FAA to undertake a rulemaking to establish privacy 

regulations prior to the deployment of commercial 

drones in the national airspace, and its lawsuit 

against the FAA for denying that petition. EPIC also 

made reference to its testimony before Congress 

regarding the need to adopt comprehensive 

legislation to limit drone surveillance in the United 

States. 

the United States, and asserted that the 

enhanced surveillance capabilities of 

UAS raise significant Fourth 

Amendment implications.45

Consistent with comments regarding 

Executive Order 12866, the FAA has 

completed an economic analysis of this 

rulemaking. The economic analysis for 

this rulemaking can be found in the 

docket with the IFR. 

Regarding comments pertaining to 

free speech and privacy, the agency 

clarifies that this IFR does not provide 

operating restrictions. Rather, this 

rulemaking is intended only to establish 

a streamlined approach for small 

unmanned aircraft registration. 

N. Alternatives to Registration 

The FAA received a number of 

comments recommending alternatives to 

a requirement of registration. 

Clarification/Request for Information: 

Several commenters suggested a 

requirement for small UAS operators to 

become members of a community-based 

organization, instead of a registration 

requirement. One commenter 

recommended that an organization 

similar to the USPA (United States 

Parachute Association) be formed to 

manage UAS training, licensing, and 

registration. Another commenter said it 

would make more sense for the DOT 

and FAA to mandate that small UAS 

pilots join any community-based 

organization that follows a set of 

standardized rules. Several commenters 

recommended that the FAA specifically 

require model aircraft operators to 

become AMA members. One commenter 

suggested that AMA be put in charge of 

the registration of small UAS users, with 

the registration database maintained by 

the AMA independently, or with a 

subsidy from the DOT/FAA. Several 

other commenters, however, opposed 

the idea of requiring AMA membership 

or allowing the AMA to be any part of 

the official registration requirement. 

One individual stated that registration is 

an inherently governmental function 

that should not be ceded to any dues 

collecting organization. This commenter 

pointed out that neither the 

Experimental Aircraft Association nor 

the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association register manned aircraft. 

Another individual said the AMA 

should not be part of the registration 

process because it is ‘‘a privately run 

optional insurance consortium for 

hosting a common airfield,’’ not an 

authority regarding model aircraft 

design, standards, and practices. The 

Drone User Group Network said that the 

AMA ‘‘while a venerable association, 

does not have the interests of 

responsible and dedicated UAS 

operators at the core of its mission.’’ 

Another individual listed a number of 

concerns about the AMA’s safety 

programming (e.g., failure to enforce 

their own requirement to have AMA 

number and/or address in their 

member’s aircraft) and said that he is 

not comfortable with the AMA being 

permitted to manage the inherently 

governmental function of registration. 

Several commenters who opposed a 

registration requirement said the FAA 

should review the FCC’s experience 

with the explosive growth of mobile 

Citizen Band radios some years ago, 

which ultimately resulted in 

abandoning the licensing requirement 

for those radios. One commenter 

recommended that driver’s licenses be 

used for registration, instead of creating 

a new registry system. Another 

commenter said recreational operators 

could be required to carry a current 

driver’s license and a safety card, which 

would be issued after the operator 

watched an FAA video on proper flying 

procedures. 

A number of commenters said the 

FAA needs to clarify what it will 

consider to be a UAS for purposes of the 

registration requirement. Some 

commenters asserted that relying on the 

FAA’s definition of ‘‘aircraft’’ is 

problematic because that definition can 

be construed to mean any device which 

takes to air, including, for example, a 

Frisbee, a paper airplane, a foam 

airplane, or a balsa wood rubber-band 

powered airplane. As discussed above, 

many commenters urged the agency to 

exclude traditional model aircraft from 

the definition of UAS for purposes of 

the registration requirement. Some of 

those commenters questioned why 

model aircraft would be included in a 

registration requirement while other 

types of ‘‘aircraft,’’ such as ultralights, 

model rockets and kites, would not. 

Several commenters pointed out that 

ultralights can weigh up to 249 pounds, 

carry up to 5 gallons of flammable fuel, 

carry an unlicensed pilot, be 

unregistered, and still operate in the 

NAS (in many, but not all areas). 

Several individual commenters 

questioned whether the agency can 

handle the registration of millions of 

recreational UAS. One commenter noted 

that the registration database could 

become overloaded and unmanageable 

if every person registers every model 

aircraft they purchase or receive—many 

of which will not last past a single 

flight—but then fail to notify the FAA 

when a model is lost, destroyed, or sold. 

Also pointing to the short life span of 

most small UAS, another commenter 

similarly said the registration system 

will become overwhelmed if 

recreational users are required to 

register and re-register each model 

aircraft they obtain. Another commenter 

said that requiring UAS owners to 

renew their registration will 

‘‘complicate everything’’ and lead to 

people involuntarily breaking the law 

when they forget to re-register their 

UAS. Several commenters wondered 

how the registration process will be 

funded. 

Several commenters addressed the 

effect of a registration requirement on 

innovation and growth. The National 

Association of Mutual Insurance 

Companies (NAMIC) encouraged the 

FAA and the Task Force to consider 

how the registration system will be 

integrated into or used in conjunction 

with the commercial development of 

UAS. Specifically, NAMIC said the FAA 

and Task Force should consider how 

industries that are critical to UAS 

development will depend on or require 

UAS registration. NAMIC asserted that 

‘‘streamlining requirements for UAS 

registration would certainly be in the 

interest of avoiding duplication, 

minimizing burdens, and best protecting 

innovation and encouraging growth in 

the UAS industry. Similarly, TIA said 

the FAA must implement UAS 

regulations that do not inhibit 

advancement but rather spur growth 

and inspire future innovators. The 

University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign urged the FAA and DOT to 

consider alternatives to a registration 

(which is said is likely to prove both 

burdensome and ineffective) because 

‘‘onerous regulations applied to UAS 

research will stifle innovation and put 

the United States at a competitive 

disadvantage.’’ An individual 

commenter similarly said that 

regulation ‘‘will increase costs, drive 

people from the activity, and retard 

innovation.’’ One individual commenter 

argued that model aircraft ‘‘represent a 

huge employment, technological, and 

economic opportunity for our country 

(and world), and we cannot afford to 

squash this potential with more laws.’’ 

A group of academics noted that 

traditional model aircraft have inspired 

generations of our scientists, engineers, 

and inventors. A number of other 

commenters also expressed concern that 

a registration requirement will 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78637 

discourage young people from becoming 

involved in model aviation which, in 

turn, will discourage them from entering 

careers in STEM-related fields. 

A commenter who had been issued an 

exemption under section 333 of Public 

Law 112–95 questioned whether he or 

she would have to re-register their UAS, 

and what the time-frame for that would 

be. Another commenter questioned how 

the registration requirement would 

apply to UAS that are flown 

infrequently or not at all. Another 

individual commenter questioned what 

the process would be for removing nonfunctional UAS from the registration 

system. Another commenter working 

overseas wondered whether he would 

have to register his UAS to be permitted 

to operate it during visits to the United 

States. 

Delair-Tech recommended the 

following registration process for 

manufactured UAS: (1) Each UAS 

produced is assigned an aircraft type 

designator (assigned by ICAO) and a 

unique serial number (assigned by the 

manufacturer); (2) the user manual for 

each UAS instructs its owner to turn on 

the UAS and its ground control station/ 

software within internet connectivity 

coverage; (3) the ground control 

software detects an unregistered UAS 

and opens a registration window, which 

prompts the owner to enter their contact 

information (including phone number); 

(4) the registration information is 

transmitted to the national registration 

system, which sends a verification code 

to the owner via text message; (5) the 

owner enters the code through the 

ground control software and then the 

registration system verifies the code and 

sends a registration number to the 

ground control station; (6) the ground 

control software programs the 

registration number into the UAS, 

which enables the owner to fly the UAS. 

As an alternative to using the ground 

control software to connect directly to 

the national registration system, DelairTech suggested the owner be given the 

URL of the registration system, through 

which the owner would input contact 

information and receive a verification 

code. The owner would also receive the 

registration number through the web 

application, which they would then 

input into the UAS through the ground 

control software. 

An individual commenter suggested 

that as an alternative to issuing an 

expedited registration rule the agency 

issue a temporary, immediately effective 

rule mandating point-of-sale 

distribution of agency materials 

summarizing the operational restrictions 

for model aircraft. This commenter 

stated that acting promptly to require 

retailers to communicate the core 

regulatory message would more directly 

address the fear of improperly operated 

UAS becoming a safety risk as more are 

sold to hobbyists. The commenter also 

stated that such materials largely 

already exist and the requirement for 

distributing the information could be 

satisfied, particularly by online retailers, 

by a check-box acknowledgment or an 

emailed link to existing FAA 

educational Web sites. The commenter 

cited legal authority that would support 

an exercise of authority to compel 

commercial speech when it is in the 

service of a significant public interest. 

RILA urged the establishment of a 

preemptive federal standard for UAS to 

allow for uniformity, consistency, and 

alleviate potential burdens on both 

retailers and consumers if states are left 

to legislate potentially inconsistent UAS 

safety. 

Some commenters said an education 

program, geo-fencing, and strict 

enforcement of the safety rules would be 

more effective than requiring 

registration of these aircraft. 

A few commenters advocated for a 

tiered licensing process, allowing 

operators who have qualified for higher 

tiers (e.g., through additional training or 

testing) to operate UAS with advanced 

capabilities. Several commenters said 

that FAA should regulate UAS operators 

in the same way the FCC licenses 

amateur (ham) radio operators, and one 

commenter also said that retailers of 

certain UAS should require proof of 

FCC licensing before purchase. 

The Mercatus Center at George Mason 

University stated that the DOT and FAA 

should define a threshold ‘‘that 

liberalize most small UASs, requiring 

registrations for only the largest and 

highest-powered UASs, while 

continuing to focus on integrating all 

nongovernmental UASs within a 

framework based on the principles of 

permissionless innovation.’’ This 

commenter went on to say that, instead 

of an ‘‘impractical’’ registration scheme, 

the FAA should adopt Transport 

Canada’s model and require simple 

online notification for commercial 

operations within a middle weight class. 

Other commenters said that operators 

should have to abide by the AMA safety 

code. 

The South Florida UAV Consortium 

recommended that UASs be restricted to 

a limited operation until the operator 

completes a training course and receives 

a code to unlock the software to allow 

it to fly its full range. 

One commenter recommended two 

categories of licenses—one for 

commercial products that can be 

purchased off the shelf (with limitations 

on the degree to which they can be 

modified) and one for home-built or 

substantially modified aircraft. The 

commenter asserted that this second 

category of licenses ‘‘would address the 

impossibility of implementing a perdevice registration scheme in a world of 

imported electronics and homebrew 

experimentation.’’ Within the two 

categories of licenses, the commenter 

recommended different classes based on 

the available power carried on the 

aircraft. 

IFR Requirement: The FAA disagrees 

with commenters who stated that all 

small unmanned aircraft should be 

registered with the AMA and that AMA 

should be exclusively responsible for 

the registry. The FAA is specifically 

directed by statute to develop and 

maintain an aircraft registry. 

Accordingly, the FAA cannot abdicate 

its responsibility to AMA or any other 

organization outside the FAA. 

Some commenters on this topic 

addressed the need for a clear definition 

of which aircraft require registration and 

which do not; the FAA has addressed 

that definition in an earlier section. In 

response to the comments about 

capacity issues and streamlining 

registration, the web-based registration 

system established by this rule will 

allow the Registry to better 

accommodate the aircraft registration 

required for owners of small unmanned 

aircraft. 

O. Comments Beyond the Scope 

The nature of the FAA’s request for 

comment in the Clarification/Request 

for Information resulted in some 

commenters providing information that 

did not fall within the twelve comment 

areas. The FAA is summarizing those 

comments that were outside the scope 

of the twelve questions in this section. 

A few commenters remarked on the 

make-up of the Task Force. One 

individual stated that the presence of 

Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy, among 

other major corporations, ‘‘gives the 

impression, as face value, of being 

politically driven by major corporations 

to restrict tax paying citizens in this 

country from using their airspace and 

the enjoyment of flying their model 

aircraft in favor of a major corporation.’’ 

This individual asserted that these 

corporations would prefer to eliminate 

model aviation in order to have open 

skies to operate their delivery service. 

Two other commenters similarly said 

that the UAS industry representatives 

on the Task Force ‘‘have a penchant for 

regulations and may actually benefit 

from such regulation given that they 

have the resources to cover the cost 

required by such regulation and that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

inevitably such regulation will limit free 

enterprise.’’ These commenters 

questioned why the FAA did not invite 

grass-roots small UAS organizations, 

such as the Small UAV Coalition. 

A commenter suggested reducing risk 

to aviation by permitting local 

authorities to utilize a transmitter to 

electronically disable UAS that are 

being flown illegally. The commenter 

also suggested developing a means to 

report illegal UAS operation. Another 

commenter said that law enforcement 

should be able to confiscate UAS that 

are flown illegally. The National 

Association of Mutual Insurance 

Companies, Minnesota Department of 

Transportation, and other commenters 

suggested requiring UAS operators to 

purchase liability insurance. 

Additionally, NetMoby and other 

commenters remarked that FAA should 

impose significant fines and other civil 

or criminal penalties on operators who 

fail to register or fly in a dangerous or 

illegal manner. 

The Toy Industry Association urged 

FAA to implement an IFR instead of a 

final rule at this point. The commenter 

said that an interim rule would permit 

the agency and UAS Task Force to 

create a pilot registration system that 

would include only UAS that have 

‘‘high risk’’ capabilities, and study this 

system before implementing a final rule. 

Other commenters, including the News 

Media Coalition, encouraged FAA to 

finalize the small UAS rule proposed for 

commercial users to provide an example 

of clear guidelines for all users. 

Skyward, Inc. recommended that FAA 

develop a more comprehensive 

approach to UAS management, 

including technical standards for a UAS 

system for the NAS, and said that FAA 

should review NASA’s UAS Traffic 

Management program and the 

Department of Homeland Security’s 

STIX and TAXII standards as examples 

of technical standards development. 

Skyward said that, for example, a 

comprehensive UAS system could 

include ‘‘detection capabilities that are 

able to detect and localize nonparticipating or malfunctioning aircraft 

as part of expanded airspace radar and 

surveillance systems.’’ 

Many commenters expressed concern 

about the expedited timeframe in which 

the DOT and the FAA plan to 

implement the registration system. 

UAVUS said the plan to create a 

registration system this holiday season 

is ‘‘overly ambitious, and could add to 

the confusion created by the absence of 

the FAA’s final rulemaking for the 

commercial use of small UASs.’’ RILA 

stated its appreciation for the agency’s 

goal of increasing safe and responsible 

UAS use, but asserted that the logistical 

challenges in implementing such a 

system within the current expedited 

timeframe ‘‘make doing so responsibly 

and coherently impossible.’’ Given the 

expedited timeframe, RILA, NRF, and 

TIA encouraged the FAA to consider the 

use of an interim final rule instead of a 

direct final rule. NRF alternatively 

suggested a pilot program to evaluate 

the operational needs of a registration 

system. 

The National Agricultural Aviation 

Association (NAAA), Colorado 

Agricultural Aviation Association, and 

Alaska Legislative Task Force on 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

recommended that UAS should be 

required to be more visible to manned 

aircraft to avoid collision by requiring 

UAS to be equipped with strobe lights 

and painted conspicuous colors. 

Two commenters suggested that as an 

alternative to registering individual 

UAS, that owners be required to register 

their transmitters. One of those 

commenters asserted that the 

transmitter registration would provide 

an easy way to identify operators 

without having to physically locate 

them or their UAS because transmitters 

broadcast a radio signal that can be 

picked up by anyone in the vicinity. 

This commenter further asserted that 

relying on markings on the aircraft will 

do nothing to identify a problem unless 

the UAS crashes, but, as technology 

advances, transmitters can transmit a 

personal ID that can be read with 

receiver equipment. A few other 

individual commenters recommended a 

requirement to register the flight 

controller instead of the aircraft. 

P. Miscellaneous 

The FAA has updated § 91.203(a)(2) 

to allow the Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration issued under part 48 to 

satisfy the requirements of that 

paragraph. 

The FAA has also made the following 

technical amendments to part 47: The 

Department of Homeland Security 

currently exercises the oversight 

responsibilities of the former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Part 47 has been updated to reflect this 

change. 

The agency has also clarified that the 

reference to ‘‘armed forces’’ includes 

only those armed forces of the United 

States. 

VIII. Section-by-Section Discussion of 

the Interim Final Rule 

In part 1, definitions and 

abbreviations, definitions for ‘‘model 

aircraft,’’ ‘‘small unmanned aircraft,’’ 

‘‘small unmanned aircraft system,’’ and 

‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ are added. 

In part 45, identification and 

registration marking, § 45.1 is revised to 

add a specific cross-reference to 14 CFR 

part 47 to indicate that the marking 

requirements of part 45 only relate to 

aircraft registered under part 47. 

In part 47, aircraft registration, in 

§ 47.2 the definition of ‘‘resident alien’’ 

is revised to remove the reference to the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

and replace it with a reference to the 

Department of Homeland Security. The 

term ‘‘U.S. citizen’’ is revised to read 

‘‘Citizen of the United States or U.S. 

citizen’’ to conform to other uses of this 

term. 

Section 47.3 is revised to make clear 

that, when stating that no person may 

operate an aircraft that is eligible for 

registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101– 

44104, Armed Forces refers to Armed 

Forces of the United States. 

Section 47.7 is revised to remove the 

reference to the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service and replace it 

with a reference to the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

The FAA is adding new 14 CFR part 

48, registration and markings for small 

unmanned aircraft. 

Section 48.1 provides the 

applicability for the part. It states that 

small unmanned aircraft eligible for 

registration in the United States must be 

registered and identified in accordance 

with either the registration and 

identification requirements in part 48, 

or the registration requirements in part 

47 and the identification and 

registration marking requirements in 

subparts A and C of part 45. Section 

48.1 also explains that small unmanned 

aircraft intended to be operated outside 

of the territorial airspace of the United 

States, or registered through a trust or 

voting trust, must be registered in 

accordance with part 47 and satisfy the 

identification and registration marking 

requirements of subparts A and C of part 

45. 

Section 48.5 provides the compliance 

dates for small unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively as model aircraft, and the 

compliance dates for small unmanned 

aircraft used as other than model 

aircraft. 

Section 48.10 provides definitions of 

‘‘Citizen of the United States or U.S. 

citizen,’’ ‘‘Registry,’’ and ‘‘resident 

alien.’’ These are the same definitions 

found in part 47. 

Section 48.15 provides that no person 

may operate a small unmanned aircraft 

that is eligible for registration under 49 

U.S.C. 44101–44103 unless the owner 

has registered and marked the aircraft in 

accordance with the requirements of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78639 

46 for purposes of the economic analysis of this 

IFR, the term ‘‘modeler’’ means the owner of a small 

unmanned aircraft that satisfies the definition of 

‘‘model aircraft’’ added to 14 CFR 1.1 

47For purposes of the economic analysis of this 

IFR, the term ‘‘commercial owners’’ or ‘‘nonmodeler’’ means the owner of a small unmanned 

aircraft used for non-model purposes. 

part 48; the aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds 

or less on takeoff, including everything 

that is on board or otherwise attached to 

the aircraft; or the aircraft is an aircraft 

of the Armed Forces of the United 

States. 

Section 48.20 provides the criteria for 

eligibility of the small unmanned 

aircraft for registration. 

Section 48.25 describes the 

requirements for applicants wishing to 

register a small unmanned aircraft using 

part 48. Applicants must provide the 

required information, and must meet 

other ownership requirements listed in 

the section. 

Section 48.30 provides the fees for 

small unmanned aircraft registration. 

Section 48.100 describes information 

applicants must submit when 

registering a small unmanned aircraft 

intended to be used as other than a 

model aircraft, and the information 

applicants must submit when 

registering a small unmanned aircraft 

intended to be used exclusively as a 

model aircraft. 

Section 48.105 requires small 

unmanned aircraft owners to maintain 

current information in the registration 

system. 

Section 48.110 provides the 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

information for small unmanned aircraft 

intended to be used other than as model 

aircraft. It provides the effective date of 

the Certificate, information regarding 

registration renewal, and describes 

events affecting the effectiveness of the 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration. 

Section 48.115 provides the 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

information for small unmanned aircraft 

intended to be used exclusively as 

model aircraft. It provides the effective 

date of the Certificate, information 

regarding registration renewal, and 

describes events affecting the 

effectiveness of the Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration. 

Section 48.120 discusses 

circumstances in which a small 

unmanned aircraft registration is 

invalid. Circumstances include when 

the aircraft is registered in a foreign 

country; the applicant is not the owner, 

except when the applicant registers on 

behalf of an owner who is under 13 

years of age; the applicant is not eligible 

to submit an application under part 48; 

or the interest of the applicant in the 

aircraft was created by a transaction that 

was not entered into in good faith, but 

rather was made to avoid (with or 

without the owner’s knowledge) 

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44101– 

44103. 

Section 48.125 explains that for those 

persons who do not meet the citizenship 

requirements for U.S. registration, the 

certificate issued under part 48 

constitutes a recognition of ownership. 

Section 48.200 contains general 

provisions for small unmanned aircraft 

marking. 

Section 48.205 provides the 

requirements for the display and 

location of the unique identifier. 

In part 91, general operating and flight 

rules, § 91.203 is revised to reference 

Certificates of Aircraft Registration 

provided in part 48. 

In part 375, navigation of foreign civil 

aircraft within the United States, 

§ 375.11 is clarified to note that this 

includes a small unmanned aircraft. 

Section 375.38 authorizes owners of 

foreign civil aircraft that are small 

unmanned aircraft used exclusively as 

model aircraft to operate within the U.S. 

and requires owners of aircraft engaged 

in such operations to complete the part 

48 registration process prior to 

operation. 

IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39 as amended) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, the Trade Agreements Act 

requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this IFR. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined this IFR has benefits 

that justify its costs, and is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it 

raises novel policy issues contemplated 

under that executive order. The rule is 

also ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

IFR will have a positive economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to international trade, and will 

not impose an unfunded mandate on 

state, local, or tribal governments, or on 

the private sector. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Total Benefits and Costs 

There are problems arising from the 

rapid proliferation of small unmanned 

aircraft and these problems are 

occurring more frequently. Sales 

projections show the number of small 

unmanned aircraft continuing to 

increase dramatically, and thus 

addressing the problem is urgent. 

Registration provides an immediate and 

direct opportunity to educate new users 

of unmanned aircraft who may have no 

knowledge of the system in which they 

are operating, and thus, no knowledge 

of how to operate safely within it. 

Registration and marking of small 

unmanned aircraft will provide owners 

education regarding operating in the 

NAS and will promote accountability in 

those operations, at a minimal cost to 

operators and the government. 

Currently aircraft registration is a 

paper-based process defined in part 47. 

Under current statutory and regulatory 

policy, the FAA could require UAS 

model aircraft owners,46 at a significant 

cost, to register their small unmanned 

aircraft under part 47 using the legacy 

paper-based system. Commercial 

owners 47 that have been granted 

exemptions or certificates of 

authorization to operate small 

unmanned aircraft in the NAS have 

been required to register their aircraft 

under part 47. Also, the sUAS Operation 

and Certification NPRM would require 

non-model aircraft owners (e.g., 

commercial and public owners of sUAS) 

to register their aircraft under part 47 as 

outlined in the NPRM. The agency 

expects to finalize that rulemaking in 

2016. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

The FAA has used agency discretion 

in the past by not requiring owners of 

small unmanned aircraft intended to be 

used as model aircraft in accordance 

with section 336 of Public Law 112–95 

to register their aircraft although as 

noted commercial operators of small 

unmanned aircraft have been required 

to register their aircraft. Due to the rapid 

increase in sUAS for hobby use (and 

soon at much greater volumes for 

commercial purposes), the FAA is 

creating an alternative simple, webbased registration process to 

significantly reduce the time to register 

small unmanned aircraft. In addition, to 

ease the burden to modelers this 

regulation will allow those owners to 

register once and use the same 

identification number for all their 

aircraft, instead of registering each of 

their small unmanned aircraft 

separately. 

In order to implement the new 

streamlined, web-based system 

described in this IFR, the FAA will 

incur costs to develop, implement, and 

maintain the system. Small UAS 

operators will require time to register 

and mark their aircraft, and that time 

has a cost. The total of government and 

registrant resource cost for small 

unmanned aircraft registration and 

marking under this new system is $56 

million ($46 million present value at 7 

percent) through 2020. 

In evaluating the impact of this rule, 

we compare the costs and benefits of the 

IFR to a baseline consistent with 

existing practices: for modelers, the 

exercise of discretion by FAA (not 

requiring registration), and for nonmodelers, registration via part 47 in the 

paper-based system. We also calculate 

the costs of the rejected alternative: 

requiring modelers and non-modelers 

alike to register aircraft via the paperbased system. 

In order to compare the costs of this 

rule to this baseline, the FAA estimated 

the costs of registering sUAS aircraft 

under the web-based registration system 

resulting from this part 48 rulemaking 

(the IFR). The two populations, 

modelers and non-modelers, have 

slightly different processes as noted in 

this evaluation. In all of these scenarios, 

sUAS weighing 0.55 pounds or less are 

excluded from registration. In these 

analyses, we estimate the private-sector 

compliance costs and government costs 

for each scenario. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED COSTS AND BENEFITS ($M) 

Year Calendar year 

Total cost 

Difference 7% P.V. 

Baseline IFR 

0 ......................................................................................... 2015 $ 0.0 $ 5.5 ¥$ 5.5 ¥$ 5 .47 

1 ......................................................................................... 2016 21.3 6.3 15.0 14 .00 

2 ......................................................................................... 2017 86.5 8.3 78.1 68 .25 

3 ......................................................................................... 2018 89.0 12.1 76.9 62 .77 

4 ......................................................................................... 2019 91.6 11.6 80.0 61 .03 

5 ......................................................................................... 2020 94.2 11.8 82.5 58 .79 

Total ............................................................................ ........................ 382.5 55.6 327.0 259 .4 

Note: numbers may not add due to rounding. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

All owners of small unmanned 

aircraft which weigh more than 0.55 

pounds and less than 55 pounds on 

takeoff. 

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 registrations 

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 scurve analysis for non-commercial 

applications. This forecast was then 

adjusted to obtain the number of 

modelers and the number of nonmodeler 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 term 

‘‘commercial owner’’ or ‘‘non-modeler’’ 

means the owner of a small unmanned 

aircraft used for non-model aircraft 

purposes. 

• For non-modelers, we 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 intensively. 

These assumptions are based on 

manufacturers’ information. 

• Unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 

pounds or less are excluded from the 

registrations forecast. We assume 20 

percent of the sales forecast will be 

unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 

pounds or less. 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 analysis 

period. SUAS flown exclusively indoors 

need not be registered. FAA assumes 

most sUAS over 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 registered in Period 0 or 

2015. 

• Most non-modelers will register 

their aircraft after the FAA has finalized 

the sUAS Operation and Certification 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78641 

48See Supporting Statement, OMB 2120–0042 

Aircraft Registration Including Assignment and 

Cancellation of U.S. Identification Marks 

49The 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 nonmodelers 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 (Washington DC, 2015). 

NPRM, anticipated to go into effect in 

June 2016. 

• On average, model aircraft owners 

are assumed to own an average fleet size 

of 1.5 sUAS. 

• 80 percent of model aircraft owners 

replace each aircraft as it is destroyed. 

(In other words, 20 percent of modelers 

drop out of the hobby each year). 

• On average, non-model sUAS 

owners are assumed to own 2 aircraft at 

a time. Every year all of the non-model 

sUAS owners go through the registration 

system replacing their two aircraft. 

Time 

• The estimated time to register an 

aircraft via the part 47 (paper-based 

system) system is 30 minutes.48

• The estimated time for a model 

aircraft owner to establish an online 

account and register an aircraft, under 

this rulemaking, is estimated to take 5 

minutes; a registration renewal for these 

owners is also estimated to take 5 

minutes. The bulk of this time includes 

reading and acknowledging basic safety 

information presented during the 

registration process. 

• The estimated time for a nonmodeler registrant to establish an online 

account and register two small 

unmanned aircraft is 7 minutes; 5 

minutes to establish an account plus 1 

minute per small unmanned aircraft. 

• The estimated time for a nonmodeler registrant to de-register each 

aircraft is three minutes. 

• The time for an owner to mark an 

aircraft with its registration number is 

de minimis. 

• The analysis assumes that all sUAS 

owners will comply with the 

registration processes considered in the 

regulatory analysis (part 47 baseline 

system and the web-based systems 

resulting from this part 48 rulemaking). 

Costs 

• The FAA assigns an hourly value of 

$19.13 per hour for the value of time for 

model aircraft registrants and $24.89 per 

hour for the value of time for nonmodeler registrants in 2015. These 

hourly values are in 2013 dollars 

adjusted to reflect the growth of real 

changes in median household income 

over the analysis interval. 49

• FAA estimates that its costs are $22 

for the registration of an aircraft in the 

current paper-based system. This 

estimate is based on an internal cost 

model developed by FAA’s Civil 

Aviation Registry for managerial 

purposes. 

• FAA cost information for the 

streamlined, web-based registrations 

was developed based on cost models 

and FAA data. Costs for the web-based 

system include startup costs, costs to 

provide interfaces for retailers and 

manufacturers, the cost of providing for 

public search function based on the 

unique identifier, the cost of providing 

for law enforcement access, and 

maintenance costs, whether incurred by 

FAA personnel or FAA’s contractors. 

We do not include costs for 

manufacturers or retailers to provide 

information to the registration system or 

to change packaging as those are 

voluntary actions. FAA expects that 

retailers will make point-of-sale 

interfaces available in the future. 

• As is standard practice, FAA does 

not include costs of enforcement of this 

rule. 

Safety 

• We assume this regulation does not 

affect the levels of FAA manpower or 

resources expended on UAS safety 

education and outreach but it will allow 

the FAA to target those efforts, making 

those on-going efforts more effective. 

• We do not attempt to quantify any 

safety benefit from this regulation. (See 

‘‘Qualitative Benefits’’ section in the 

Regulatory Evaluation for further 

discussion). 

Fees 

• The fee to register an aircraft under 

part 48, as well as in the current paperbased system in part 47, is $5. This fee 

is required by statute and is based on an 

estimate of the costs of the system and 

services associated with aircraft 

registration. If actual costs for the webbased system are known before a final 

rule is issued, we will adjust the fee 

accordingly in the final rule. If not, we 

will continue to monitor and determine 

the actual costs and adjust the fee in a 

subsequent rulemaking. FAA notes that 

under part 47, the registration fee using 

the paper-based system is $5 per 

aircraft. FAA has begun a rulemaking to 

update this fee based on current costs. 

(Aircraft Registration and Airmen 

Certification Fees, RIN 2120–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 system and provide 

the registration service. Model aircraft 

owners will pay $5 to register and will 

be assigned a unique identifier that can 

be marked on the owner’s entire fleet of 

model aircraft. Model aircraft owners 

will be required to renew their 

registration every 3 years and pay a $5 

fee. There would be no charge for deregistration. Fees will be adjusted based 

on actual costs. 

• Non-modeler aircraft owners will 

also pay a $5 fee to establish an online 

account and register an initial aircraft in 

the new web-based system. They will 

also pay a $5 fee to add each additional 

sUAS to their existing account. Aircraft 

must be re-registered after three years, 

but as noted above, FAA expects very 

few, if any, sUAS to last that long. Nonmodeler aircraft owners will not pay a 

fee to de-register a sUAS. 

• Government fees and taxes are 

considered transfers and, by Office of 

Management and Budget guidance, 

transfers are not considered a societal 

cost. These transfers are estimated 

separately from the costs and benefits of 

this IFR. The FAA acknowledges fees 

and transfers can create incentives for 

behavior change. 

Costs of This Rule 

TABLE 6—COST SUMMARY

[$M] 

Year Calendar 

year 

Total cost Total costs 7% P.V. 

Baseline Interim final 

rule 

Rejected 

alternative Baseline Interim final rule 

Rejected 

alternative 

0 ....................................................... 2015 $ 0.0 $ 5.5 $ 44.2 $ 0.0 $ 5.5 $ 44.2 

1 ....................................................... 2016 21.3 6.3 65.1 19.9 5.9 60.9 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78642 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6—COST SUMMARY—Continued 

[$M] 

Year Calendar 

year 

Total cost Total costs 7% P.V. 

Baseline Interim final 

rule 

Rejected 

alternative Baseline Interim final rule 

Rejected 

alternative 

2 ....................................................... 2017 86.5 8.3 140.6 75.5 7.3 122.8 

3 ....................................................... 2018 89.0 12.1 155.7 72.6 9.9 127.1 

4 ....................................................... 2019 91.6 11.6 173.9 69.9 8.8 132.7 

5 ....................................................... 2020 94.2 11.8 195.9 67.2 8.4 139.6 

Total .......................................... .................... 382.5 55.6 775.4 305.1 45.7 627.3 

Totals may not add due to rounding. 

Benefits of This Rule 

In this section, we discuss beneficial 

impacts to the non-modeler from the 

cost savings of this rule over registering 

sUAS aircraft using the baseline system. 

The cost savings offsets, by an order of 

magnitude, the new costs associated 

with modelers and non-modelers 

registering aircraft in the streamlined 

Web-based system. 

The baseline column in Table 7 shows 

the total costs for non-modelers to 

register their aircraft using the paperbased system, while modelers do not 

register their aircraft. The IFR column 

shows the total costs to FAA and 

registrants (modelers and non-modelers) 

of the new web-based system. Table 7 

shows the significant cost savings of 

subtracting the costs of registration 

between the baseline system from the 

registration costs imposed by this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 7—COST SAVINGS OF THE BASELINE VERSUS THE PART 48 RULEMAKING

[$M] 

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 77.9 62.8 

4 ........................................................................................... 2019 91.6 11.6 80.0 61.0 

5 ........................................................................................... 2020 94.2 11.8 82.5 58.8 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ 382.5 55.6 327.0 259.4 

Note: numbers may not add due to rounding. 

This IFR also brings qualitative 

benefits. Registrants will be required to 

read and acknowledge some basic safety 

information during the registration 

process. The email and mailing 

addresses provided during the 

registration process provides further 

opportunity for future targeted safety 

education and information. 

This rulemaking will improve the 

education of recreational sUAS owners 

and operators by making them aware of 

the regulatory and safety requirements 

affecting their activities. At the same 

time, it will provide essential 

educational tools to the legions of new 

and current flyers that are taking to the 

skies, so that they can use their 

unmanned aircraft safely. 

The requirement to mark the aircraft 

with the registration number links the 

owner to the aircraft; providing 

accountability should an accident, 

incident, or regulatory violation occur. 

This IFR also has the potential to benefit 

sUAS owners. In the event of a mistake 

where the aircraft flies away from the 

owner, the registration marking 

provides a means for the aircraft to be 

returned to its owner. 

Requiring aircraft registration and 

display of marking information often 

has a direct and immediate impact on 

safety-related issues. For example, 

aircraft registration and marking 

provides the FAA and law enforcement 

agencies an invaluable tool during 

inspections and investigations of 

inappropriate or prohibited behavior, as 

well as during emergency situations. 

One of the FAA’s goals is to provide the 

FAA and local law enforcement 

agencies the immediate ability to 

quickly connect individuals to their 

aircraft with the fewest number of steps 

possible. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Public Law 96–354) (RFA) establishes 

‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance 

that agencies shall endeavor, consistent 

with the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

analysis requirements are limited to 

rulemakings for which the agency ‘‘is 

required by section 553 . . . or any 

other law, to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking for any proposed 

rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).In this instance, 

the agency has determined under 

section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA that 

there is good cause for forgoing notice 

and comment for this rulemaking. Thus, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78643 

compliance with the RFA is not 

required in this instance. 

Nonetheless, the FAA believes that 

this IFR will have a positive economic 

impact on a substantial number of 

entities for the following reasons. 

Individuals using small unmanned 

aircraft exclusively as model aircraft are 

not small business entities. For owners 

of aircraft used for commercial or nonmodel purposes, the $5 registration fee 

per small unmanned aircraft under this 

IFR is the same as what was proposed 

under the sUAS Operation and 

Certification NPRM. However this IFR 

reduces the burden for these small 

entities to register their small unmanned 

aircraft as compared to the current 

paper-based FAA registration system. 

Thus, due to the relieving nature of this 

IFR, there will be a positive economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Public Law 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public 

Law 103–465), prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this IFR and 

determined that it has a legitimate 

domestic objective—the protection of 

safety—and does not operate in a 

manner that excludes imports that meet 

this objective. Further, it is not an 

unnecessary obstacle because currently, 

there is no foreign registry that the FAA 

can recognize and the other 

requirements (compliance with 

provisions of part 48) impose no greater 

burden than that which is imposed on 

U.S. citizens. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This IFR does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This action contains the following 

new information collection. As required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has 

submitted this information collection to 

OMB for its review. 

Summary: Persons owning small 

unmanned aircraft, whether intended to 

be used as model aircraft or as other 

than model aircraft, are required to 

register those aircraft with the FAA 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44101–44103. 

Persons may register small unmanned 

aircraft pursuant to the requirements of 

14 CFR part 48 as an alternative to the 

registration requirements of 14 CFR part 

47. Aircraft registration is necessary to 

ensure personal accountability among 

all users of the national airspace system. 

Aircraft registration also allows the FAA 

and law enforcement agencies to 

address non-compliance by providing 

the means by which to identify an 

aircraft’s owner and operator. 

Use: Information will be used to 

identify small unmanned aircraft 

owners and to provide educational 

information regarding use of small 

unmanned aircraft in the national 

airspace system. 

Respondents (including number of): 

See Table 8. 

Frequency: As needed. Persons will 

register small unmanned aircraft prior to 

operation and, if they continue to own 

the aircraft, will renew registration 

every three years thereafter. 

Annual Burden Estimate: For the 

modelers and non-modelers, the 

following table shows the total number 

of modelers, their time, and their costs 

to fill out the on-line system and register 

plus the time to re-register and for the 

non-modelers, the number of total 

respondents (small unmanned aircraft), 

their time to fill out the online system 

and register, the time to register each of 

their small unmanned aircraft, and their 

time de-register their aircraft after they 

retire their aircraft. There are no costs 

associated with this information 

collection aside from the time spent to 

complete registration. 

TABLE 8—AVERAGE ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

[Years 0–5 (6 Years)] 

Category 

Number of 

responses 

(M) 

Minutes per 

response Frequency Hours (000) 

Modeler 

Owner Registration ............................................... 0.57 5 1 time ......................................................... 47.8 

Owner Re-Registration ......................................... 0.16 5 Every 3 years ............................................ 12.9 

Non-Modeler 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration ................. 1.82 3 .5 1 Time ........................................................ 121.9 

Small Unmanned Aircraft De-Registration ........... 1.66 3 1 Time ........................................................ 69.0 

Rows may not sum due to rounding. 

The agency is soliciting comments 

to— 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of collecting 

information on those who are to 

respond, including by using appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Individuals and organizations may 

send comments on the information 

collection requirement to the address 

listed in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this preamble by January 

15, 2016. Comments also should be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk 

Officer for FAA, New Executive Office 

Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. In the 

instance of this rulemaking, the FAA 

does not intend to comply with 

international standards. The registration 

and marking requirements in this IFR 

apply only to operations within the 

United States. The agency will file 

differences as is appropriate. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

X. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this 

immediately adopted final rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. The agency 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this immediately 

adopted final rule under Executive 

Order 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(May 18, 2001). The agency has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under the executive 

order and it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policy and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609, Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation. The FAA has 

analyzed this action under the policies 

and agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

XI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained via the 

Internet by— 

Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

Access the Government Publishing 

Office’s Web page at: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9677. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

14 CFR Part 45 

Aircraft, Signs and symbols. 

14 CFR Part 47 

Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 48 

Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Signs and symbols, Small 

unmanned aircraft, Unmanned aircraft. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 375 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aircraft, Foreign relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701. 

■ 2. In § 1.1, add the definitions of 

‘‘Model aircraft’’, ‘‘Small unmanned 

aircraft’’, ‘‘Small unmanned aircraft 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78645 

system’’, and ‘‘Unmanned aircraft’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Model aircraft means an unmanned 

aircraft that is: 

(1) Capable of sustained flight in the 

atmosphere; 

(2) Flown within visual line of sight 

of the person operating the aircraft; and 

(3) Flown for hobby or recreational 

purposes. 

* * * * * 

Small unmanned aircraft means an 

unmanned aircraft weighing less than 

55 pounds on takeoff, including 

everything that is on board or otherwise 

attached to the aircraft. 

Small unmanned aircraft system 

(small UAS) means a small unmanned 

aircraft and its associated elements 

(including communication links and the 

components that control the small 

unmanned aircraft) that are required for 

the safe and efficient operation of the 

small unmanned aircraft in the national 

airspace system. 

* * * * * 

Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft 

operated without the possibility of 

direct human intervention from within 

or on the aircraft. 

* * * * * 

PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND 

REGISTRATION MARKING 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 45 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40113–40114, 44101–44105, 44107–44111, 

44504, 44701, 44708–44709, 44711–44713, 

44725, 45302–45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 

47122. 

■ 4. In § 45.1, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 45.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) Nationality and registration 

marking of aircraft registered in the 

United States in accordance with part 

47. 

PART 47—AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 47 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 4 U.S.T. 1830; Public Law 108– 

297, 118 Stat. 1095 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note, 49 

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

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

44703–44704, 44713, 45302, 45305, 46104, 

46301. 

■ 6. Revise § 47.2 to read as follows: 

§ 47.2 Definitions. 

The following are definitions of terms 

used in this part: 

Citizen of the United States or U.S. 

citizen means one of the following: 

(1) An individual who is a citizen of 

the United States or one of its 

possessions. 

(2) A partnership each of whose 

partners is an individual who is a 

citizen of the United States. 

(3) A corporation or association 

organized under the laws of the United 

States or a State, the District of 

Columbia, or a territory or possession of 

the United States, of which the 

president and at least two-thirds of the 

board of directors and other managing 

officers are citizens of the United States, 

which is under the actual control of 

citizens of the United States, and in 

which at least 75 percent of the voting 

interest is owned or controlled by 

persons that are citizens of the United 

States. 

Registry means the FAA, Civil 

Aviation Registry, Aircraft Registration 

Branch. 

Resident alien means an individual 

citizen of a foreign country lawfully 

admitted for permanent residence in the 

United States as an immigrant in 

conformity with the regulations of the 

Department of Homeland Security (8 

CFR Chapter 1). 

■ 7. In § 47.3, revise paragraph (b)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 47.3 Registration required. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Is an aircraft of the Armed Forces 

of the United States. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 47.7, Revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 47.7 United States citizens and resident 

aliens. 

* * * * * 

(b) Resident aliens. An applicant for 

aircraft registration under 49 U.S.C. 

44102 who is a resident alien must 

furnish a representation of permanent 

residence and the applicant’s alien 

registration number issued by the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Add part 48 to read as follows: 

PART 48—REGISTRATION AND 

MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR 

SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

48.1 Applicability. 

48.5 Compliance dates. 

48.10 Definitions. 

48.15 Requirement to register. 

48.20 Eligibility for registration. 

48.25 Applicants. 

48.30 Fees. 

Subpart B—Certificates of Aircraft 

Registration for Small Unmanned Aircraft 

48.100 Application. 

48.105 Requirement to maintain current 

information. 

48.110 Registration: Persons intending to 

use small unmanned aircraft for 

purposes other than as model aircraft. 

48.115 Registration: Individuals intending 

to use the small unmanned aircraft 

exclusively as a model aircraft. 

48.120 Invalid registration. 

48.125 Foreign civil aircraft. 

Subpart C—Aircraft Marking 

48.200 General. 

48.205 Display and location of unique 

identifier. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 

40103, 40113–40114, 41703, 44101–44103, 

44105–44106, 44110–44113, 45302, 45305, 

46104, 46301, 46306. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 48.1 Applicability. 

(a) This part provides registration and 

identification requirements for small 

unmanned aircraft that are part of a 

small unmanned aircraft system as 

defined in § 1.1 of this chapter. 

(b) Small unmanned aircraft eligible 

for registration in the United States 

must be registered and identified in 

accordance with either: 

(1) The registration and identification 

requirements in this part; or 

(2) The registration requirements in 

part 47 and the identification and 

registration marking requirements in 

subparts A and C of part 45. 

(c) Small unmanned aircraft intended 

to be operated outside of the territorial 

airspace of the United States, or 

registered through a trust or voting trust, 

must be registered in accordance with 

subparts A and B of part 47 and satisfy 

the identification and registration 

marking requirements of subparts A and 

C of part 45. 

§ 48.5 Compliance dates. 

(a) Small unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively as model aircraft. For small 

unmanned aircraft operated by the 

current owner prior to December 21, 

2015, compliance with the requirements 

of this part or part 47 is required no 

later than February 19, 2016. For all 

other small unmanned aircraft, 

compliance with this part is required 

prior to operation of the small 

unmanned aircraft. 

(b) Small unmanned aircraft used as 

other than model aircraft. Small 

unmanned aircraft owners authorized to 

conduct operations other than model 

aircraft operations must register the 

small unmanned aircraft in accordance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

with part 47 of this chapter. Beginning 

March 31, 2016, small unmanned 

aircraft operated as other than model 

aircraft may complete aircraft 

registration in accordance with this part. 

§ 48.10 Definitions. 

For purposes of this part, the 

following definitions apply: 

Citizen of the United States or U.S. 

citizen means one of the following: 

(1) An individual who is a citizen of 

the United States or one of its 

possessions. 

(2) A partnership each of whose 

partners is an individual who is a 

citizen of the United States. 

(3) A corporation or association 

organized under the laws of the United 

States or a State, the District of 

Columbia, or a territory or possession of 

the United States, of which the 

president and at least two-thirds of the 

board of directors and other managing 

officers are citizens of the United States, 

which is under the actual control of 

citizens of the United States, and in 

which at least 75 percent of the voting 

interest is owned or controlled by 

persons that are citizens of the United 

States. 

Registry means the FAA, Civil 

Aviation Registry, Aircraft Registration 

Branch. 

Resident alien means an individual 

citizen of a foreign country lawfully 

admitted for permanent residence in the 

United States as an immigrant in 

conformity with the regulations of the 

Department of Homeland Security (8 

CFR Chapter 1). 

§ 48.15 Requirement to register. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft that is eligible for 

registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101– 

44103 unless one of the following 

criteria has been satisfied: 

(a) The owner has registered and 

marked the aircraft in accordance with 

this part; 

(b) The aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or 

less on takeoff, including everything 

that is on board or otherwise attached to 

the aircraft; or 

(c) The aircraft is an aircraft of the 

Armed Forces of the United States. 

§ 48.20 Eligibility for registration. 

A small unmanned aircraft may be 

registered under 49 U.S.C. 44103 and 

under this part only when the aircraft is 

not registered under the laws of a 

foreign country and is— 

(a) Owned by a U.S. citizen; 

(b) Owned by an individual citizen of 

a foreign country lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence in the United 

States; 

(c) Owned by a corporation not a 

citizen of the United States when the 

corporation is organized and doing 

business under the laws of the United 

States or a State within the United 

States, and the aircraft is based and 

primarily used in the United States; or 

(d) An aircraft of— 

(1) The United States Government; or 

(2) A State, the District of Columbia, 

a territory or possession of the United 

States, or a political subdivision of a 

State, territory, or possession. 

§ 48.25 Applicants. 

(a) To register a small unmanned 

aircraft in the United States under this 

part, a person must provide the 

information required by § 48.100 to the 

Registry in the form and manner 

prescribed by the Administrator. Upon 

submission of this information, the FAA 

issues a Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration to that person. 

(b) A small unmanned aircraft must 

be registered by its owner using the 

legal name of its owner, unless the 

owner is less than 13 years of age. If the 

owner is less than 13 years of age, then 

the small unmanned aircraft must be 

registered by a person who is at least 13 

years of age. 

(c) In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

44103(c), registration is not evidence of 

aircraft ownership in any proceeding in 

which ownership of an unmanned 

aircraft by a particular person is in 

issue. 

(d) In this part, ‘‘owner’’ includes a 

buyer in possession, a bailee, a lessee of 

a small unmanned aircraft under a 

contract of conditional sale, and the 

assignee of that person. 

§ 48.30 Fees. 

(a) The fee for issuing or renewing a 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration for 

aircraft registered in accordance with 

§ 48.100(a) is $5.00 per aircraft. 

(b) The fee for issuing or renewing a 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration for 

aircraft registered in accordance with 

§ 48.100(b) is $5.00 per certificate. 

(c) Each application for and renewal 

of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

must be accompanied by the fee 

described in paragraphs (a) and (b), as 

applicable, paid to the Federal Aviation 

Administration through the web-based 

aircraft registration system, or in 

another manner if prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

Subpart B—Certificates of Aircraft 

Registration for Small Unmanned 

Aircraft 

§ 48.100 Application. 

(a) Required information: Persons 

intending to use the small unmanned 

aircraft as other than a model aircraft. 

Each applicant for a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration issued under this 

part must submit all of the following 

information to the Registry: 

(1) Applicant name and, for an 

applicant other than an individual, the 

name of the authorized representative 

applying for a Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration. 

(2) Applicant’s physical address and, 

for an applicant other than an 

individual, the physical address for the 

authorized representative. If the 

applicant or authorized representative 

does not receive mail at their physical 

address, a mailing address must also be 

provided. 

(3) Applicant’s email address or, for 

applicants other than individuals, the 

email address of the authorized 

representative. 

(4) The aircraft manufacturer and 

model name. 

(5) The aircraft serial number, if 

available. 

(6) Other information as required by 

the Administrator. 

(b) Required information: Individuals 

intending to use the small unmanned 

aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft. 

Each applicant for a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration issued under this 

part must submit all of the following 

information to the Registry: 

(1) Applicant name. 

(2) Applicant’s physical address and 

if the applicant does not receive mail at 

their physical address, a mailing 

address must also be provided. 

(3) Applicant’s email address. 

(4) Other information as required by 

the Administrator. 

(c) Provision of information. The 

information identified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section must be 

submitted to the Registry through the 

Web-based small unmanned aircraft 

registration system in a form and 

manner prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

(d) Issuance of Certificate of Aircraft 

registration. The FAA will issue a 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration upon 

completion of the application 

requirements provided in paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section as applicable. 

§ 48.105 Requirement to maintain current 

information. 

(a) The holder of a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration must ensure that 

the information provided under § 48.100 

remains accurate. 

(b) The holder of a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration must update the 

information using the web-based small 

unmanned aircraft registration system 

within 14 calendar days of the 

following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78647 

(1) A change in the information 

provided under § 48.100. 

(2) When aircraft registration requires 

cancellation for any reason including 

sale or transfer, destruction, or export. 

§ 48.110 Registration: Persons intending 

to use small unmanned aircraft for 

purposes other than as model aircraft. 

(a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration. 

A Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

issued in accordance with § 48.100 for 

aircraft used for purposes other than as 

model aircraft constitutes registration 

only for the small unmanned aircraft 

identified on the application. 

(b) Effective date of registration. An 

aircraft is registered when the applicant 

receives a Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration for the specific aircraft. The 

effective date of registration is shown by 

the date of issue on the Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration issued for the 

aircraft. 

(c) Registration renewal. A Certificate 

of Aircraft registration issued under this 

part expires 3 years after the date of 

issue unless it is renewed. 

(1) The holder of a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration must renew the 

Certificate by verifying, in a form and 

manner prescribed by the 

Administrator, that the information 

provided in accordance with § 48.100 of 

this subpart is accurate and if it is not, 

provide updated information. The 

verification may take place at any time 

within the six months preceding the 

month in which the Certificate of 

Aircraft registration expires. 

(2) A certificate issued under this 

paragraph expires three years from the 

expiration date of the previous 

certificate. 

(d) Other events affecting 

effectiveness of Certificate. Each 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

issued by the FAA under this subpart is 

effective, unless registration has ended 

by reason of having been revoked, 

canceled, expired, or the ownership is 

transferred, until the date upon which 

one of the following events occurs: 

(1) Subject to the Convention on the 

International Recognition of Rights in 

Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is 

registered under the laws of a foreign 

country. 

(2) The small unmanned aircraft is 

totally destroyed or scrapped. 

(3) The holder of the Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration loses U.S. 

citizenship. 

(4) Thirty days have elapsed since the 

death of the holder of the Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration. 

(5) The owner, if an individual who 

is not a citizen of the United States, 

loses status as a resident alien, unless 

that person becomes a citizen of the 

United States at the same time. 

(6) The owner is a corporation other 

than a corporation which is a citizen of 

the United States and one of the 

following events occurs: 

(i) The corporation ceases to be 

lawfully organized and doing business 

under the laws of the United States or 

any State thereof; or 

(ii) The aircraft was not operated 

exclusively within the United States 

during the period of registration under 

this part. 

§ 48.115 Registration: Individuals 

intending to use small unmanned aircraft 

exclusively as a model aircraft. 

(a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration: 

A Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

issued in accordance with § 48.100 for 

small unmanned aircraft used 

exclusively as model aircraft constitutes 

registration for all small unmanned 

aircraft used exclusively as model 

aircraft owned by the individual 

identified on the application. 

(b) Effective date of registration. An 

aircraft is registered when the applicant 

receives a Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration. The effective date of 

registration is shown by the date of 

issue on the Certificate of Aircraft 

Registration issued under this part. 

(c) Registration renewal. A Certificate 

of Aircraft registration issued under this 

part expires 3 years after the date of 

issue unless it is renewed. 

(1) The holder of a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration must renew the 

Certificate by verifying, in a form and 

manner prescribed by the 

Administrator, that the information 

provided in accordance with § 48.100(b) 

and (c) of this part is accurate and if it 

is not, provide updated information. 

The verification may take place at any 

time within the six months preceding 

the month in which the Certificate of 

Aircraft registration expires. 

(2) A certificate issued under this 

paragraph expires three years from the 

expiration date of the previous 

certificate. 

(d) Other events affecting 

effectiveness of Certificate. Each 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

issued by the FAA under this part is 

effective, unless registration has ended 

by reason of having been revoked, 

canceled or expired, or until the date 

upon which one of the following events 

occurs: 

(1) The holder of the Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration loses U.S. 

citizenship. 

(2) Thirty days have elapsed since the 

death of the holder of the Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration. 

(3) The owner, if an individual who 

is not a citizen of the United States, 

loses status as a resident alien, unless 

that person becomes a citizen of the 

United States at the same time. 

§ 48.120 Invalid registration. 

The registration of a small unmanned 

aircraft is invalid if, at the time it is 

made— 

(a) The aircraft is registered in a 

foreign country; 

(b) The applicant is not the owner, 

except when the applicant registers on 

behalf of an owner who is under 13 

years of age; 

(c) The applicant is not eligible to 

submit an application under this part; or 

(d) The interest of the applicant in the 

aircraft was created by a transaction that 

was not entered into in good faith, but 

rather was made to avoid (with or 

without the owner’s knowledge) 

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44101– 

44103. 

§ 48.125 Foreign civil aircraft. 

Except for corporations eligible to 

register under § 48.20(c), the FAA will 

issue a recognition of ownership to 

persons required to comply with the 

provisions of this part pursuant to an 

authorization to operate issued under 

part 375 of this title. The recognition of 

ownership does not have the effect of 

U.S. aircraft registration. 

Subpart C—Aircraft Marking 

§ 48.200 General. 

(a) No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft registered in 

accordance with this part unless the 

aircraft displays a unique identifier in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 48.205 of this subpart. 

(b) A unique identifier is one of the 

following: 

(1) The registration number issued to 

an individual or the registration number 

issued to the aircraft by the Registry 

upon completion of the registration 

process provided by this part; or 

(2) If authorized by the Administrator 

and provided with the application for 

Certificate of Aircraft Registration under 

§ 48.100 of this part, the small 

unmanned aircraft serial number. 

§ 48.205 Display and location of unique 

identifier. 

(a) The unique identifier must be 

maintained in a condition that is legible. 

(b) The unique identifier must be 

affixed to the small unmanned aircraft 

by any means necessary to ensure that 

it will remain affixed for the duration of 

each operation. 

(c) The unique identifier must be 

readily accessible and visible upon 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
78648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

inspection of the small unmanned 

aircraft. A unique identifier enclosed in 

a compartment is readily accessible if it 

can be accessed without the use of any 

tool. 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 

44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 

44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 

46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 

47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation 

(61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 11. In § 91.203, revise paragraph (a)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications 

required. 

(a) * * * 

(2) An effective U.S. registration 

certificate issued to its owner or, for 

operation within the United States, the 

second copy of the Aircraft registration 

Application as provided for in 

§ 47.31(c), a Certificate of Aircraft 

registration as provided in part 48, or a 

registration certification issued under 

the laws of a foreign country. 

* * * * * 

PART 375—NAVIGATION OF FOREIGN 

CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE UNITED 

STATES 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 375 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40102, 40103, and 

41703. 

■ 13. Revise § 375.11 to read as follows: 

§ 375.11 Other Foreign Civil Aircraft. 

A foreign civil aircraft, including 

unmanned aircraft as defined in § 1.1 of 

this title, other than those referred to in 

§ 375.10 may be navigated in the United 

States only when: 

(a) The operation is authorized by the 

Department under the provisions of this 

part, and 

(b) The aircraft complies with any 

applicable airworthiness standards of 

the Federal Aviation Administration for 

its operation. 

■ 14. Add § 375.38 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 375.38 Other foreign civil aircraft: Small 

unmanned aircraft operated exclusively as 

model aircraft. 

Foreign civil aircraft that are small 

unmanned aircraft used exclusively as 

model aircraft may be operated in the 

United States only when the individual: 

(a) Completes the registration process 

in accordance with §§ 48.30, 48.100(b) 

and (c), 48.105, and 48.115 of this title; 

(b) Identifies the aircraft in 

accordance with the aircraft marking 

requirements in §§ 48.200 and 48.205 of 

this title; and 

(c) Complies with the requirements of 

Sec. 336 of Pub. L. 112–95 (Feb. 14, 

2012). 

Issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 

106(f), 41703, 44101–44103, in Washington, 

DC on December 14, 2015. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31750 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3