9544 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1The primary authority for this rulemaking is 

based on section 333 of Public Law 112–95 (Feb. 

14, 2012). In addition, this rulemaking also relies 

on FAA statutory authorities. Thus, for the 

purposes of this rulemaking, the terms ‘‘FAA,’’ ‘‘the 

agency,’’ ‘‘DOT,’’ and ‘‘the Secretary,’’ are used 

synonymously throughout this document. 

2Public Law 112–95, section 333(c). In addition, 

Public Law 112–95, section 332(b)(1) requires the 

Secretary to issue ‘‘a final rule on small unmanned 

aircraft systems that will allow for civil operation 

of such systems in the national airspace system, to 

the extent the systems do not meet the requirements 

for expedited operational authorization under 

sections 333 of [Pub. L. 112–95].’’ 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 21, 43, 45, 47, 61, 91, 101, 

107, and 183 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–0150; Notice No. 

15–01] 

RIN 2120–AJ60 

Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to 

amend its regulations to adopt specific 

rules to allow the operation of small 

unmanned aircraft systems in the 

National Airspace System. These 

changes would address the operation of 

unmanned aircraft systems, certification 

of their operators, registration, and 

display of registration markings. The 

proposed rule would also find that 

airworthiness certification is not 

required for small unmanned aircraft 

system operations that would be subject 

to this proposed rule. Lastly, the 

proposed rule would prohibit model 

aircraft from endangering the safety of 

the National Airspace System. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

April 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–0150 

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 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

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: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Lance Nuckolls, Office of 

Aviation Safety, Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Integration Office, AFS–80, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 490 

L’Enfant Plaza East, SW., Suite 3200, 

Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 

267–8447; email UAS-rule@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Alex Zektser, Office of 

Chief Counsel, International Law, 

Legislation, and Regulations Division, 

AGC–220, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3073; email 

Alex.Zektser@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (Public Law 112–95). Section 333 

of Public Law 112–95 directs the 

Secretary of Transportation 1 to 

determine whether ‘‘certain unmanned 

aircraft systems may operate safely in 

the national airspace system.’’ If the 

Secretary determines, pursuant to 

section 333, that certain unmanned 

aircraft systems may operate safely in 

the national airspace system, then the 

Secretary must ‘‘establish requirements 

for the safe operation of such aircraft 

systems in the national airspace 

system.’’ 2

This rulemaking is also promulgated 

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

(2), which charge the FAA with issuing 

regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of 

aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; 

and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for 

purposes of navigating, protecting and 

identifying aircraft, and protecting 

individuals and property on the ground. 

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

charges the FAA with prescribing 

regulations that the FAA finds necessary 

for safety in air commerce and national 

security. 

Finally, the model-aircraft component 

of this rulemaking incorporates the 

statutory mandate in section 336(b) that 

preserves the FAA’s authority, under 49 

U.S.C. 40103(b) and 44701(a)(5), to 

pursue enforcement ‘‘against persons 

operating model aircraft who endanger 

the safety of the national airspace 

system.’’ 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

AC Advisory Circular 

AGL Above Ground Level 

ACR Airman Certification Representative 

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

CAFTA–DR Dominican Republic-Central 

America-United States Free Trade Agreement 

CAR Civil Air Regulation 

CFI Certified Flight Instructor 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COA Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization 

DPE Designated Pilot Examiner 

FR Federal Register 

FSDO Flight Standards District Office 

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

NAFTA North American Free Trade 

Agreement 

NAS National Airspace System 

NOTAM Notice to Airmen 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTSB National Transportation Safety 

Board 

PIC Pilot in Command 

Pub. L. Public Law 

PMA Parts Manufacturer Approval 

TFR Temporary Flight Restriction 

TSA Transportation Security 

Administration 

TSO Technical Standard Order 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

U.S.C. United States Code 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the 

Regulatory Action 

C. Costs and Benefits 

II. Background 

A. Analysis of Public Risk Posed by Small 

UAS Operations 

B. Current Statutory and Regulatory 

Structure Governing Small UAS 

C. Integrating Small UAS Operations Into 

the NAS 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Incremental Approach and Privacy 

B. Applicability 

1. Air Carrier Operations 

2. External Load and Towing Operations 

3. International Operations 

4. Foreign-Owned Aircraft That Are 

Ineligible for U.S. Registration 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9545 

3Public Law 112–95, sec. 331(6). 

5. Public Aircraft Operations 

6. Model Aircraft 

7. Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur 

Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons 

C. Definitions 

1. Control Station 

2. Corrective Lenses 

3. Operator and Visual Observer 

4. Small Unmanned Aircraft 

5. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (small 

UAS) 

6. Unmanned Aircraft 

D. Operating Rules 

1. Micro UAS Classification 

2. Operator and Visual Observer 

i. Operator 

ii. Visual Observer 

3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility 

Requirements 

i. See-and-Avoid 

ii. Additional Visibility Requirements 

iii. Yielding Right of Way 

4. Containment and Loss of Positive 

Control 

i. Confined Area of Operation Boundaries 

ii. Mitigating Loss-of-Positive-Control Risk 

5. Limitations on Operations in Certain 

Airspace 

i. Controlled Airspace 

ii. Prohibited or Restricted Areas 

iii. Areas Designated by Notice to Airmen 

6. Airworthiness, Inspection, Maintenance, 

and Airworthiness Directives 

i. Inspections and Maintenance 

ii. Airworthiness Directives 

7. Miscellaneous Operating Provisions 

i. Careless or Reckless Operation 

ii. Drug and Alcohol Prohibition 

iii. Medical Conditions 

iv. Sufficient Power for the Small UAS 

v. Registration and Marking 

E. Operator Certificate 

1. Applicability 

2. Unmanned Aircraft Operator 

Certificate—Eligibility & Issuance 

i. Minimum Age 

ii. English Language Proficiency 

iii. Pilot Qualification 

a. Flight Proficiency and Aeronautical 

Experience 

b. Initial Aeronautical Knowledge Test 

c. Areas of Knowledge Tested on the Initial 

Knowledge Test 

d. Administration of the Initial Knowledge 

Test 

e. Recurrent Aeronautical Knowledge Test 

i. General Requirement and Administration 

of the Recurrent Knowledge Test 

ii. Recurrent Test Areas of Knowledge 

iv. Issuance of an Unmanned Aircraft 

Operator Certificate With Small UAS 

Rating 

v. Not Requiring an Airman Medical 

Certificate 

4. Military Equivalency 

5. Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate: 

Denial, Revocation, Suspension, 

Amendment, and Surrender 

i. Transportation Security Administration 

Vetting and Positive Identification 

ii. Drugs and Alcohol Violations 

iii. Change of Name 

iv. Change of Address 

v. Voluntary Surrender of Certificate 

F. Registration 

G. Marking 

1. Display of Registration Number 

2. Marking of Products and Articles 

H. Fraud and False Statements 

I. Oversight 

1. Inspection, Testing, and Demonstration 

of Compliance 

2. Accident Reporting 

J. Section 333 Statutory Findings 

1. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public 

2. National Security 

3. Airworthiness Certification 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

2. Who is potentially affected by this Rule? 

4. Benefit Summary 

5. Cost Summary 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination (IRFA) 

1. Description of Reasons the Agency Is 

Considering the Action 

2. Statement of the Legal Basis and 

Objectives for the Proposed Rule 

3. Description of the Recordkeeping and 

Other Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

4. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

5. Description and an Estimated Number of 

Small Entities To Which the Proposed 

Rule Will Apply 

6. Alternatives Considered 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. Obtaining an Unmanned Aircraft 

Operator Certificate With a Small UAS 

Rating 

2. Registering a Small Unmanned Aircraft 

3. Accident Reporting 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

G. Environmental Analysis 

H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

This rulemaking proposes operating 

requirements to allow small unmanned 

aircraft systems (small UAS) to operate 

for non-hobby or non-recreational 

purposes. A small UAS consists of a 

small unmanned aircraft (which, as 

defined by statute, is an unmanned 

aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds 3) 

and equipment necessary for the safe 

and efficient operation of that aircraft. 

The FAA has accommodated nonrecreational small UAS use through 

various mechanisms, such as special 

airworthiness certificates, exemptions, 

and certificates of waiver or 

authorization (COA). This proposed rule 

would be the next phase of integrating 

small UAS into the NAS. 

The following are examples of 

possible small UAS operations that 

could be conducted under this proposed 

framework: 

• Crop monitoring/inspection; 

• Research and development; 

• Educational/academic uses; 

• Power-line/pipeline inspection in 

hilly or mountainous terrain; 

• Antenna inspections; 

• Aiding certain rescue operations 

such as locating snow avalanche 

victims; 

• Bridge inspections; 

• Aerial photography; and 

• Wildlife nesting area evaluations. 

Because of the potential societally 

beneficial applications of small UAS, 

the FAA has been seeking to incorporate 

the operation of these systems into the 

national airspace system (NAS) since 

2008. In April 2008, the FAA chartered 

the small UAS Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC). In April 2009, the 

ARC provided the FAA with 

recommendations on how small UAS 

could be safely integrated into the NAS. 

Since that time, the FAA has been 

working on a rulemaking to incorporate 

small UAS operations into the NAS. 

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–95). Section 333 of Public 

Law 112–95 directed the Secretary to 

determine whether UAS operations 

posing the least amount of public risk 

and no threat to national security could 

safely be operated in the NAS and if so, 

to establish requirements for the safe 

operation of these systems in the NAS, 

prior to completion of the UAS 

comprehensive plan and rulemakings 

required by section 332 of Public Law 

112–95. As part of its ongoing efforts to 

integrate UAS operations in the NAS in 

accordance with section 332, and as 

authorized by section 333 of Public Law 

112–95, the FAA is proposing to amend 

its regulations to adopt specific rules for 

the operation of small UAS in the NAS. 

Based on our experience with the 

certification, exemption, and COA 

process, the FAA has developed the 

framework proposed in this rule to 

enable certain small UAS operations to 

commence upon adoption of the final 

rule and accommodate technologies as 

they evolve and mature. This proposed 

framework would allow small UAS 

operations for many different nonrecreational purposes, such as the ones 

discussed previously, without requiring 

airworthiness certification, exemption, 

or a COA. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9546 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action 

Specifically, the FAA is proposing to 

add a new part 107 to Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow 

for routine civil operation of small UAS 

in the NAS and to provide safety rules 

for those operations. Consistent with the 

statutory definition, the proposed rule 

defines small UAS as those UAS 

weighing less than 55 pounds. To 

mitigate risk, the proposed rule would 

limit small UAS to daylight-only 

operations, confined areas of operation, 

and visual-line-of-sight operations. This 

proposed rule also addresses aircraft 

registration and marking, NAS 

operations, operator certification, visual 

observer requirements, and operational 

limits in order to maintain the safety of 

the NAS and ensure that they do not 

pose a threat to national security. Below 

is a summary of the major provisions of 

the proposed rule. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED PART 107 

Operational Limitations ....................................... • Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg). 

• Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the operator or visual observer. 

• At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the operator for the 

operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than 

corrective lenses. 

• Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly involved in the operation. 

• Daylight-only operations (official sunrise to official sunset, local time). 

• Must yield right-of-way to other aircraft, manned or unmanned. 

• May use visual observer (VO) but not required. 

• First-person view camera cannot satisfy ‘‘see-and-avoid’’ requirement but can be used as 

long as requirement is satisfied in other ways. 

• Maximum airspeed of 100 mph (87 knots). 

• Maximum altitude of 500 feet above ground level. 

• Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station. 

• No operations are allowed in Class A (18,000 feet & above) airspace. 

• Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission. 

• Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission 

• No person may act as an operator or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at 

one time. 

• No operations from a moving vehicle or aircraft, except from a watercraft on the water. 

• No careless or reckless operations. 

• Requires preflight inspection by the operator. 

• A person may not operate a small unmanned aircraft if he or she knows or has reason to 

know of any physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a 

small UAS. 

• Proposes a microUAS category that would allow operations in Class G airspace, over people not involved in the operation, and would require airman to self-certify that they are familiar with the aeronautical knowledge testing areas. 

Operator Certification and Responsibilities ........ • Pilots of a small UAS would be considered ‘‘operators’’. 

• Operators would be required to: 

Æ Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center. 

Æ Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration. 

Æ Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing 

pilot airman certificates, never expires). 

Æ Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test every 24 months. 

Æ Be at least 17 years old. 

Æ Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and 

any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule. 

Æ Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or 

property damage. 

Æ Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems 

checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation. 

Aircraft Requirements ......................................... • FAA airworthiness certification not required. However, operator must maintain a small UAS 

in condition for safe operation and prior to flight must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in 

a condition for safe operation. Aircraft Registration required (same requirements that apply 

to all other aircraft). 

• Aircraft markings required (same requirements that apply to all other aircraft). If aircraft is 

too small to display markings in standard size, then the aircraft simply needs to display 

markings in the largest practicable manner. 

Model Aircraft ...................................................... • Proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in 

section 336 of Public Law 112–95. 

• The proposed rule would codify the FAA’s enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting 

model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the NAS. 

Operator Certification: Under the 

proposed rule, the person who 

manipulates the flight controls of a 

small UAS would be defined as an 

‘‘operator.’’ A small UAS operator 

would be required to pass an 

aeronautical knowledge test and obtain 

an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a small UAS rating from 

the FAA before operating a small UAS. 

In order to maintain his or her operator 

certification, the operator would be 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9547 

required to pass recurrent knowledge 

tests every 24 months subsequent to the 

initial knowledge test. These tests 

would be created by the FAA and 

administered by FAA-approved 

knowledge testing centers. Although a 

specific distant vision acuity standard is 

not being proposed, this proposed rule 

would require the operator to keep the 

small unmanned aircraft close enough 

to the control station to be capable of 

seeing that aircraft through his or her 

unaided (except for glasses or contact 

lenses) visual line of sight. The operator 

would also be required to actually 

maintain visual line of sight of the small 

unmanned aircraft if a visual observer is 

not used. 

Visual Observer: Under the proposed 

rule, an operator would not be required 

to work with a visual observer, but a 

visual observer could be used to assist 

the operator with the proposed visualline-of-sight and see-and-avoid 

requirements by maintaining constant 

visual contact with the small unmanned 

aircraft in place of the operator. While 

an operator would always be required to 

have the capability for visual line of 

sight of the small unmanned aircraft, 

this proposed rule would not require the 

operator to exercise this capability if he 

or she is augmented by at least one 

visual observer. No certification 

requirements are being proposed for 

visual observers. A small UAS operation 

would not be limited in the number of 

visual observers involved in the 

operation, but the operator and visual 

observer(s) must remain situated such 

that the operator and any visual 

observer(s) are all able to view the 

aircraft at any given time. The operator 

and visual observer(s) would be 

permitted to communicate by radio or 

other communication-assisting device, 

so they would not need to remain in 

close enough physical proximity to 

allow for unassisted oral 

communication. 

Since the operator and any visual 

observers would be required to be in a 

position to maintain or achieve visual 

line of sight with the aircraft at all 

times, the proposed rule would 

effectively prohibit a relay or ‘‘daisychain’’ formation of multiple visual 

observers by requiring that the operator 

must always be capable of seeing the 

small unmanned aircraft. Such 

arrangements would potentially expand 

the area of a small UAS operation and 

pose an increased public risk if there is 

a loss of aircraft control. 

Operational Scope: A small UAS 

operator would be required to see and 

avoid all other users of the NAS in the 

area in which the small UAS is 

operating. The proposed rule contains 

operating restrictions designed to help 

ensure that the operator is able to yield 

right-of-way to other aircraft at all times. 

The proposed rule would limit the 

exposure of small unmanned aircraft to 

other users of the NAS by restricting 

small UAS operations in controlled 

airspace. Specifically, small UAS would 

be prohibited from operating in Class A 

airspace, and would require prior 

permission from Air Traffic Control to 

operate in Class B, C, or D airspace, or 

within the lateral boundaries of the 

surface area of Class E airspace 

designated for an airport. The risk of 

collision with other aircraft would be 

further reduced by limiting small UAS 

operations to a maximum airspeed of 87 

knots (100 mph) and a maximum 

altitude of 500 feet above ground. 

Further, in order to enable maximum 

visibility for small UAS operation, the 

proposed rule would restrict small UAS 

to daylight-only operations (sunrise to 

sunset), and impose a minimum 

weather-visibility of 3 statute miles (5 

kilometers) from the small UAS control 

station. 

Aircraft Maintenance: Under the 

proposed rule, the operator of a small 

UAS would be required to conduct a 

preflight inspection before each flight 

operation, and determine that the small 

UAS (aircraft, control station, launch 

and recovery equipment, etc.) is safe for 

operation. 

Airworthiness: Pursuant to section 

333(b)(2) of Public Law 112–95, the 

Secretary has determined that small 

UAS subject to this proposed rule 

would not require airworthiness 

certification because the safety concerns 

associated with small UAS operation 

would be mitigated by the other 

provisions of this proposed rule. Rather, 

this proposed rule would require the 

operator to ensure that the small UAS is 

in a condition for safe operation by 

conducting an inspection prior to each 

flight. 

Registration and Marking: This 

proposed rule would apply to small 

unmanned aircraft the current 

registration requirements that apply to 

all aircraft. Once a small unmanned 

aircraft is registered, this proposed rule 

would require that aircraft to display its 

registration marking in a manner similar 

to what is currently required of all 

aircraft. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

This proposed rule reflects the fact 

that technological advances in small 

UAS have led to a developing 

commercial market for their uses by 

providing a safe operating environment 

for them and for other aircraft in the 

NAS. In time, the FAA anticipates that 

the proposed rule would provide an 

opportunity to substitute small UAS 

operations for some higher risk manned 

flights, such as inspecting towers, 

bridges, or other structures. The use of 

small unmanned aircraft would avert 

potential fatalities and injuries to those 

in the aircraft and on the ground. It 

would also lead to more efficient 

methods of performing certain 

commercial tasks that are currently 

performed by other methods. The FAA 

has not quantified the benefits for this 

proposed rulemaking because we lack 

sufficient data. The FAA invites 

commenters to provide data that could 

be used to quantify the benefits of this 

proposed rule. 

For any commercial operation 

occurring because this rule is enacted, 

the operator/owner of that small UAS 

will have determined the expected 

revenue stream of the flights exceeds the 

cost of the flights operation. In each 

such case this rule helps enable new 

markets to develop. 

The costs are shown in the table 

below. 

TOTAL AND PRESENT VALUE COST SUMMARY BY PROVISION

[Thousands of current year dollars] 

Type of cost Total costs 

(000) 

7% P.V. 

(000) 

Applicant/small UAS operator: 

Travel Expense ............................................................................................................................................... $151.7 $125.9 

Knowledge Test Fees ..................................................................................................................................... 2,548.6 2,114.2 

Positive Identification of the Applicant Fee .................................................................................................... 434.3 383.7 

Owner: 

Small UAS Registration Fee .......................................................................................................................... 85.7 70.0 

Time Resource Opportunity Costs: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4Sec. 331(6) of Public Law 112–95. 5 14 CFR 91.113(b). 

TOTAL AND PRESENT VALUE COST SUMMARY BY PROVISION—Continued 

[Thousands of current year dollars] 

Type of cost Total costs 

(000) 

7% P.V. 

(000) 

Applicants Travel Time ................................................................................................................................... 296.1 245.3 

Knowledge Test Application ........................................................................................................................... 108.9 90.2 

Physical Capability Certification ..................................................................................................................... 20.0 17.7 

Knowledge Test Time ..................................................................................................................................... 1,307.1 1,082.9 

Small UAS Registration Form ........................................................................................................................ 220.5 179.7 

Change of Name or Address Form ................................................................................................................ 14.9 12.3 

Knowledge Test Report .................................................................................................................................. 154.9 128.5 

Pre-flight Inspection ........................................................................................................................................ Not quantified 

Accident Reporting ......................................................................................................................................... Minimal cost 

Government Costs: 

TSA Security Vetting ...................................................................................................................................... 1,026.5 906.9 

FAA—sUAS Operating Certificate .................................................................................................................. 39.6 35.0 

FAA—Registration .......................................................................................................................................... 394.3 321.8 

Total Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 6,803.1 5,714.0 

* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding. 

II. Background 

This NPRM addresses the operation, 

airman certification, and registration of 

civil small UAS. 

A small UAS consists of a small 

unmanned aircraft and associated 

elements that are necessary for the safe 

and efficient operation of that aircraft in 

the NAS. Associated elements that are 

necessary for the safe and efficient 

operation of the aircraft include the 

interface that is used to control the 

small unmanned aircraft (known as a 

control station) and communication 

links between the control station and 

the small unmanned aircraft. A small 

unmanned aircraft is defined by statute 

as ‘‘an unmanned aircraft weighing less 

than 55 pounds.’’ 4 Due to the size of a 

small unmanned aircraft, the FAA 

envisions considerable potential 

business and non-business applications, 

particularly in areas that are hard to 

reach for a manned aircraft. 

The following are examples of 

possible small UAS operations that 

could be conducted under this proposed 

framework: 

• Crop monitoring/inspection; 

• Research and development; 

• Educational/academic uses; 

• Power-line/pipeline inspection in 

hilly or mountainous terrain; 

• Antenna inspections; 

• Aiding certain rescue operations 

such as locating snow avalanche 

victims; 

• Bridge inspections; 

• Aerial photography; and 

• Wildlife nesting area evaluations. 

The following sections discuss: (1) 

The public risk associated with small 

UAS operations; (2) the current legal 

framework governing small UAS 

operations; and (3) the FAA’s ongoing 

efforts to incorporate small UAS 

operations into the NAS. 

A. Analysis of Public Risk Posed by 

Small UAS Operations 

Small UAS operations pose risk 

considerations that are different from 

the risk considerations associated with 

manned-aircraft operations. On one 

hand, certain operations of a small 

unmanned aircraft, discussed more fully 

in section III.D of this preamble, have 

the potential to pose significantly less 

risk to persons and property than 

comparable operations of a manned 

aircraft. The typical total takeoff weight 

of a general aviation aircraft is between 

1,300 and 6,000 pounds. By contrast, 

the total takeoff weight of a small 

unmanned aircraft is less than 55 

pounds. Consequently, because a small 

unmanned aircraft is significantly 

lighter than a manned aircraft, in the 

event of a mishap, the small unmanned 

aircraft would pose significantly less 

risk to persons and property on the 

ground. As such, a small UAS operation 

whose parameters are well defined so it 

does not pose a significant risk to other 

aircraft would also pose a smaller 

overall public risk or threat to national 

security than the operation of a manned 

aircraft. 

However, even though small UAS 

operations have the potential to pose a 

lower level of public risk in certain 

types of operations, the unmanned 

nature of the small UAS operations 

raises two unique safety concerns that 

are not present in manned-aircraft 

operations. The first safety concern is 

whether the person operating the small 

unmanned aircraft, who would be 

physically separated from that aircraft 

during flight, would have the ability to 

see manned aircraft in the air in time to 

prevent a mid-air collision between the 

small unmanned aircraft and another 

aircraft. As discussed in more detail 

below, the FAA’s regulations currently 

require each person operating an aircraft 

to maintain vigilance ‘‘so as to see and 

avoid other aircraft.’’ 5 This is one of the 

fundamental principles for collision 

avoidance in the NAS. 

For manned-aircraft operations, ‘‘see 

and avoid’’ is the responsibility of 

persons on board an aircraft. By 

contrast, small unmanned aircraft 

operations have no human beings 

physically on the unmanned aircraft 

with the same visual perspective and 

the ability to see other aircraft in the 

manner of a manned-aircraft pilot. Thus, 

the challenge for small unmanned 

aircraft operations is to ensure that the 

person operating the small unmanned 

aircraft is able to see and avoid other 

aircraft. 

In considering this issue, the FAA 

examined to what extent existing 

technology could provide a solution to 

this problem. The FAA notes that 

advances in technologies that use 

ground-based radar and aircraft sensors 

to detect the reply signals from aircraft 

ATC transponders have provided 

significant improvement in the ability to 

detect other aircraft in close proximity 

to each other. The Traffic Collision 

Avoidance System also has the ability to 

provide guidance to flight crews to 

maneuver appropriately to avoid a midair collision. Both of these technologies 

have done an excellent job in reducing 

the mid-air collision rate between 

manned aircraft. Unfortunately, the 

equipment required to utilize these 

widely available technologies is 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9549 

6Pilot Vigilance, 33 FR 10505 (July 24, 1968). 

7Public Law 112–95 reaffirmed that an 

unmanned aircraft is indeed an aircraft by defining 

an unmanned aircraft as ‘‘an aircraft that is 

operated without the possibility of direct human 

intervention from within or on the aircraft.’’ Sec. 

331(8), Public Law 112–95 (emphasis added). 

8The statutes also impose other requirements that 

are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For 

example, 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(4) prohibits a person 

from operating as an air carrier without an aircarrier operating certificate. 

9Administrator v. Barrows, 7 N.T.S.B. 5, 8–9 

(1990). 

10See, e.g., United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 

84–85 (1964) (holding that ‘‘air commerce’’ is not 

limited to commercial airplanes); Hill v. NTSB, 886 

F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1989) (‘‘[t]he statutory 

definition of ‘‘air commerce’’ is therefore clearly not 

restricted to interstate flights occurring in 

controlled or navigable airspace’’); United States v. 

Drumm, 55 F. Supp. 151, 155 (D. Nev. 1944) (‘‘any 

operation of any aircraft in the air space either 

directly affects or may endanger safety in, interstate, 

overseas, or foreign air commerce’’). 

currently too large and heavy to be used 

in small UAS operations. Until this 

equipment is miniaturized to the extent 

necessary to make it viable for use in 

small UAS operations, existing 

technology does not appear to provide 

a way to resolve the ‘‘see and avoid’’ 

problem with small UAS operations 

without maintaining human visual 

contact with the small unmanned 

aircraft during flight. 

The second safety concern with small 

UAS operations is the possibility that, 

during flight, the person operating the 

small UAS may become unable to use 

the control interface to operate the small 

unmanned aircraft due to a failure of the 

control link between the aircraft and the 

operator’s control station. This is known 

as a loss of positive control. This 

situation may result from a system 

failure or because the aircraft has been 

flown beyond the signal range or in an 

area where control link communication 

between the aircraft and the control 

station is interrupted. A small 

unmanned aircraft whose flight is 

unable to be directly controlled could 

pose a significant risk to persons, 

property, or other aircraft. 

B. Current Statutory and Regulatory 

Structure Governing Small UAS 

Due to the lack of an onboard pilot, 

small unmanned aircraft are unable to 

see and avoid other aircraft in the NAS. 

Therefore, small UAS operations 

conflict with the FAA’s current 

operating regulations codified in 14 CFR 

part 91 that apply to general aviation. 

Specifically, at the heart of the part 91 

operating regulations is § 91.113(b), 

which requires each person operating an 

aircraft to maintain vigilance ‘‘so as to 

see and avoid other aircraft.’’ 

The FAA created this requirement in 

a 1968 rulemaking that combined two 

previous aviation regulatory provisions, 

Civil Air Regulations (CAR) §§ 60.13(c) 

and 60.30.6 Both of the provisions that 

were combined to create the ‘‘see and 

avoid’’ requirement of § 91.113(b) were 

intended to address aircraft collisionawareness problems by requiring that a 

pilot on board the aircraft look out of 

the aircraft during flight to observe 

whether other aircraft are on a collision 

path with his or her aircraft. Those 

provisions did not contemplate the use 

of technology to substitute for the 

human vision of a pilot on board the 

aircraft. Similarly, there is no evidence 

that those provisions contemplated a 

pilot fulfilling his or her ‘‘see and 

avoid’’ responsibilities from outside the 

aircraft. To the contrary, CAR section 

60.13(c) stated that one of the problems 

it intended to address was 

‘‘preoccupation by the pilot with 

cockpit duties,’’ which indicates that 

the regulation contemplated the 

presence of a pilot on board the aircraft. 

Because the regulations that resulted 

in the see-and-avoid requirement of 

§ 91.113(b) did not contemplate that this 

requirement could be complied with by 

a pilot who is outside the aircraft, 

§ 91.113(b) currently requires an aircraft 

pilot to have the perspective of being 

inside the aircraft as that aircraft is 

moving in order to see and avoid other 

aircraft. Since the operator of a small 

UAS does not have this perspective, 

operation of a small UAS could not 

meet the see and avoid requirement of 

§ 91.113(b) at this time. 

In addition to currently being 

prohibited by § 91.113(b), there are also 

statutory considerations that apply to 

small UAS operations. Specifically, 

even though a small UAS is different 

from a manned aircraft, the operation of 

a small UAS still involves the operation 

of an aircraft. This is because the FAA’s 

statute defines an ‘‘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 

for purposes of the FAA’s statutes.7

Because a small UAS involves the 

operation of an ‘‘aircraft,’’ this triggers 

the FAA’s registration and certification 

statutory requirements. Specifically, 

subject to certain exceptions, a person 

may not operate a civil aircraft that is 

not registered. 49 U.S.C. 44101(a). In 

addition, a person may not operate a 

civil aircraft in air commerce without an 

airworthiness certificate. 49 U.S.C. 

44711(a)(1). Finally, a person may not 

serve in any capacity as an airman on 

a civil aircraft being operated in air 

commerce without an airman certificate. 

49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).8

The term ‘‘air commerce,’’ as used in 

the FAA’s statutes, is defined broadly to 

include ‘‘the operation of aircraft within 

the limits of a Federal airway, or the 

operation of aircraft that directly affects, 

or may endanger safety in foreign or 

interstate air commerce.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

40102(a)(3). Because of this broad 

definition, the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) has held that ‘‘any 

use of an aircraft, for purpose of flight, 

constitutes air commerce.’’ 9 Courts that 

have considered this issue have reached 

similar conclusions that ‘‘air 

commerce,’’ as defined in the FAA’s 

statute, encompasses a broad range of 

commercial and non-commercial 

aircraft operations.10

Accordingly, because ‘‘air commerce’’ 

encompasses such a broad range of 

aircraft operations, a civil small 

unmanned aircraft cannot currently be 

operated, for purposes of flight, if: (1) It 

is not registered (49 U.S.C. 44101(a)); (2) 

it does not possess an airworthiness 

certificate (49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1)); and 

(3) the airman operating the aircraft 

does not possess an airman certificate 

(49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A)). However, the 

FAA’s current processes for issuing 

airworthiness and airman certificates 

were designed to be used for manned 

aircraft and do not take into account the 

considerations associated with civil 

small UAS. 

Specifically, obtaining a type 

certificate and a standard airworthiness 

certificate, which permits the widest 

range of aircraft operation, currently 

takes about 3 to 5 years. Because the 

pertinent existing regulations do not 

differentiate between manned and 

unmanned aircraft, a small UAS is 

currently subject to the same 

airworthiness certification process as a 

manned aircraft. However, it is not 

practically feasible for many small UAS 

manufacturers to go through the 

certification process required of manned 

aircraft. This is because small UAS 

technology is rapidly evolving at this 

time, and consequently, if a small UAS 

manufacturer goes through a 3-to-5-year 

process to obtain a type certificate, 

which enables the issuance of a 

standard airworthiness certificate, the 

small UAS would be technologically 

outdated by the time it completed the 

certification process. For example, 

advances in lightweight battery 

technology may allow new lightweight 

transponders and power sources within 

the next 3 to 5 years that are currently 

unavailable for small UAS operations. 

The FAA notes that there are several 

other certification options available to 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

11A special flight permit for production flight 

testing is not limited to small UAS and can be 

obtained for unmanned aircraft weighing more than 

55 pounds. We emphasize, however, that a special 

flight permit is limited at this time to production 

flight testing and will include operational 

requirements and limitations. 

12See 14 CFR 61.113. 

13See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart E and 

§ 61.23(a)(3)(i). 

14See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart F and § 61.23(a)(2). 

15See Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the 

National Airspace System, 72 FR 6689, 6690 (Feb. 

13, 2007) (explaining how AC 91–57 functions). 

16 Id. 

17The policy statement did, however, explain the 

COA process that is currently used to allow public 

aircraft operations with UAS. This process is 

discussed in detail in section III.C of this preamble. 

As discussed in that section, this proposed rule 

would allow public aircraft operations with UAS to 

voluntarily comply with proposed part 107, but 

would otherwise leave the existing public aircraft 

operations COA process unchanged. 

18As used in this context, ‘‘discretion’’ refers to 

the FAA’s power to decide whether to commence 

an enforcement action. 

small UAS manufacturers and operators 

who do not wish to go through the 

process of obtaining a type certificate 

and standard airworthiness certificate. 

However, because each of these options 

has significant limitations, these options 

do not provide flexibility for most 

routine small UAS operations. These 

certification options are as follows: 

• A special airworthiness certificate 

in the experimental category may be 

issued to UAS pursuant to 14 CFR 

21.191–21.195. This certificate is timelimited, and cannot be used for any 

activities other than research and 

development, market surveys, and crew 

training. 

• A special flight permit may be 

issued pursuant to 14 CFR 21.197. At 

this time, however, a special flight 

permit for a UAS is limited to 

production flight testing of new 

production aircraft.11

• A special airworthiness certificate 

in the restricted category is issued 

pursuant to 14 CFR 21.25(a). There are 

two options for obtaining this 

certificate. 

First, pursuant to § 21.25(a)(2), a 

certificate may be issued for aircraft 

accepted by an Armed Force of the 

United States and later modified for a 

special purpose. 

Second, pursuant to § 21.25(a)(1), a 

certificate may be issued for aircraft 

used in special purpose operations, 

which consist of: 

(1) agricultural operations; 

(2) forest and wildlife conservation; 

(3) aerial surveying; 

(4) patrolling (pipelines, power lines, 

and canals); 

(5) weather control; 

(6) aerial advertising; and 

(7) any other operation specified by 

the FAA. 

As can be seen from the above list, the 

current certification options are limited 

to very specific purposes. Accordingly, 

they do not provide sufficient flexibility 

for most routine civil small UAS 

operations within the NAS. 

In addition to obtaining an 

airworthiness certificate, any person 

serving as an airman in the operation of 

a small UAS must obtain an airman 

certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). The 

statute defines an ‘‘airman’’ to include 

an individual who is ‘‘in command, or 

as pilot, mechanic, or member of the 

crew, who navigates aircraft when 

under way.’’ 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8)(A). 

Because the person operating the small 

UAS is in command and is a member of 

the crew who navigates the aircraft, that 

person is an airman and must obtain an 

airman certificate. 

Under current pilot certification 

regulations, depending on the type of 

operation, the operator of the small UAS 

currently must obtain either a private 

pilot certificate or a commercial pilot 

certificate. A private pilot certificate 

cannot be used to operate a small UAS 

for compensation or hire unless the 

flight is only incidental to the operator’s 

business or employment.12 Typically, to 

obtain a private pilot certificate, the 

small UAS operator currently has to: (1) 

Receive training in specific aeronautical 

knowledge areas; (2) receive training 

from an authorized instructor on 

specific areas of aircraft operation; (3) 

obtain a minimum of 40 hours of flight 

experience; and (4) obtain a third-class 

airman medical certificate.13

Conversely, holding at least a 

commercial pilot certificate allows the 

small UAS to generally be used for 

compensation or hire, but is more 

difficult to obtain. In addition to the 

requirements necessary to obtain a 

private pilot certificate, applicants for a 

commercial pilot certificate currently 

need to also obtain 250 hours of flight 

time, satisfy extensive testing 

requirements, and obtain a second-class 

airman medical certificate.14

While these airman certification 

requirements are necessary for manned 

aircraft operations, they impose an 

unnecessary burden for many small 

UAS operations. This is because a 

person typically obtains a private or 

commercial pilot certificate by learning 

how to operate a manned aircraft. Much 

of that knowledge would not be 

applicable to small UAS operations 

because a small UAS is operated 

differently than a manned aircraft. In 

addition, the knowledge currently 

necessary to obtain a private or 

commercial pilot certificate would not 

equip the certificate holder with the 

tools necessary to safely operate a small 

UAS. Specifically, applicants for a 

private or commercial pilot certificate 

currently are not trained in how to deal 

with the ‘‘see-and-avoid’’ and loss-ofpositive-control safety issues that are 

unique to small unmanned aircraft. 

Thus, requiring persons wishing to 

operate a small UAS to obtain a private 

or commercial pilot certificate imposes 

the cost of certification on those 

persons, but does not result in a 

significant safety benefit because the 

process of obtaining the certificate does 

not equip those persons with the tools 

necessary to mitigate the public risk 

posed by small UAS operations. 

Recognizing the problem of applying 

the operating rules of part 91 to small 

UAS operations and the cost imposed 

on small UAS operations by existing 

certification processes, the FAA 

fashioned a temporary solution. 

Specifically, the FAA issued an 

advisory circular (AC) 91–57 and a 

policy statement elaborating on AC 91– 

57, which provide guidance for the safe 

operation of ‘‘model aircraft.’’ The 

policy statement defines a ‘‘model 

aircraft’’ as a UAS that is used for hobby 

or recreational purposes.15 The policy 

statement explains that AC 91–57: 

[E]ncourages good judgment on the part of 

operators so that persons on the ground or 

other aircraft in flight will not be endangered. 

The AC contains among other things, 

guidance for site selection. Users are advised 

to avoid noise sensitive areas such as parks, 

schools, hospitals, and churches. Hobbyists 

are advised not to fly in the vicinity of 

spectators until they are confident that the 

model aircraft has been flight tested and 

proven airworthy. Model aircraft should be 

flown below 400 feet above the surface to 

avoid other aircraft in flight. The FAA 

expects that hobbyists will operate these 

recreational model aircraft within visual lineof-sight.16

Neither AC 91–57 nor the associated 

policy statement contains any 

registration or certification 

requirements.17

To date, the FAA has used its 

discretion18 to not bring enforcement 

action against model-aircraft operations 

that comply with AC 91–57. However, 

the use of discretion to permit 

continuing violation of FAA statutes 

and regulations is not a viable long-term 

solution for incorporating UAS 

operations into the NAS. Additionally, 

because AC 91–57 and the associated 

policy statement are limited to model 

aircraft, they do not apply to nonrecreational UAS operations. Thus, even 

with the use of enforcement discretion, 

because of the difficulty of obtaining the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9551 

19A copy of the small UAS ARC Report and 

Recommendations can be found in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 20http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf 

21As discussed in more detail further in the 

preamble, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 also contained a provision prohibiting the 

FAA from issuing rules and regulations for model 

aircraft meeting certain criteria specified in section 

336 of the Act. 

22Public Law 112–95, sec. 333(b)(2). 

23 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1). 

24Public Law 112–95, sec. 333(b)(1). 

25As discussed in section III.B.6 below, 14 CFR 

part 107 that would be created by this proposed 

rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy 

all of the statutory criteria specified in section 336 

of Public Law 112–95. The FAA has recently 

published an interpretive rule for public comment 

explaining the statutory criteria of section 336. See 

Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model 

Aircraft, 79 FR 36172, 36175 (June 25, 2014). 

requisite certification for a small UAS 

and because operation of a small UAS 

would violate the see-and-avoid 

requirement of § 91.113(b), nonrecreational civil small UAS operations 

are effectively prohibited at this time. 

C. Integrating Small UAS Operations 

Into the NAS 

To address the issues discussed 

above, the FAA chartered the small UAS 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 

on April 10, 2008. On April 1, 2009, the 

ARC provided the FAA with 

recommendations on how small UAS 

could be safely integrated into the 

NAS.19 In 2013, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation issued a comprehensive 

plan and subsequently the FAA issued 

a roadmap of its efforts to achieve safe 

integration of UAS operations into the 

NAS.20

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–95). In section 332(b) of 

Public Law 112–95, Congress directed 

the Secretary to issue a final rule on 

small unmanned aircraft systems that 

will allow for civil operations of such 

systems in the NAS.21 In section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95, Congress also 

directed the Secretary to determine 

whether ‘‘certain unmanned aircraft 

systems may operate safely in the 

national airspace system.’’ To make a 

determination under section 333, we 

must assess ‘‘which types of unmanned 

aircraft systems, if any, as a result of 

their size, weight, speed, operational 

capability, proximity to airports and 

populated areas, and operation within 

visual line of sight do not create a 

hazard to users of the national airspace 

system or the public or pose a threat to 

national security.’’ Public Law 112–95, 

Sec. 333(b)(1). The Secretary must also 

determine whether a certificate of 

waiver or authorization, or 

airworthiness certification is necessary 

to mitigate the public risk posed by the 

unmanned aircraft systems that are 

under consideration. Public Law 112– 

95, Sec. 333(b)(2). If the Secretary 

determines that certain unmanned 

aircraft systems may operate safely in 

the NAS, then the Secretary must 

‘‘establish requirements for the safe 

operation of such aircraft systems in the 

national airspace system.’’ Public Law 

112–95, Sec. 333(c). The flexibility 

provided for in section 333 did not 

extend to airman certification and 

security vetting, aircraft marking, or 

registration requirements. 

As noted above, section 333(b)(2) 

provided the Secretary of 

Transportation with discretionary 

power as to whether airworthiness 

certification should be required for 

certain small UAS.22 As discussed 

previously, the FAA’s statute normally 

requires an aircraft being flown 

outdoors to possess an airworthiness 

certificate.23 However, subsection 

333(b)(2) allows for the determination 

that airworthiness certification is not 

necessary for certain small UAS. The 

key determinations that must be made 

in order for UAS to operate under the 

authority of section 333 are: (1) The 

operation must not create a hazard to 

users of the national airspace system or 

the public; and (2) the operation must 

not pose a threat to national security.24

In making these determinations, we 

must consider the following factors: 

Size, weight, speed, operational 

capability, proximity to airports and 

populated areas, and operation within 

visual line of sight. Of these factors, 

operation within visual line of sight is 

a primary factor for evaluation. At this 

point in time, we have determined that 

technology has not matured to the 

extent that would allow small UAS to be 

used safely in lieu of visual line of sight 

without creating a hazard to other users 

of the NAS or the public, or posing a 

threat to national security. 

This construction of section 333 is a 

reasonable interpretation that is 

consistent with the statutory text and 

reflects Congressional intent in adopting 

the provision. We invite comments on 

whether there are well-defined 

circumstances and conditions under 

which operation beyond the line of sight 

would pose little or no additional risk 

to other users of the NAS, the public, or 

national security. Finally, we invite 

comments on the technologies and 

operational capabilities or procedures 

needed to allow UAS flights beyond 

visual line of sight, and how such 

technologies, capabilities and 

procedures could be accommodated 

under this rule or in a future 

rulemaking. 

As a result of its ongoing integration 

efforts, the FAA seeks to change its 

regulations to take the first step in the 

process of integrating small UAS 

operations into the NAS. This proposal 

would utilize the airworthinesscertification flexibility provided by 

Congress in section 333 of Public Law 

112–95, and allow some small UAS 

operations to commence in the NAS.25

In addition, to further facilitate the 

integration of UAS into the NAS, the 

FAA has selected six test sites to test 

UAS technology and operations. As of 

August 2014, all of the UAS test sites, 

which were selected based on 

geographic and climatic diversity, are 

operational and will remain in place for 

the next 5 years to help us gather 

operational data to foster further 

integration, as well as evaluate new 

technologies. In addition, the FAA is in 

the process of selecting a new UAS 

Center of Excellence which will also 

serve as another resource for these 

activities. The FAA invites comments 

on how it can improve or further 

leverage its test site program to 

encourage innovation, safe development 

and UAS integration into the NAS. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

As discussed in the previous section, 

in order to determine whether certain 

UAS may operate safely in the NAS 

pursuant to section 333, the Secretary 

must find that the operation of the UAS 

would not: (1) Create a hazard to users 

of the NAS or the public; or (2) pose a 

threat to national security. The 

Secretary must also determine whether 

small UAS operations subject to this 

proposed rule pose a safety risk 

sufficient to require airworthiness 

certification. The following preamble 

sections discuss the specific 

components of this proposed rule, and 

in section III.J below, we explain how 

these components work together and 

allow the Secretary to make the 

statutory findings required by section 

333. 

A. Incremental Approach and Privacy 

The FAA began its small UAS 

rulemaking in 2005. In its initial 

approach to this rulemaking, which the 

FAA utilized from 2005 until November 

2013, the FAA attempted to implement 

the ARC’s recommendations and craft a 

rule that encompassed the widest 

possible range of small UAS operations. 

This approach utilized a regulatory 

structure similar to the one that the FAA 

uses for manned aircraft. Specifically, 

small UAS operations that pose a low 

risk to people, property, and other 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

26Section 332(a) of Public Law 112–95 requires 

the Secretary of Transportation to develop a 

comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the 

integration of civil UAS into the NAS. This plan 

must be developed in consultation with 

representatives of the aviation industry, federal 

agencies that employ UAS technology in the NAS, 

and the UAS industry. Section 332(a) also requires 

the Secretary of Transportation to develop a 5-year 

roadmap for the introduction of civil UAS into the 

NAS. Both the comprehensive plan and the 

roadmap were published in November 2013. 

27http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf 

aircraft would have been subject to less 

stringent regulation while small UAS 

operations posing a greater risk would 

have been subject to more stringent 

regulation in order to mitigate the 

greater risk. 

In exploring this approach, the FAA 

found that, as discussed previously, 

there are two unique safety issues 

associated with UAS: (1) Extending ‘‘see 

and avoid’’ anti-collision principles to a 

pilot that is not physically present on 

the aircraft; and (2) loss of positive 

control of the unmanned aircraft. In 

addition, at the time that it was 

considering this approach, the FAA did 

not have the discretion necessary to 

exempt these aircraft from the statutory 

requirement for airworthiness 

certification, as the section 333 

authority did not come into effect until 

February 14, 2012. As a result of these 

issues, the FAA’s original broadlyscoped approach to the rulemaking 

effort took significantly longer than 

anticipated. Consequently, the FAA 

decided to proceed with multiple 

incremental UAS rules rather than a 

single omnibus rulemaking in order to 

utilize the flexibility with regard to 

airworthiness certification that Congress 

provided in section 333. 

Accordingly, at this time, the FAA is 

proposing a rule that, pursuant to 

section 333 of Public Law 112–95, will 

integrate small UAS operations posing 

the least amount of risk. Because these 

operations pose the least amount of risk, 

this proposed rule would treat the entire 

spectrum of operations that would be 

subject to this rule in a similar manner 

by imposing less stringent regulatory 

burdens that would ensure that the 

safety and security of the NAS would 

not be reduced by operation of these 

UAS. In the meantime, the FAA will 

continue working on integrating UAS 

operations that pose greater amounts of 

risk, and will issue notices of proposed 

rulemaking for those operations once 

the pertinent issues have been 

addressed, consistent with the approach 

set forth in the UAS Comprehensive 

Plan for Integration and FAA roadmap 

for integration.26 Once the entire 

integration process is complete, the 

FAA envisions the NAS populated with 

UAS that operate well beyond the 

operational limits proposed in this rule. 

Those UAS will be regulated differently 

than the UAS that would be integrated 

through this rule, and will be addressed 

in subsequent rulemakings. The FAA 

has selected this approach because it 

would allow lower-risk small UAS 

operations to be incorporated into the 

NAS immediately instead of waiting 

until the issues associated with higherrisk UAS operations are resolved. 

The approach of this proposal is 

meant to address low risk operations; to 

the greatest extent possible, it takes a 

data-driven, risk-based approach to 

defining specific regulatory 

requirements for small UAS operations. 

It is well understood that regulations 

that are articulated in terms of the 

desired outcomes (i.e., ‘‘performance 

standards’’) are generally preferable to 

those that specify the means to achieve 

the desired outcomes (i.e., ‘‘design’’ 

standards). According to Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–4 

(‘‘Regulatory Analysis’’), performance 

standards ‘‘give the regulated parties the 

flexibility to achieve the regulatory 

objectives in the most cost-effective 

way.’’ 27

Design standards have a tendency to 

lock in certain approaches that limit the 

incentives to innovate and may 

effectively prohibit new technologies 

altogether. The distinction between 

design and performance standards is 

particularly important where technology 

is evolving rapidly, as is the case with 

small UAS. 

In this proposal, the regulatory 

objectives are to enable integration of 

small UAS into the NAS in a manner 

that does not impose unacceptable risk 

to other aircraft, people, or property. 

The FAA seeks comment on whether 

there are additional requirements that 

could be specified in ways that are more 

performance-oriented in order to 

minimize any disincentives to develop 

new technologies that achieve the 

regulatory objectives at lower cost. 

Recently, the FAA, with the approval 

of the Secretary, has been issuing 

exemptions in accordance with 14 CFR 

part 11 and section 333 of Public Law 

112–95 to accommodate an increasing 

number of small UAS operations that 

are not for hobby or recreational 

purposes. If adopted, this rule will 

eliminate the need for the vast majority 

of these exemptions. The exemption 

process will continue to be available for 

UAS operations that fall outside the 

parameters of this rule. Such operations 

may involve the use of more advanced 

technologies that are not yet mature at 

the time of this rulemaking. 

The FAA also notes that, because 

UAS-associated technologies are rapidly 

evolving at this time, new technologies 

could come into existence after this rule 

is issued or existing technologies may 

evolve to the extent that they establish 

a level of reliability sufficient to allow 

those technologies to be relied on for 

risk mitigation. These technologies may 

alleviate some of the risk concerns that 

underlie the provisions of this 

rulemaking like the line of sight rule. 

Accordingly, the FAA invites comments 

as to whether the final rule should relax 

operating restrictions on small UAS 

equipped with technology that 

addresses the concerns underlying the 

operating limitations of this proposed 

rule, for instance through some type of 

deviation authority (such as a letter of 

authorization or a waiver). 

The FAA also notes that privacy 

concerns have been raised about 

unmanned aircraft operations. Although 

these issues are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking, recognizing the potential 

implications for privacy and civil rights 

and civil liberties from the use of this 

technology, and consistent with the 

direction set forth in the Presidential 

Memorandum, Promoting Economic 

Competitiveness While Safeguarding 

Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties 

in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (February 15, 2015), the 

Department and FAA will participate in 

the multi-stakeholder engagement 

process led by the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) to assist in this 

process regarding privacy, 

accountability, and transparency issues 

concerning commercial and private 

UAS use in the NAS. We also note that 

state law and other legal protections for 

individual privacy may provide 

recourse for a person whose privacy 

may be affected through another 

person’s use of a UAS. 

The FAA conducted a privacy impact 

assessment (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 EGovernment Act of 2002, Public Law 

107–347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

The assessment considers any impacts 

of the proposed rule on the privacy of 

information in an identifiable form. The 

FAA has determined that this proposed 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9553 

28 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(4). 

29Property that is transported as an external load 

is discussed in the next section of the preamble. 

30 ICAO Circular 328 (Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS)) (2011). 

31 Id. 

disseminating PII and examined and 

evaluated protections and alternative 

information handling processes in 

developing the proposed rule in order to 

mitigate potential privacy risks. 

As proposed, the process for granting 

unmanned aircraft operator certificates 

with a small UAS rating would be 

brought in line with the process for 

granting traditional airman certificates. 

Thus, the privacy implications of this 

rule to the privacy of the information 

that would be collected, maintained, 

stored, and disseminated by the FAA in 

accordance with this rule are the same 

as the privacy implications of the FAA’s 

current airman certification processes. 

These privacy impacts have been 

analyzed by the FAA in the following 

Privacy Impact Assessments for the 

following systems: Civil Aviation 

Registry Applications (AVS Registry); 

the Integrated Airman Certification and 

Ratings Application (IACRA); and 

Accident Incident Database. These 

Privacy Impact Assessments are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking and at http://www.dot.gov/

individuals/privacy/privacy-impactassessments#Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). 

B. Applicability 

To integrate small UAS operations 

into the NAS, this proposed rule would 

create a new part in title 14 of the CFR: 

Part 107. Subject to the exceptions 

discussed below, proposed part 107 

would prescribe the rules governing the 

registration, airman certification, and 

operation of civil small UAS within the 

United States. As mentioned previously, 

a small UAS is a UAS that uses an 

unmanned aircraft weighing less than 

55 pounds. This proposed rule would 

allow non-recreational small UAS to 

operate in the NAS. The operations 

enabled by this proposed rule would 

include business, academic, and 

research and development flights, 

which are hampered by the current 

regulatory framework. 

Under this proposal, the regulations 

of part 107, which are tailored to 

address the risks associated with small 

UAS operations, would apply to small 

UAS operations in place of certain 

existing FAA regulations that impede 

civil small UAS operations. Specifically, 

for small UAS operations, the 

requirements of proposed part 107 

would generally replace the 

airworthiness provisions of part 21, the 

airman certification provisions of part 

61, and the operating limitations of part 

91. 

However, proposed part 107 would 

not apply to all small UAS operations. 

For the reasons discussed below, 

proposed part 107 would not apply to: 

(1) Air carrier operations; (2) external 

load and towing operations; (3) 

international operations; (4) foreignowned aircraft that are ineligible to be 

registered in the United States; (5) 

public aircraft; (6) certain model 

aircraft; and (7) moored balloons, kites, 

amateur rockets, and unmanned free 

balloons. 

1. Air Carrier Operations 

When someone is transporting 

persons or property by air for 

compensation, that person is considered 

an air carrier by statute and is required 

to obtain an air carrier operating 

certificate.28 Because there is an 

expectation of safe transportation when 

payment is exchanged, air carriers are 

subject to more stringent regulations to 

mitigate the risks posed to persons or 

non-operator-owned property on the 

aircraft. 

The FAA notes that some industries 

may desire to transport property via 

UAS.29 Proposed part 107 would not 

prohibit this type of transportation so 

long as it is not done for compensation 

and the total weight of the aircraft, 

including the property, is less than 55 

pounds. For example, research and 

development operations transporting 

property could be conducted under 

proposed part 107, as could operations 

by corporations transporting their own 

property within their business under the 

other provisions of this proposed rule. 

The FAA seeks comment on whether 

UAS should be permitted to transport 

property for payment within the other 

proposed constraints of the rule, e.g., 

the ban on flights over uninvolved 

persons, the requirements for line of 

sight, and the intent to limit operations 

to a constrained area. The FAA also 

seeks comment on whether a special 

class or classes of air carrier certification 

should be developed for UAS 

operations. 

2. External Load and Towing Operations 

The FAA considered allowing small 

unmanned aircraft to conduct externalload operations and to tow other aircraft 

or objects. These operations involve a 

greater level of public risk due to the 

dynamic nature of external-load 

configurations and inherent risks 

associated with the flight characteristics 

of a load that is carried, or extends, 

outside the aircraft fuselage and may be 

jettisonable. These types of operations 

may also involve evaluation of the 

aircraft frame for safety performance 

impacts, which may require 

airworthiness certification. 

Given the risks associated with 

external load and towing operations, the 

FAA cannot find that a certification is 

not required. However, the FAA invites 

comments, with supporting 

documentation, on whether externalload UAS operations and towing UAS 

operations should be permitted, 

whether they would require 

airworthiness certification, whether 

they would require higher levels of 

airman certification, whether they 

would require additional operational 

limitations, and on other relevant 

issues. 

3. International Operations 

At this time, the FAA also proposes 

to limit this rulemaking to small UAS 

operations conducted entirely within 

the United States. The International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

recognizes that: 

The safe integration of UAS into nonsegregated airspace will be a long-term 

activity with many stakeholders adding their 

expertise on such diverse topics as licensing 

and medical qualification of UAS crew, 

technologies for detect and avoid systems, 

frequency spectrum (including its protection 

from unintentional or unlawful interference), 

separation standards from other aircraft, and 

development of a robust regulatory 

framework.30

ICAO has further 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.’’ 31

ICAO has begun to issue and amend 

SARPs to specifically address UAS 

operations. For example, the standard 

contained in paragraph 3.1.9 of Annex 

2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention 

on International Civil Aviation states 

that ‘‘A remotely piloted aircraft shall be 

operated in such a manner as to 

minimize hazards to persons, property 

or other aircraft and in accordance with 

the conditions specified in Appendix 

4.’’ This appendix sets forth detailed 

conditions ICAO Member States must 

require of civil UAS operations for the 

ICAO Member State to comply with the 

Annex 2, paragraph 3.1.9 standard. 

ICAO standards in Annex 7 (Aircraft 

Nationality and Registration Marks) to 

the Convention also require remotely 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

32See, e.g., 14 CFR part 91, subpart H (specifying 

operating rules for foreign civil aircraft). 

33The FAA has been issuing COAs to public 

aircraft operations using UAS for over 20 years; 

however, prior to 2005, those COAs were issued 

using different processes. 

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.’’ 

While we embrace the basic principle 

that UAS operations should minimize 

hazards to persons, property or other 

aircraft, we believe that it is possible to 

achieve this goal with respect to certain 

small UAS operations in a much less 

restrictive manner than current ICAO 

standards require. Accordingly, the FAA 

proposes, for the time being, to limit the 

applicability of proposed part 107 to 

small UAS operations that are 

conducted entirely within the United 

States. The FAA envisions that 

international operations would be dealt 

with in a future FAA rulemaking. The 

FAA believes that the experience that 

the FAA will gain with UAS operations 

under this rule will assist with future 

rulemakings. The FAA also anticipates 

that ICAO will continue to revise and 

more fully develop its framework for 

UAS operations to better reflect the 

diversity of UAS operations and types of 

UAS and to distinguish the appropriate 

levels of regulation in light of those 

differences. 

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. Thus, UAS operating 

in the airspace above the U.S. territorial 

sea would be operating within the 

United States for the purposes of this 

proposed rule. 

The FAA also emphasizes that 

proposed part 107 would not prohibit 

small UAS operators from operating in 

international airspace or in other 

countries; however, the proposed rule 

also would not provide authorization for 

such operations. UAS operations that do 

not take place entirely within the 

United States would need to obtain all 

necessary authorizations from the FAA 

and the relevant foreign authorities 

outside of the part 107 framework, as 

that framework would not apply to 

operations that do not take place 

entirely within the United States. It is 

important to note that Article 8 of the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation, to which the U.S. is a party, 

provides: 

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. 

Accordingly, UAS operations in 

foreign countries may not take place 

without the required authorizations and 

permission of that country. 

4. Foreign-Owned Aircraft That Are 

Ineligible for U.S. Registration 

The FAA proposes to limit the scope 

of this rulemaking to U.S.-registered 

aircraft. Under 49 U.S.C. 44103 and 14 

CFR 47.3, an aircraft can be registered 

in the United States only if it is not 

registered under the laws of a foreign 

country and meets 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. 

An aircraft that does not satisfy the 

above criteria is typically owned by a 

foreign person or entity and is subject to 

special operating rules.32 As previously 

noted, the ICAO framework for 

international UAS operations is at a 

relatively early stage in its development. 

Accordingly, proposed part 107 would 

only apply to small unmanned aircraft 

that meet the criteria specified in § 47.3, 

which must be satisfied in order for an 

aircraft to be eligible for U.S. 

registration. The FAA notes existing 

U.S. international trade obligations do 

permit certain kinds of operations, 

known as specialty air services. 

Specialty air services are generally 

defined as any specialized commercial 

operation using an aircraft whose 

primary purpose is not the 

transportation of goods or passengers, 

including but not limited to aerial 

mapping, aerial surveying, aerial 

photography, forest fire management, 

firefighting, aerial advertising, glider 

towing, parachute jumping, aerial 

construction, helilogging, aerial 

sightseeing, flight training, aerial 

inspection and surveillance, and aerial 

spraying services. The FAA will consult 

with the Secretary to determine the 

process through which it might permit 

foreign-owned small unmanned aircraft 

to operate in the United States. The 

FAA invites comments on the inclusion 

of foreign-registered small unmanned 

aircraft in this new framework. 

As provided by 49 U.S.C. 

40105(b)(1)(A), the FAA Administrator 

must carry out his responsibilities under 

Part A (Air Commerce and Safety) of 

title 49, United States Code, consistently 

with the obligations of the U.S. 

Government under international 

agreements. The FAA invites comments 

regarding whether the proposed rule 

needs to be modified to ensure that it is 

consistent with any relevant obligations 

of the United States under international 

agreements. 

5. Public Aircraft Operations 

This proposed rule would also not 

apply to public aircraft operations with 

small UAS that are not operated as civil 

aircraft. This is because public aircraft 

operations, such as those conducted by 

the Department of Defense, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, are not 

required to comply with civil 

airworthiness or airman certification 

requirements to conduct operations. 

However, these operations are subject to 

the airspace and air-traffic rules of part 

91, which include the ‘‘see and avoid’’ 

requirement of § 91.113(b). Because 

unmanned aircraft operations currently 

are incapable of complying with 

§ 91.113(b), the FAA has required public 

aircraft operations that use unmanned 

aircraft to obtain an FAA-issued 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization 

(COA) providing the public aircraft 

operation with a waiver/deviation from 

the ‘‘see and avoid’’ requirement of 

§ 91.113(b). 

The existing COA system has been in 

place for over eight years, and has not 

caused any significant human injuries 

or other significant adverse safety 

impacts.33 Accordingly, this proposed 

rule would not abolish the COA system. 

However, this proposed rule would 

provide public aircraft operations with 

greater flexibility by giving them the 

option to declare an operation to be a 

civil operation and comply with the 

provisions of proposed part 107 instead 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9555 

34The FAA notes that section 334(b) of Public 

Law 112–95 requires the FAA to develop standards 

regarding the operation of public UAS by December 

31, 2015. 

35Sec. 336(c) of Public Law 112–95. 

36Sec. 336(a) of Public Law 112–95. 

37Sec. 336(b) of Public Law 112–95. 

38 Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model 

Aircraft, 79 FR 36172, 36175 (June 25, 2014). This 

document was issued as a notice of interpretation 

and has been in effect since its issuance on June 25, 

2014. However, we note that the FAA has invited 

comment on this interpretation, and may modify 

the interpretation as a result of comments that were 

received. 

39 Id. at 36175–76. 40 Id. at 36176. 

of seeking a COA from the FAA. 

Because proposed part 107 would 

address the risks associated with small 

UAS operations, there would be no 

adverse safety effects from allowing 

public aircraft operations to be 

voluntarily conducted under proposed 

part 107.34

6. Model Aircraft 

Proposed part 107 would not apply to 

model aircraft that satisfy all of the 

criteria specified in section 336 of 

Public Law 112–95. Section 336 of 

Public Law 112–95 defines a model 

aircraft as 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.’’ 35 Because 

section 336 of Public Law 112–95 

defines a model aircraft as an 

‘‘unmanned aircraft,’’ a model aircraft 

that weighs less than 55 pounds would 

fall into the definition of small UAS 

under this rule. 

However, Public Law 112–95 

specifically prohibits the FAA from 

promulgating rules regarding model 

aircraft that meet all of the following 

statutory criteria: 36

• The aircraft is flown strictly for 

hobby or recreational use; 

• The aircraft is operated in 

accordance with a community-based set 

of safety guidelines and within the 

programming of a nationwide 

community-based organization; 

• The aircraft is limited to not more 

than 55 pounds unless otherwise 

certified through a design, construction, 

inspection, flight test, and operational 

safety program administered by a 

community-based organization; 

• The aircraft is operated in a manner 

that does not interfere with and gives 

way to any manned aircraft; and 

• When flown within 5 miles of an 

airport, the operator of the aircraft 

provides the airport operator and the 

airport air traffic control tower (when an 

air traffic facility is located at the 

airport) with prior notice of the 

operation. 

Because of the statutory prohibition 

on FAA rulemaking regarding model 

aircraft that meet the above criteria, 

model aircraft meeting these criteria 

would not be subject to the provisions 

of proposed part 107. Likewise, 

operators of model aircraft excepted 

from part 107 by the statute would not 

need to hold an unmanned aircraft 

operator’s certificate with a small UAS 

rating. However, the FAA emphasizes 

that because the prohibition on 

rulemaking in section 336 of Public Law 

112–95 is limited to model aircraft that 

meet all of the above statutory criteria, 

model aircraft weighing less than 55 

pounds that fail to meet all of the 

statutory criteria would be subject to 

proposed part 107. 

In addition, although Public Law 112– 

95 excepted certain model aircraft from 

FAA rulemaking, it specifically states 

that the law’s exception does not limit 

the Administrator’s authority to pursue 

enforcement action against those model 

aircraft operators that ‘‘endanger the 

safety of the national airspace 

system.’’ 37 This proposed rule would 

codify the FAA’s enforcement authority 

in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft 

operators from endangering the safety of 

the NAS. 

The FAA also notes that it recently 

issued an interpretive rule explaining 

the provisions of section 336 and 

concluding that ‘‘Congress intended for 

the FAA to be able to rely on a range 

of our existing regulations to protect 

users of the airspace and people and 

property on the ground.’’ 38 In this 

interpretive rule, the FAA gave 

examples of existing regulations the 

violation of which could subject model 

aircraft to enforcement action. Those 

regulations include: 

• Prohibitions on careless or reckless 

operation and dropping objects so as to 

create a hazard to persons or property 

(14 CFR 91.13 and 91.15); 

• Right-of-way rules for converging 

aircraft (14 CFR 91.113); 

• Rules governing operations in 

designated airspace (14 CFR part 73 and 

§§ 91.126 through 91.135); and 

• Rules relating to operations in areas 

covered by temporary flight restrictions 

and notices to airmen (NOTAMs) (14 

CFR 91.137 through 91.145).39

The FAA notes that the above list is 

not intended to be an exhaustive list of 

all existing regulations that apply to 

model aircraft meeting the statutory 

criteria of Public Law 112–95, section 

336. Rather, as explained in the 

interpretive rule, ‘‘[t]he FAA anticipates 

that the cited regulations are the ones 

that would most commonly apply to 

model aircraft operations.’’ 40

7. Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur 

Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons 

Lastly, proposed part 107 would not 

apply to moored balloons, kites, 

amateur rockets, and unmanned free 

balloons. These types of aircraft 

currently are regulated by the provisions 

of 14 CFR part 101. Because these 

aircraft are already incorporated into the 

NAS through part 101 and because the 

safety risks associated with these 

specific aircraft are already mitigated by 

the regulations of part 101, there is no 

need to make these aircraft subject to 

the provisions of proposed part 107. 

C. Definitions 

Proposed part 107 would create a new 

set of definitions to address the unique 

aspects of a small UAS. Those proposed 

definitions are as follows. 

1. Control Station 

Proposed part 107 would define a 

‘‘control station’’ as an interface used by 

the operator to control the flight path of 

the small unmanned aircraft. In a 

manned aircraft, the interface used by 

the pilot to control the flight path of the 

aircraft is a part of the aircraft and is 

typically located inside the aircraft 

flight deck. Conversely, the interface 

used to control the flight path of a small 

unmanned aircraft is typically 

physically separated from the aircraft 

and remains on the ground during 

aircraft flight. Defining the concept of a 

control station would clarify the 

interface that is considered part of the 

small UAS under this regulation. 

2. Corrective Lenses 

Proposed part 107 would also define 

‘‘corrective lenses’’ as spectacles or 

contact lenses. As discussed in the 

Operating Rules section of this 

preamble, this proposed rule would 

require the operator and/or visual 

observer to have visual line of sight of 

the small unmanned aircraft with vision 

that is not enhanced by any device other 

than corrective lenses. This is because 

spectacles and contact lenses do not 

restrict a user’s peripheral vision while 

other vision-enhancing devices may 

restrict that vision. Because peripheral 

vision is necessary in order for the 

operator and/or visual observer to be 

able to see and avoid other air traffic in 

the NAS, this proposed rule would limit 

the circumstances in which visionenhancing devices other than spectacles 

or contact lenses may be used. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

41Sec. 331(6) of Public Law 112–95. 

42See 14 CFR 1.1 (referring to ‘‘takeoff weight’’ 

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

definitions for those aircraft). 

43Sec. 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.’’ 44Sec. 331(8) of Public Law 112–95. 

3. Operator and Visual Observer 

Because of the unique nature of small 

UAS operations, this proposed rule 

would create two new crewmember 

positions: The operator and the visual 

observer. These positions are discussed 

further in section III.D.1 of this 

preamble. 

4. Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Public Law 112–95 defines a ‘‘small 

unmanned aircraft’’ as ‘‘an unmanned 

aircraft weighing less than 55 

pounds.’’ 41 This statutory definition of 

small unmanned aircraft 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. 

This proposed rule would define a 

small unmanned aircraft as an 

unmanned aircraft weighing less than 

55 pounds, including everything that is 

on board the aircraft. The FAA proposes 

to interpret the statutory definition of 

small unmanned aircraft as referring to 

total weight at the time of takeoff 

because heavier aircraft generally pose 

greater amounts of public risk in the 

event of an accident. In the event of a 

crash, a heavier aircraft can do more 

damage to people and property on the 

ground. The FAA also notes that 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.42

5. Small Unmanned Aircraft System 

(Small UAS) 

This proposed rule would define a 

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 NAS. 

Except for one difference, this proposed 

definition would be similar to the 

definition of ‘‘unmanned aircraft 

system’’ provided in Public Law 112– 

95.43 The difference between the two 

definitions is that the proposed 

definition in this rule would not refer to 

a pilot-in-command because, as 

discussed further in this preamble, this 

proposed rule would create a new 

position of operator to replace the 

traditional manned-aviation positions of 

pilot and pilot-in-command for small 

UAS operations. 

6. Unmanned Aircraft 

Lastly, this proposed rule would 

define an unmanned aircraft as an 

aircraft operated without the possibility 

of direct human intervention from 

within or on the aircraft. This proposed 

definition would codify the definition of 

‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ specified in Public 

Law 112–95.44

D. Operating Rules 

As discussed earlier in this preamble 

(section III.A), instead of a single 

omnibus rulemaking that applies to all 

small UAS operations, the FAA has 

decided to proceed incrementally and 

issue a rule governing small UAS 

operations that pose the least amount of 

risk. Subpart B of this proposed rule 

would specify the operating constraints 

of these operations. The FAA 

emphasizes that it intends to conduct 

future rulemaking(s) to incorporate into 

the NAS small UAS operations that pose 

a greater level of risk than the 

operations that would be permitted by 

this proposed rule. However, those 

operations present additional safety 

issues that the FAA needs more time to 

address. In the meantime, under this 

proposed rule, operations that could be 

conducted within the proposed 

operational constraints would be 

incorporated into the NAS. 

The FAA also considered whether to 

further subdivide small UAS into 

different categories of unmanned 

aircraft that would be regulated 

differently based on their weight, 

operational characteristics, and 

operating environment. This 

subdivision would have been based on 

five category groups (Groups A through 

E). Each of these groups would have 

been regulated based on its specific 

weight and operating characteristics. 

This is the framework that the FAA 

used in its initial approach to this 

rulemaking. However, because this 

framework attempted to integrate a wide 

range of UAS operations posing 

different risk profiles whose integration 

raised policy questions on which data 

was either limited or unavailable, the 

FAA’s initial approach would have been 

unduly burdensome on all UAS groups 

that would have been covered under 

that approach. For example, UAS in 

Group A, which posed the least safety 

risk under the FAA’s initial framework, 

would have been required to: (1) Obtain 

a permit to operate (PTO) from the FAA, 

which would have to be renewed after 

one year; (2) file quarterly reports with 

the FAA providing their operational 

data; (3) establish a level of 

airworthiness that would be sufficient to 

obtain an airworthiness certification 

(the initial approach would have 

merged airworthiness certification into 

the PTO); (4) obtain a pilot certificate by 

passing a knowledge test, a practical 

test, and completing required ground 

training with an FAA-certificated 

instructor; (5) obtain a NOTAM from the 

FAA prior to conducting certain UAS 

operations (the operator would do this 

by filing notice with the FAA); and (6) 

maintain records documenting the 

complete maintenance history of the 

UAS. 

After extensive deliberation, the FAA 

ultimately determined that such a 

regulatory framework was too complex, 

costly, and burdensome for both the 

public and the FAA. The FAA then 

examined the entire small UAS category 

of aircraft (unmanned aircraft weighing 

less than 55 pounds) in light of the new 

authority provided for under section 

333 of Public Law 112–95 and 

determined that appropriate operational 

risk mitigations could be developed to 

allow the entire category of small UAS 

to avoid airworthiness certification and 

be subject to the least burdensome level 

of regulation that is necessary to protect 

the safety and security of the NAS. 

Furthermore, the FAA decided to also 

substantially simplify the operational 

limitations and airman (operator) 

certification requirements in a manner 

that would equally accommodate all 

types of small UAS business users with 

the least amount of complexity and 

regulatory burden. 

The FAA believes that treating small 

UAS as a single category without 

airworthiness certification would 

accommodate a large majority of small 

UAS businesses and other nonrecreational users of UAS. The 

operational limits in this proposed rule 

would mitigate risk associated with 

small UAS operations in a way that 

would provide an equivalent level of 

safety to the NAS with the least amount 

of burden to business and other nonrecreational users of even the smallest 

UAS. The FAA invites comments, with 

supporting documentation, on whether 

the regulation of small UAS should be 

further subdivided based on the size, 

weight, and operating environment of 

the small UAS. 

1. Micro UAS Classification 

In addition to part 107 as proposed, 

the FAA is considering including a 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9557 

micro UAS classification. This 

classification would be based on the 

UAS ARC’s recommendations, as well 

as approaches adopted in other 

countries that have a separate set of 

regulations for micro UAS. 

In developing this micro UAS 

classification, the FAA examined small 

UAS policies adopted in other 

countries. In considering other 

countries’ aviation policies, the FAA 

noted that each country has its unique 

aviation statutory and rulemaking 

requirements, which may include that 

country’s unique economic, geographic, 

and airspace density considerations. 

Canada is our only North American 

neighbor with a regulatory framework 

for small UAS. The chart below 

summarizes Transport Canada’s 

operational limitations for micro UAS 

(4.4 pounds (2 kilograms) and under) 

and compares it with the regulatory 

framework in proposed part 107 as well 

as the micro UAS classification that the 

FAA is considering. 

COMPARISON OF CANADIAN RULES GOVERNING MICRO UAS CLASS WITH PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED PART 107 AND

MICRO UAS SUB-CLASSIFICATION

Provision Canada Small UAS NPRM Micro UAS Subclassification 

Definition of Small UAS .......................... Up to 4.4 lbs (2 kg) .............................. Up to 55 lbs (24 kg) ............................. Up to 4.4 lbs (2 

kg). 

Maximum Altitude Above Ground .......... 300 feet ................................................ 500 feet ................................................ 400 feet. 

Airspace Limitations ............................... Only within Class G airspace ............... Allowed within Class E in areas not 

designated for an airport. Otherwise, 

need ATC permission. Allowed within Class B, C and D with ATC permission. Allowed in Class G with no 

ATC permission.

Only within Class 

G airspace. 

Distance from people and structures ..... 100 feet laterally from any building, 

structure, vehicle, vessel or animal 

not associated with the operation 

and 100 feet from any person.

Simply prohibits UAS operations over 

any person not involved in the operations (unless under a covered 

structure).

Flying over any 

person is permitted. 

Ability to extend operational area .......... No ......................................................... Yes, from a waterborne vehicle ........... No. 

Autonomous operations ......................... No ......................................................... Yes ....................................................... No. 

Aeronautical knowledge required ........... Yes; ground school .............................. Yes; applicant would take knowledge 

test.

Yes; applicant 

would self-certify. 

First person view permitted .................... No ......................................................... Yes, provided operator is visually capable of seeing the small UAS.No. 

Operator training required ...................... Yes, ground school .............................. No ......................................................... No. 

Visual observer training required ........... Yes ....................................................... No ......................................................... No. 

Operator certificate required .................. No ......................................................... Yes (must pass basic UAS aeronautical test).Yes (no knowledge 

test required). 

Preflight safety assessment ................... Yes ....................................................... Yes ....................................................... Yes. 

Operate within 5 miles of an airport ....... No ......................................................... Yes ....................................................... No. 

Operate in a congested area ................. No ......................................................... Yes ....................................................... Yes. 

Liability insurance ................................... Yes, $100,000 CAN ............................. No ......................................................... No. 

Daylight operations only ......................... Yes ....................................................... Yes ....................................................... Yes. 

Aircraft must be made out of frangible 

materials.

No ......................................................... No ......................................................... Yes. 

The FAA is considering the following 

provisions for the micro UAS 

classification: 

• The unmanned aircraft used in the 

operation would weigh no more than 

4.4 pounds (2 kilograms). This provision 

would be based on the ARC’s 

recommendations and on how other 

countries, such as Canada, subdivide 

their UAS into micro or lightweight 

UAS; 

• The unmanned aircraft would be 

made out of frangible materials that 

break, distort, or yield on impact so as 

to present a minimal hazard to any 

person or object that the unmanned 

aircraft collides with. Examples of such 

materials are breakable plastic, paper, 

wood, and foam. This provision would 

be based on the ARC’s 

recommendations; 

• During the course of the operation, 

the unmanned aircraft would not exceed 

an airspeed of 30 knots. This provision 

would be based on the ARC’s 

recommendation, which was concerned 

with damage that could be done by 

unmanned aircraft flying at higher 

speeds; 

• During the course of the operation, 

the unmanned aircraft would not travel 

higher than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL). This provision would be based 

on the ARC’s recommendations; 

• The unmanned aircraft would be 

flown within visual line of sight; firstperson view would not be used during 

the operation; and the aircraft would not 

travel farther than 1,500 feet away from 

the operator. These provisions would be 

based on ARC recommendations and 

Canada’s requirements for micro UAS; 

• The operator would maintain 

manual control of the flight path of the 

unmanned aircraft at all times, and the 

operator would not use automation to 

control the flight path of the unmanned 

aircraft. This provision would be based 

on ARC recommendations and Canada’s 

requirements for micro UAS; 

• The operation would be limited 

entirely to Class G airspace. This 

provision would be based on Canada’s 

requirements for micro UAS; and 

• The unmanned aircraft would 

maintain a distance of at least 5 nautical 

miles from any airport. This provision 

would be based on Canada’s 

requirements for micro UAS. 

The operational parameters discussed 

above may provide significant 

additional safety mitigations. 

Specifically, a very light (micro) UAS 

operating at lower altitudes and at lower 

speeds, that is made up of materials that 

break or yield easily upon impact, may 

pose a much lower risk to persons, 

property, and other NAS users than a 

UAS that does not operate within these 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

45 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). 

46 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8)(A). 

47 14 CFR 91.3(a). 

parameters. Additionally, limiting the 

micro UAS operation entirely to Class G 

airspace, far away from an airport, and 

in close proximity to the operator (as 

well as limiting the unmanned aircraft’s 

flight path to the operator’s constant 

manual control) would significantly 

reduce the risk of collision with another 

aircraft. Accordingly, because the 

specific parameters of a micro UAS 

operation described above would 

provide additional safety mitigation for 

those operations, the FAA’s micro UAS 

approach would allow micro UAS to 

operate directly over people not 

involved in the operation. Under the 

FAA’s micro UAS approach, the 

operator of a micro UAS also would be 

able to operate using a UAS airman 

certificate with a different rating (an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a micro UAS rating) than the 

airman certificate that would be created 

by proposed part 107. No knowledge 

test would be required in order to obtain 

an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a micro UAS rating; 

instead, the applicant would simply 

submit a signed statement to the FAA 

stating that he or she has familiarized 

him or herself with all of the areas of 

knowledge that are tested on the initial 

aeronautical knowledge test that is 

proposed under part 107. 

The FAA is also considering whether 

to require, as part of the micro UAS 

approach, that the micro UAS be made 

out of frangible material. A UAS that is 

made out of frangible material presents 

a significantly lower risk to persons on 

the ground, as that UAS is more likely 

to shatter if it should impact a person 

rather than injuring that person. 

Without the risk mitigation provided by 

frangible-material construction, the FAA 

would be unable to allow micro UAS to 

operate directly over a person not 

involved in the operation. The FAA 

notes that, currently, a majority of fixedwing small UAS are made out of 

frangible materials that would satisfy 

the proposed requirement. The FAA 

invites comments on whether it should 

eliminate frangibility from the micro 

UAS framework. 

The FAA also invites commenters to 

submit data and any other supporting 

documentation on whether the micro 

UAS classification should be included 

in the final rule, and what provisions 

the FAA should adopt for such a 

classification. The FAA invites further 

comments, with supporting 

documentation, estimating the costs and 

benefits of implementing a micro UAS 

approach in the final rule. Finally, the 

FAA invites comments to assess the risk 

to other airspace users posed by the 

lesser restricted integration of micro 

UAS into the NAS. The FAA notes, 

however, that due to statutory 

constraints, the FAA would be unable to 

eliminate the requirement to hold an 

airman certificate and register the 

unmanned aircraft even if it were to 

adopt a micro UAS approach in the final 

rule. 

During the course of this rulemaking, 

the FAA also received a petition for 

rulemaking from UAS America Fund 

LLC. This petition presented the FAA 

with an alternative approach to 

regulating micro UAS, complete with a 

set of regulatory provisions that would 

be specific to micro UAS operations. 

Because the FAA was already in the 

process of rulemaking at the time this 

petition was filed, pursuant to 14 CFR 

11.73(c), the FAA will not treat this 

petition as a separate action, but rather, 

will consider it as a comment on this 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the FAA has 

placed a copy of UAS America Fund’s 

rulemaking petition in the docket for 

this rulemaking and invites comments 

on the suggestions presented in this 

petition. Any comments received in 

response to the proposals in the petition 

will be considered in this rulemaking. 

2. Operator and Visual Observer 

As briefly mentioned earlier, this 

proposed rule would create two new 

crewmember positions: An operator and 

a visual observer. The FAA proposes 

these positions for small UAS 

operations instead of the traditional 

manned-aircraft positions of pilot, flight 

engineer, and flight navigator. This is 

being proposed because, by their very 

nature, small UAS operations are 

different from manned aircraft 

operations, and this necessitates a 

different set of qualifications for 

crewmembers. 

i. Operator 

The FAA proposes to define an 

operator as a person who manipulates 

the flight controls of a small UAS. Flight 

controls include any system or 

component that affects the flight path of 

the aircraft. The position of operator 

would be somewhat analogous to the 

position of a pilot who controls the 

flight of a manned aircraft. However, the 

FAA proposes to create the position of 

an operator rather than expand the 

existing definition of pilot to emphasize 

that, even though the operator directly 

controls the flight of the unmanned 

aircraft, the operator is not actually 

present on the aircraft. 

The FAA notes that even though a 

small UAS operator is not a pilot, the 

operator would still be considered an 

airman and statutorily required to 

obtain an airman certificate. The 

statutory flexibility provided in section 

333 of Public Law 112–95 is limited to 

airworthiness certification and does not 

extend to airman certification. Thus, as 

mentioned previously, the FAA’s statute 

prohibits a person without an airman 

certificate from serving in any capacity 

as an airman with respect to a civil 

aircraft used or intended to be used in 

air commerce.45 The statute defines an 

‘‘airman,’’ in part, as an individual who, 

as a member of the crew, navigates the 

aircraft when under way.46 Because 

under this proposed rule the operator 

would be a member of the crew and 

would navigate the small unmanned 

aircraft when that aircraft is under way, 

an operator would be an airman as 

defined in the FAA’s statute. 

Accordingly, the operator would 

statutorily be required to obtain an 

airman certificate in order to fly the 

small unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA proposes to codify this 

statutory requirement in § 107.13(a), 

which would require a person who 

wishes to serve as an operator to obtain 

an unmanned aircraft airman certificate 

with a small UAS rating. An unmanned 

aircraft airman certificate would be a 

new type of airman certificate that 

would be created by this proposed rule 

specifically for UAS operators to satisfy 

the statutory requirement for an airman 

certificate. The certificate necessary to 

operate small UAS would have a small 

UAS rating. The FAA anticipates that 

certificates used to operate UAS not 

subject to this proposed rule would 

have different certification 

requirements. The specific details of 

this certificate are discussed further in 

section III.E of this preamble. 

The FAA also proposes to give each 

operator the power and responsibility 

typically associated with a pilot-incommand (PIC) under the existing 

regulations. Under the existing 

regulations, the PIC ‘‘is directly 

responsible for, and is the final 

authority as to the operation of [the] 

aircraft.’’ 47 The PIC position provides 

additional accountability for the safety 

of an operation by: (1) Ensuring that a 

single person on board the aircraft is 

accountable for that operation; and (2) 

providing that person with the authority 

to address issues affecting operational 

safety. 

An accountability system, such as the 

existing PIC concept, would provide 

similar benefits for small UAS 

operations. Accordingly, the FAA 

proposes, in § 107.19(a), to make each 

operator: (1) Directly responsible for the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9559 

48 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8). This statute defines an 

‘‘airman’’ as an individual: ‘‘(A) in command, or as 

pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, who 

navigates aircraft when under way; (B) except to the 

extent the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration may provide otherwise for 

individuals employed outside the United States, 

who is directly in charge of inspecting, maintaining, 

overhauling, or repairing aircraft, aircraft engines, 

propellers, or appliances; or (C) who serves as an 

aircraft dispatcher or air traffic control-tower 

operator.’’ The visual observer’s limited role in the 

operation of a small UAS would not meet any of 

these criteria. 

49See 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A) (prohibiting a 

person without an airman certificate from serving 

in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil 

aircraft used or intended to be used in air 

commerce). 

50This requirement would be imposed pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which gives FAA the 

power to prescribe regulations that it finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

small UAS operation, and (2) the final 

authority as to the small UAS operation. 

To provide further clarity as to the 

operator’s authority over the small UAS 

operation, proposed § 107.49(b) would 

require that each person involved in the 

small UAS operation perform the duties 

assigned by the operator. 

The FAA also considered providing 

the operator with the emergency powers 

available to the PIC under 14 CFR 

91.3(b). Under § 91.3(b), a PIC can 

deviate from FAA regulations to 

respond to an in-flight emergency. 

However, the FAA does not believe that 

this power is necessary for the operator 

because a small unmanned aircraft is 

highly maneuverable and much easier to 

land than a manned aircraft. Thus, in an 

emergency, an operator should be able 

to promptly land the small unmanned 

aircraft in compliance with FAA 

regulations. Accordingly, the FAA 

proposes not to provide an operator 

with the emergency powers available to 

the PIC under § 91.3(b). The FAA invites 

comments on this issue. 

The FAA also does not believe that it 

is necessary to create a separate 

‘‘operator-in-command’’ position for 

small UAS operations. The existing 

regulations create a separate PIC 

position because many manned aircraft 

are operated by multiple pilots. Thus, it 

is necessary to designate one of those 

pilots as the accountable authority for 

the operation. By contrast, only one 

operator is needed for a small UAS 

flight operation even though additional 

non-operator persons could be involved 

in the operation. Thus, at this time, it is 

not necessary to create an operator-incommand position. The FAA invites 

comments on whether a separate 

operator-in-command position should 

be created for small UAS operations. 

The FAA finally notes that the term 

‘‘operate’’ is currently a defined term in 

14 CFR 1.1 that is used in mannedaircraft operations. While, for purposes 

of proposed part 107, the proposed 

definition of ‘‘operator’’ would 

supersede any conflicting definitions in 

§ 1.1, the FAA invites comments as to 

whether defining a new crewmember 

position as an ‘‘operator’’ would cause 

confusion with the existing terminology. 

If so, the FAA invites suggestions as to 

an alternative title for this crewmember 

position. 

ii. Visual Observer 

To assist the operator with the 

proposed see-and-avoid and visual-lineof-sight requirements discussed in the 

next section of this preamble, the FAA 

proposes to create the position of a 

visual observer. Under this proposed 

rule, a visual observer would be defined 

as a person who assists the small 

unmanned aircraft operator in seeing 

and avoiding other air traffic or objects 

aloft or on the ground. The visual 

observer would do this by augmenting 

the operator as the person who must 

satisfy the see-and-avoid and visualline-of-sight requirements of this 

proposed rule. As discussed in more 

detail below, an operator must always 

be capable of seeing the small 

unmanned aircraft. However, if the 

operation is augmented by at least one 

visual observer, the operator is not 

required to exercise this capability, as 

long as the visual observer maintains a 

constant visual-line-of-sight of the small 

unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA emphasizes that, as 

proposed, a visual observer is not a 

required crewmember, as the operator 

could always satisfy the pertinent 

requirements him- or herself. Under this 

proposed rule, an operator could, at his 

or her discretion, use a visual observer 

to increase the flexibility of the 

operation. The FAA notes, however, 

that as discussed in III.D.3.i of this 

preamble, even if a visual observer is 

used to augment the operation, a small 

unmanned aircraft would still be 

required by § 107.33(c) to always remain 

close enough to the control station for 

the operator to be capable of seeing that 

aircraft. 

To ensure that the visual observer can 

carry out his or her duties, the FAA 

proposes, in § 107.33(b), that the 

operator be required to ensure that the 

visual observer is positioned in a 

location where he or she is able to see 

the small unmanned aircraft in the 

manner required by the proposed 

visual-line-of-sight and see-and-avoid 

provisions of §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The 

operator can do this by specifying the 

location of the visual observer. The FAA 

also proposes to require, in § 107.33(d), 

that the operator and visual observer 

coordinate to: (1) Scan the airspace 

where the small unmanned aircraft is 

operating for any potential collision 

hazard; and (2) maintain awareness of 

the position of the small unmanned 

aircraft through direct visual 

observation. This would be 

accomplished by the visual observer 

maintaining visual contact with the 

small unmanned aircraft and the 

surrounding airspace and then 

communicating to the operator the flight 

status of the small unmanned aircraft 

and any hazards which may enter the 

area of operation so that the operator 

can take appropriate action. 

To make this communication 

possible, this proposed rule would 

require, in § 107.33(a), that the operator 

and visual observer maintain effective 

communication with each other at all 

times. This means that the operator and 

visual observer must work out a method 

of communication prior to the operation 

that allows them to understand each 

other, and utilize that method in the 

operation. The FAA notes that this 

proposed communication requirement 

would permit the use of 

communication-assisting devices, such 

as radios, to facilitate communication 

between the operator and visual 

observer from a distance. The FAA 

considered requiring the visual observer 

to be stationed next to the operator to 

allow for unassisted oral 

communication, but decided that this 

requirement would be unduly 

burdensome, as it is possible to have 

effective oral communication through a 

communication-assisting device. The 

FAA invites comments on whether the 

visual observer should be required to 

stand close enough to the operator to 

allow for unassisted verbal 

communication. 

Under this proposed rule, the visual 

observer would not be permitted to 

manipulate any controls of the small 

UAS, share in operational control, or 

exercise operation-related judgment 

independent of the operator. Because 

the visual observer’s role in the small 

UAS operation would be limited to 

simply communicating what he or she 

is seeing to the operator, the visual 

observer would not be an ‘‘airman’’ as 

defined in the FAA’s statute.48

Consequently, as proposed, the visual 

observer would not statutorily be 

required to obtain an airman 

certificate.49

While an airman certificate for a 

visual observer is not statutorily 

mandated, the FAA considered 

requiring that the visual observer obtain 

an airman certificate.50 However, due to 

the fact that this proposed rule would 

not permit the visual observer to 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

51The use of a visual observer would not be 

sufficient to allow an operator to operate more than 

one small UAS because the operator would still 

need to maintain sufficient concentration to react to 

the information provided to him or her by the 

visual observer. 

52Pilot Safety brochure: ‘‘Pilot Vision.’’ http://

www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/

media/pilot_vision.pdf. A copy of this document is 

also available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

manipulate the small UAS controls or 

exercise any independent judgment or 

operational control, the FAA believes 

that certification of visual observers 

would not result in significant safety 

benefits. Accordingly, the FAA is not 

proposing to require airman certification 

for visual observers. The FAA invites 

comments on whether an airman 

certificate should be required to serve as 

a visual observer. If so, what 

requirements should an applicant meet 

in order to obtain a visual observer 

airman certificate? The FAA also invites 

comments regarding the costs and 

benefits of requiring airman certification 

for visual observers. 

3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility 

Requirements 

Turning to the see-and-avoid and 

visibility requirements mentioned in the 

previous section, one of the issues with 

small UAS operations is that the small 

UAS operator cannot see and avoid 

other aircraft in the same manner as a 

pilot who is inside a manned aircraft. 

Because at this time there is no 

technology that can provide an 

acceptable see-and-avoid replacement 

for human vision for small UAS 

operations, this proposed rule would 

limit small UAS operations to within 

the visual line of sight of the operator 

and a visual observer. This proposed 

rule would also impose requirements to 

ensure maximum visibility for the 

operation of the small UAS and ensure 

that small unmanned aircraft always 

yield the right-of-way to other users of 

the NAS. 

i. See-and-Avoid 

Currently, 14 CFR 91.113(b) imposes 

a requirement on all aircraft operations 

that, during flight, ‘‘vigilance shall be 

maintained by each person operating an 

aircraft so as to see and avoid other 

aircraft.’’ This see-and-avoid 

requirement is at the heart of the FAA’s 

regulatory structure mitigating the risk 

of aircraft colliding in midair. As such, 

in crafting this proposed rule, the FAA 

sought a standard under which the 

small UAS operator would have the 

ability to see and avoid other aircraft 

similar to that of a manned-aircraft 

pilot. 

The FAA considered proposing that a 

UAS operator be permitted to exercise 

his or her see-and-avoid responsibilities 

through technological means, such as 

onboard cameras. We recognize that 

technology is developing that could 

provide an acceptable substitute for 

direct human vision in UAS operations. 

FAA does not, however, believe this 

technology has matured to the extent 

that would allow it to be used safely in 

small UAS operations in lieu of visual 

line of sight. The FAA has not identified 

an acceptable technological substitute 

for the safety protections provided by 

direct human vision in small UAS 

operations at this time. For these 

reasons and consistent with the 

statutory direction provided for in 

section 333, the FAA proposes to 

require, in §§ 107.31 and 107.37(a)(1), 

that the operator (and visual observer, if 

used) must be capable of maintaining a 

visual line of sight of the small 

unmanned aircraft throughout that 

aircraft’s entire flight with human vision 

that is unaided by any device other than 

spectacles or contact lenses. 

If a visual observer is not used, the 

operator must exercise this capability 

and maintain watch over the small 

unmanned aircraft during flight. 

However, if an operation is augmented 

by at least one visual observer, then the 

visual observer can be used to satisfy 

the visual-line-of-sight requirements, as 

long as the operator always remains 

situated such that he or she can exercise 

visual-line-of-sight capability. 

The FAA notes that this proposed 

requirement does not require the person 

maintaining visual line of sight to 

constantly watch the unmanned aircraft 

for every single second of that aircraft’s 

flight. The FAA understands and 

accepts that this person may lose sight 

of the unmanned aircraft for brief 

moments of the operation. This may be 

necessary either because the small UAS 

momentarily travels behind an 

obstruction or to allow the person 

maintaining visual line of sight to 

perform actions such as scanning the 

airspace or briefly looking down at the 

small UAS control station. The visualline-of-sight requirement of this 

proposed rule would allow the person 

maintaining visual line of sight brief 

moments in which he or she cannot 

directly see the small unmanned aircraft 

provided that the person is able to see 

the surrounding operational area 

sufficiently well to carry out his or her 

visual-line-of-sight-related 

responsibilities. Anything more than 

brief moments during which the person 

maintaining visual line of sight is 

unable to see the small unmanned 

aircraft would be prohibited under this 

proposed rule. 

To ensure that the operator’s vision 

(and that of a visual observer, if used) 

of the small unmanned aircraft is 

sufficient to see and avoid other aircraft 

in the NAS, the proposed rule would 

require that the operator’s or visual 

observer’s vision of the small unmanned 

aircraft must be sufficient to allow him 

or her to: (1) Know the small unmanned 

aircraft’s location; (2) determine the 

small unmanned aircraft’s attitude, 

altitude, and direction; (3) observe the 

airspace for other air traffic or hazards; 

and (4) determine that the small 

unmanned aircraft does not endanger 

the life or property of another. Because 

maintaining this type of awareness in 

real-time is a concentration-intensive 

activity, proposed § 107.35 would limit 

an operator or visual observer to 

operating no more than one small UAS 

at the same time.51

Binoculars, onboard cameras, and 

other vision-enhancing devices (aside 

from spectacles or contact lenses) 

cannot be used to satisfy this proposed 

requirement because those devices 

restrict the user’s peripheral field of 

vision. Since a pilot often uses 

peripheral vision to identify other 

aircraft in the NAS,52 a device that 

restricts peripheral vision hinders the 

user’s ability to see other aircraft. 

However, the FAA recognizes that there 

are advantages to using visionenhancing devices, such as those used 

when utilizing camera video transmitted 

to a screen at the operator’s station (also 

known as first person view) when 

conducting inspections of bridges or 

towers. This proposed rule is not 

intended to prohibit the use of those 

devices. Rather, the proposed visualline-of-sight requirement requires 

simply that at least one person involved 

in the operation, either the operator or 

a visual observer, must maintain an 

unenhanced visual line of sight of the 

small unmanned aircraft. Anyone else 

involved in the operation may use a 

vision-enhancing device (including 

first-person view) so long as that device 

is not used to meet the proposed 

requirements of §§ 107.31 and 107.37. 

The FAA invites comments on this 

proposed visual-line-of-sight 

requirement. The FAA also invites 

suggestions, with supporting 

documentation, for other ways in which 

a first-person-view device could be used 

by the operator without compromising 

the risk mitigation provided by the 

proposed visual-line-of-sight 

requirement. The FAA also invites 

comments on whether it should permit 

operations beyond visual line of sight in 

its final rule, for example through 

deviation authority, once the pertinent 

technology matures to the extent that it 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9561 

53See 14 CFRs 23.1381 through 23.1401. 

54See 14 CFR 91.115. 

55 14 CFR 101.13(a)(3). 

can be used to safely operate beyond 

visual line of sight. If so, what level of 

validation should the technology be 

subject to in order to demonstrate 

reliability? For example, should the 

FAA use its existing certification or 

validation methodologies to evaluate 

UAS technology? 

ii. Additional Visibility Requirements 

To further ensure that a small UAS 

operator/visual observer can see and 

avoid other aircraft, the FAA proposes 

(1) to limit the operation of small UAS 

to daylight-only operations, and (2) to 

impose weather-minimum visibility 

requirements 

First, the FAA proposes, in § 107.29, 

to prohibit the operation of a small UAS 

outside the hours of official sunrise and 

sunset. The Federal Air Almanac 

provides tables which are used to 

determine sunrise and sunset at various 

latitudes. The FAA considered 

proposing to allow small UAS 

operations outside the hours of official 

sunrise and sunset, recognizing that this 

would integrate a greater quantity of 

small UAS operations into the NAS. 

However, the FAA has decided to 

propose limiting small UAS use to 

daylight-only operations due to the 

relatively small size of the small 

unmanned aircraft and the difficulty in 

being able to see it in darker 

environments to avoid other airspace 

users. The FAA also notes that most 

small unmanned aircraft flights under 

this proposed rule would take place at 

low altitudes, and flying at night would 

limit the small UAS operator’s ability to 

see people on the ground and take 

precautions to ensure that the small 

unmanned aircraft does not pose a 

hazard to those people. Moreover, 

allowing small UAS operations outside 

of daylight hours would require 

equipage specifications (such as a 

lighting system emitting a certain 

minimum amount of light) and 

airworthiness certification requirements 

that are contrary to the FAA’s goal of a 

minimally burdensome rule for small 

unmanned aircraft. The FAA also notes 

that, for manned aircraft operations, the 

regulations provide for very specific 

lighting systems necessary to safely 

operate in the NAS. Those regulations 

require, among other things: (1) Lighting 

system angles; (2) lighting system 

intensity; (3) lighting system color and 

position; (4) lighting system installation; 

and (5) lighting system configuration.53

This level of regulation and 

airworthiness certification would be 

beyond the level of a minimally 

burdensome rule encompassing low-risk 

operation that is contemplated by 

section 333 of Public Law 112–95. 

The FAA realizes the proposed 

daylight-only operations requirement 

may affect the ability to use small 

unmanned aircraft in more northern 

latitudes (specifically Alaska), and is 

willing to consider any reasonable 

mitigation which would ensure that an 

equivalent level of safety is maintained 

while operating in low-light areas. The 

FAA welcomes public comments with 

suggestions on how to effectively 

mitigate the risk of operations of small 

unmanned aircraft during low-light or 

nighttime operations. 

In addition, to ensure that small UAS 

operators and visual observers have the 

ability to see and avoid other aircraft, 

the FAA is proposing to require, in 

§ 107.51(c), a minimum flight visibility 

of 3 statute miles (5 kilometers) from the 

control station for small UAS 

operations. A visibility of 3 statute miles 

currently is required for aircraft 

operations in controlled airspace.54 The 

FAA also requires a 3-mile visibility in 

the context of other unmanned aircraft 

operations (moored balloons and 

kites).55 The reason for the increased 

visibility requirement is to provide the 

small UAS operator with additional 

time after seeing a manned aircraft to 

maneuver and avoid an accident or 

incident with the manned aircraft. 

In addition, the FAA is proposing to 

require, in § 107.51(d), that the small 

unmanned aircraft must be no less than: 

(1) 500 feet (150 meters) below clouds; 

and (2) 2,000 feet (600 meters) 

horizontal from clouds. This is similar 

to the requirements imposed by 14 CFR 

91.155 on aircraft operating in 

controlled airspace under visual flight 

rules. The FAA proposes to impose 

these cloud-clearance requirements on 

small UAS operations because, as 

mentioned previously, small UAS 

operators do not have the same see-andavoid capability as manned-aircraft 

pilots. 

iii. Yielding Right of Way 

Now that we have discussed how a 

small UAS operator sees other users of 

the NAS, we turn to how that operator 

avoids those users. In aviation, this is 

accomplished through right-of-way 

rules, which pilots are required to 

follow when encountering other aircraft. 

These rules specify how pilots should 

respond to other NAS users based on 

the types of aircraft or the operational 

scenario. 

The operation of small UAS presents 

challenges to the application of the 

traditional right-of-way rules. The 

smaller visual profile of the small 

unmanned aircraft makes it difficult for 

manned pilots to see and, therefore, 

avoid the unmanned aircraft. This risk 

is further compounded by the difference 

in speed between manned aircraft and 

the often slower small unmanned 

aircraft. Because of these challenges, the 

FAA proposes to require, in 

§ 107.37(a)(2), that the small UAS 

operator must always be the one to 

initiate an avoidance maneuver to avoid 

collision with any other user of the 

NAS. Optimally, the small UAS 

operator should give right-of-way to all 

manned aircraft in such a manner that 

the manned aircraft is never presented 

with a see-and-avoid decision or the 

impression that it must maneuver to 

avoid the small UAS. 

When a small UAS operator 

encounters another unmanned aircraft, 

each operator must exercise his or her 

discretion to avoid a collision between 

the aircraft. In extreme situations where 

collision is imminent, the small UAS 

operator must always consider the 

safety of people, first and foremost, over 

the value of any equipment, even if it 

means the loss of the unmanned aircraft. 

To further mitigate the risk of a mid-air 

collision, the FAA also proposes to 

codify, in § 107.37(b), the existing 

requirement in 14 CFR 91.111(a), which 

prohibits a person from operating an 

aircraft so close to another aircraft as to 

create a collision hazard. 

4. Containment and Loss of Positive 

Control 

As discussed above, one of the issues 

unique to UAS operations is the 

possibility that during flight, the UAS 

operator may become unable to directly 

control the unmanned aircraft due to a 

failure of the control link between the 

aircraft and the operator’s control 

station. This failure is known as a loss 

of positive control. Because the UAS 

operator’s direct connection to the 

aircraft is funneled through the control 

link, a failure of the control link could 

have significant adverse results. 

To address this issue, the FAA 

proposes a performance-based operatorresponsibility standard built around the 

concept of a confined area of operation. 

Confining the flight of a small 

unmanned aircraft to a limited area 

would allow the operator to become 

familiar with the area of operation and 

to create contingency plans for using the 

environment in that area to mitigate the 

risk associated with possible loss of 

positive control. For example, the 

operator could mitigate loss-of-control 

risk to people on the ground by setting 

up a perimeter and excluding people 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

56ARC report and recommendations, Sec. 6.11 57See 14 CFR 91.119(b) and (c). 

not involved with the operation from 

the operational area. The operator could 

also mitigate risk to other aircraft by 

notifying the local air traffic control of 

the small UAS operation and the 

location of the confined area in which 

that operation will take place. As a 

result of risk-mitigation options that are 

available to the operator in a confined 

area of operation, the FAA proposes to 

mitigate the risk associated with loss of 

aircraft control by confining small 

unmanned aircraft to a limited area of 

operation. 

As an alternative method of 

addressing this issue, the FAA 

considered technological approaches 

such as requiring a flight termination 

system that would automatically 

terminate the flight of the small 

unmanned aircraft if the operator lost 

positive control of that aircraft. 

However, as previously discussed, due 

to the size and weight of a small UAS, 

operations subject to this proposed rule 

would not pose the same level of risk as 

other operations regulated by the FAA. 

Since small UAS operations subject to 

this rule pose a lower level of risk, there 

are operational alternatives available to 

mitigate their risk to an acceptable level 

without imposing an FAA requirement 

for technological equipage and 

airworthiness certification 

requirements. Therefore, this proposed 

rule would not mandate the use of a 

flight termination system nor would this 

proposed rule mandate the equipage of 

any other navigational aid technology. 

Instead, the FAA invites comments on 

whether a flight termination system or 

other technological equipage should be 

required and how it would be integrated 

into the aircraft for small UAS that 

would be subject to this proposed rule. 

The FAA also invites comments, with 

supporting documentation, as to the 

costs and benefits of requiring a flight 

termination system or other 

technological equipage. 

i. Confined Area of Operation 

Boundaries 

The FAA notes that the proposed 

visual-line-of-sight requirement in 

§ 107.31 would create a natural 

horizontal boundary on the area of 

operation. Due to the distance 

limitations of human vision, the 

operator or visual observer would be 

unable to maintain visual line of sight 

of the small unmanned aircraft 

sufficient to satisfy proposed § 107.31 if 

the aircraft travels too far away from 

them. Accordingly, the proposed visualline-of-sight requirement in proposed 

§ 107.31 would effectively confine the 

horizontal area of operation to a circle 

around the person maintaining visual 

contact with the aircraft with the radius 

of that circle being limited to the 

farthest distance at which the person 

can see the aircraft sufficiently to 

maintain compliance with proposed 

§ 107.31. 

The FAA notes that there are two 

issues with defining the horizontal 

boundary of the area of operation in this 

manner. First, a small UAS operation 

could use multiple visual observers to 

expand the outer bounds of the 

horizontal circle created by the visualline-of-sight requirement. To address 

this issue, the FAA proposes to require, 

in § 107.33(c), that if an operation uses 

a visual observer, the small unmanned 

aircraft must remain close enough to the 

operator at all times during flight for the 

operator to be capable of seeing the 

aircraft with vision unaided by any 

device other than corrective lenses. This 

approach would prevent the use of 

visual observers to expand the 

horizontal outer bounds of the confined 

area of operation. This approach would 

also create a safety-beneficial 

redundancy in that, while the operator 

is not required to look at the small 

unmanned aircraft in an operation that 

uses a visual observer, should 

something go wrong, the operator would 

be able to look up and see for him- or 

herself what is happening with the 

aircraft. 

As an alternative method of 

addressing this issue, the FAA 

considered imposing a numerical limit 

on how far away a small unmanned 

aircraft can be from the operator. The 

FAA ultimately decided not to propose 

this approach, as it currently lacks 

sufficient data to designate a specific 

numerical limit. However, the FAA 

invites comments on whether the 

horizontal boundary of the contained 

area of operation should be defined 

through a numerical limit. If the 

boundary is defined through a 

numerical limit, what should that limit 

be? 

The second way that the horizontal 

boundary of the confined operational 

area could be expanded is by stationing 

the operator on a moving vehicle or 

aircraft. If the operator is stationed on a 

moving vehicle, then the horizontal 

area-of-operation boundary tied to the 

operator’s line of sight would move with 

the operator, thus increasing the size of 

the small unmanned aircraft’s area of 

operation. To prevent this scenario, the 

FAA proposes, in § 107.25, consistent 

with the ARC recommendations,56 to 

prohibit the operation of a small UAS 

from a moving aircraft or land-borne 

vehicle. However, proposed § 107.25 

would make an exception for waterborne vehicles. This is because there are 

far less people and property located 

over water than on land. Consequently, 

a loss of positive control that occurs 

over water would have a significantly 

smaller chance of injuring a person or 

damaging property than a loss of 

positive control that occurs over land. 

Allowing use of a small UAS from a 

water-borne vehicle would also increase 

the societal benefits of this proposed 

rule without sacrificing safety by 

incorporating small UAS operations 

such as bridge inspections and wildlife 

nesting area evaluations into the NAS. 

The FAA is considering alternatives 

for regulation of the operation of small 

UAS from moving land vehicles, while 

protecting safety. It invites comments, 

with supporting documentation, on 

whether small UAS operations should 

be permitted from moving land-based 

vehicles, and invites comment on a 

regulatory framework for such 

operations. The FAA specifically invites 

comments as to whether distinctions 

could be drawn between different types 

of land-based vehicles or operating 

environments such that certain 

operations from moving land-based 

vehicles could be conducted safely. The 

FAA also invites comments on whether 

deviation authority should be included 

in the final rule to accommodate these 

types of operations. 

Next, we turn to the vertical boundary 

of the confined area of operation. With 

regard to the vertical boundary, the FAA 

proposes, in § 107.51(b), to set an 

altitude ceiling of 500 feet above ground 

level (AGL) for small UAS operations 

that would be subject to this proposed 

rule. The FAA chose to propose 500 feet 

as the vertical area-of-operation 

boundary because most manned aircraft 

operations take place above 500 feet. 

Specifically, most manned aircraft 

operations conducted over uncongested 

areas must be flown at an altitude above 

500 feet AGL, while most manned 

aircraft operations conducted over 

congested areas must be flown at an 

even higher altitude.57 Thus, a 500-foot 

altitude ceiling for small UAS 

operations would create a buffer 

between a small unmanned aircraft and 

most manned aircraft flying in the NAS. 

The FAA notes that while most 

manned aircraft operations fly above the 

500-foot ceiling proposed in this rule, 

there are some manned-aircraft 

operations that could fly below this 

altitude. For example, aerial applicators, 

helicopter air ambulance services, and 

military operations conducted on 

military training routes often fly at an 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9563 

58A ‘‘servo actuator’’ is generally defined as a 

device used to provide a wide range of remote 

movement based on signals from the system on 

which it is used. 

59ARC Report, p. 20, section 6.12. 

altitude below 500 feet. However, even 

though some manned aircraft operations 

take place at an altitude below 500 feet, 

there is significantly less air traffic at or 

below 500 feet than there is above 500 

feet altitude. As a result of this 

difference in air-traffic density, the FAA 

has determined that small UAS 

operations would not pose a significant 

risk to manned aircraft operations taking 

place below 500 feet altitude if proper 

precautions are taken by the small UAS 

operator. 

The FAA also considered whether the 

vertical boundary should be set at a 

higher level. However, because most 

manned-aircraft operations transit the 

airspace above the 500-foot level, UAS 

operations at that altitude would likely 

require greater levels of operator 

training, aircraft equipage, and some 

type of aircraft certification in order to 

avoid endangering other users of the 

NAS. Since these provisions would be 

contrary to the goal of this rulemaking, 

which is to regulate the lowest-risk 

small UAS operations while imposing a 

minimal regulatory burden on those 

operations, this proposed rule would 

not allow small UAS to travel higher 

than 500 feet AGL. The FAA invites 

comments, with supporting 

documentation, on whether this 

proposed 500-foot ceiling should be 

raised or lowered. 

ii. Mitigating Loss-of-Positive-Control 

Risk 

Now that we have defined the 

confined area of operation, we turn to 

the question of how loss-of-positivecontrol risk can be mitigated within that 

area of operation. The FAA notes that 

there is significant diversity in both the 

types of small UAS that are available 

and the types of operations that those 

small UAS can be used in. Accordingly, 

small UAS operators need significant 

flexibility to mitigate hazards posed by 

their individual small UAS operation, as 

a mitigation method that works well for 

one type of small UAS used in one type 

of operation may not work as well in 

another operation that uses another type 

of small UAS. For example, in a loss-ofpositive-control situation, a rotorcraft 

that loses operator inputs or power to its 

control systems would tend to descend 

straight down or at a slight angle while 

a fixed wing aircraft would glide for a 

greater distance before landing. Since 

the loss-of-positive-control risk posed 

by different types of small unmanned 

aircraft in various operations is 

different, the FAA proposes to create a 

performance-based standard under 

which, subject to certain broadlyapplicable constraints, small UAS 

operators would have the flexibility to 

create operational and aircraft-specific 

loss-of-control mitigation measures. 

The broadly applicable constraints 

that the FAA proposes to impose on a 

small UAS operator’s risk-mitigation 

decisions are as follows. First, the FAA 

proposes to require, in § 107.49(a)(3), 

that prior to flight, the operator must 

ensure that all links between the control 

station and the small unmanned aircraft 

are working properly. The operator can 

do this by verifying control inputs from 

the control station to the servo 

actuators 58 in the small unmanned 

aircraft. If the operator finds, during this 

preflight check, that a control link is not 

functioning properly, the operator 

would not commence flight until the 

problem with the control link is 

resolved. This proposed constraint 

would significantly mitigate the risk of 

a loss-of-positive-control scenario by 

reducing the possibility that small 

unmanned aircraft flight commences 

with a malfunctioning control link. 

Second, the FAA proposes to impose 

a speed limit of 87 knots (100 miles per 

hour) on small unmanned aircraft 

calibrated airspeed at full power in level 

flight. This is because, if there is a loss 

of positive control, an aircraft traveling 

at a high speed poses a higher risk to 

persons, property, and other aircraft 

than an aircraft traveling at a lower 

speed. A speed limit would also have 

safety benefits outside of a loss-ofpositive-control scenario because a 

small unmanned aircraft traveling at a 

lower speed is generally easier to 

control than a higher-speed aircraft. 

In determining the specific speed 

limit, the FAA decided to propose 87 

knots (100 mph) as the limit. This 

proposed speed limit is based on the 

ARC recommendation of a 100 mph 

speed limit for small UAS operations. 

The ARC determined that ‘‘aircraft 

flying faster than 100 mph are 

considered a high performance aircraft’’ 

that ‘‘are perceived as having greater 

risks.’’ 59 Accordingly, the FAA 

proposes to limit the speed of small 

unmanned aircraft to 87 knots (100 

mph). The FAA invites comments on 

whether this speed limit should be 

raised or lowered or whether a speed 

limit is necessary. 

Third, the FAA proposes, in § 107.39, 

to prohibit the operation of a small 

unmanned aircraft over a person who is 

not directly participating in the 

operation of that small unmanned 

aircraft. One of the possible 

consequences of loss-of-positive-control 

is that the aircraft will immediately 

crash into the ground upon loss of 

control inputs from the operator. 

Because a loss of positive control can 

happen at any moment, the FAA’s 

proposed prohibition on operating small 

unmanned aircraft over most persons 

will minimize the risk that a person is 

standing under a small unmanned 

aircraft if that aircraft terminates flight 

and returns to the surface. This 

prohibition would not apply to persons 

inside or underneath a covered structure 

that would protect the person from a 

falling small unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA’s proposed prohibition on 

operating over people would provide an 

exception for persons directly 

participating in the operation of the 

small unmanned aircraft. The FAA 

considered prohibiting the operation of 

a small unmanned aircraft over any 

person, but rejected this approach as 

unduly burdensome because the 

operator or visual observer may, at some 

points of the operation, need to stand 

under the small unmanned aircraft in 

order to maintain visual line of sight 

and/or comply with other provisions of 

this proposed rule. As an alternative to 

prohibiting these persons from standing 

under the small unmanned aircraft, the 

FAA proposes, in § 107.49(a)(2), that 

prior to flight, the operator must ensure 

that all persons directly involved in the 

small unmanned aircraft operation 

receive a briefing that includes 

operating conditions, emergency 

procedures, contingency procedures, 

roles and responsibilities, and potential 

hazards. A person is directly involved 

in the operation when his or her 

involvement is necessary for the safe 

operation of the small unmanned 

aircraft. By receiving a pre-flight 

briefing on the details of the operation 

and the hazards involved, the persons 

involved in the operation would be 

made aware of the small unmanned 

aircraft’s location at all times and would 

be able to avoid the flight path of the 

small unmanned aircraft if the operator 

were to lose control or the aircraft were 

to experience a mechanical failure. 

Within these constraints, the FAA 

proposes the following performancebased standards for mitigating loss-ofpositive-control risk. First, the FAA 

proposes, in § 107.49(a)(1), that, prior to 

flight, the operator must become 

familiar with the confined area of 

operation by assessing the operating 

environment and assessing risks to 

persons and property in the immediate 

vicinity both on the surface and in the 

air. As part of this preflight assessment, 

the operator would need to consider 

conditions that could pose a hazard to 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9564 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

60The FAA notes that this proposed requirement 

would not require people not involved with the 

operation to comply with the operator’s warnings. 

The operator would simply be unable to commence 

the operation until the pertinent area has been 

made safe for operation. 

61See FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, 

Para. 3–1–1. 

the operation of the small UAS as well 

as conditions in which the operation of 

the small UAS could pose a hazard to 

other aircraft or persons or property on 

the ground. Accordingly, the FAA 

proposes to require that the preflight 

assessment include the consideration of: 

(1) Local weather conditions; (2) local 

airspace and any flight restrictions; (3) 

the location of persons and property on 

the ground; and (4) any other ground 

hazards. 

Second, the FAA proposes that, after 

becoming familiar with the confined 

area of operation and conducting a 

preflight assessment, the operator be 

required, by § 107.19(b), to ensure that 

the small unmanned aircraft will pose 

no undue hazard to other aircraft, 

people, or property in the event of a loss 

of control of the aircraft for any reason. 

This proposed requirement would 

provide the operator with significant 

flexibility to choose how to mitigate the 

hazards associated with loss of aircraft 

control. For example, in addition to the 

examples mentioned previously, if the 

operation takes place in a residential 

area, the operator could ask everyone in 

the area of operation to remain inside 

their homes while the operation is 

conducted.60 If the operation takes place 

in an area where other air traffic could 

pose a hazard, the operator would 

advise local air traffic control as to the 

location of his or her area of operation 

and add extra visual observers to the 

operation so that they can notify the 

operator if other aircraft are approaching 

the area of operation. 

The above are just some examples of 

mitigation strategies that could be 

employed by the operator to ensure that 

the small unmanned aircraft will pose 

no hazard to other aircraft, people or 

property in the event of lost positive 

control. These examples are not 

intended to provide an exhaustive list, 

as there are different ways to mitigate 

loss of positive control. The proposed 

requirement in § 107.19(b) would 

provide the operator with the flexibility 

to choose which mitigation method is 

appropriate for his/her specific 

operation to ensure any hazards posed 

by loss of positive aircraft control are 

sufficiently mitigated. The FAA also 

anticipates creating guidance that 

provides additional examples of how 

operators can mitigate loss of positive 

control in small UAS operations. 

However, the FAA emphasizes that no 

matter what mitigation option(s) the 

operator employs under this proposed 

rule, the operator must strive to always 

maintain positive control of the small 

unmanned aircraft. The operator would 

be in violation of proposed § 107.19(b) 

if he or she intentionally operates the 

small unmanned aircraft in a location 

where he or she will not have positive 

control over that aircraft. 

5. Limitations on Operations in Certain 

Airspace 

This proposed rule would place 

limitations small UAS operations in 

three areas related to airspace: (1) 

Controlled airspace (airspace other than 

Class G); (2) prohibited or restricted 

airspace; and (3) airspace where 

aviation activity is limited by a Notice 

to Airmen (NOTAM). The FAA is 

proposing these requirements to reduce 

the threat to other users of the NAS in 

busy airspace or where most or all 

aviation activities would otherwise be 

limited. 

i. Controlled Airspace 

The FAA is seeking to limit the 

exposure of the small unmanned aircraft 

to other users of the NAS to minimize 

the risk of collision, which can occur 

both during controlled flight of the UAS 

or if the operator loses positive control 

of the small unmanned aircraft. This 

proposed rule would prohibit small 

unmanned aircraft operations in Class A 

airspace. Class A airspace starts at 

18,000 feet mean sea level and extends 

up to 60,000 feet (Flight Level 600). As 

discussed above, this rule would 

prohibit small UAS operations above 

500 feet AGL and outside of visual line 

of sight. Operations in Class A airspace 

would be inconsistent with that 

requirement, and therefore this 

proposed rule would prohibit 

operations in Class A airspace. 

Small UAS operations would also be 

prohibited in Class B, Class C, Class D, 

and within the lateral boundaries of the 

surface area of Class E airspace 

designated for an airport without prior 

authorization from the ATC facility 

having jurisdiction over the airspace. 

The FAA factors information such as 

traffic density, the nature of operations, 

and the level of safety required when 

determining whether to designate 

controlled airspace.61 Pilots must have 

an ATC clearance to enter certain 

controlled airspace. In other words, the 

FAA requires ATC to have knowledge of 

aviation operations in the airspace due 

to the greater amount of activity in that 

area compared to uncontrolled airspace. 

The FAA believes that restricting use 

of controlled airspace to approved 

operations would reduce the risk of 

interference with other aircraft 

activities. Interference could occur for 

many reasons, including the location of 

the proposed small UAS operation in 

the airspace, or how the small 

unmanned aircraft would behave if 

there is a loss of positive control. These 

limitations would also be consistent 

with the general requirement for aircraft 

operating in controlled airspace to have 

ATC approval prior to entering the 

airspace. Therefore, the FAA proposes 

that small UAS receive approval from 

the ATC facility with jurisdiction over 

the airspace in which the operator 

would like to conduct operations. That 

ATC facility would have the best 

understanding of local airspace, its 

usage, and traffic patterns and would be 

in the best position to ascertain whether 

the proposed small UAS operation 

would pose a hazard to other users or 

the efficiency of the airspace, and 

procedures to implement to mitigate 

hazards. This proposed rule would not 

establish equipment requirements for 

small UAS operating in controlled 

airspace as the FAA does for other users 

of controlled airspace. Rather, the FAA 

believes that local ATC approval would 

provide a safer and more efficient 

operating environment at less cost to the 

operator. 

The FAA notes that normal aircraft 

operations inside controlled airspace in 

the vicinity of an airport require prior 

authorization from ATC. Per part 91, 

ATC currently requires two-way radio 

communication for departures, through 

flights, arrivals, and operations inside 

the airspace. The FAA understands that 

not all small UAS will be able to comply 

with the provisions of part 91, and that 

is why this proposed rule would not 

require strict compliance with part 91. 

However, because the air-traffic 

provisions of part 91 are intended to 

ensure safe operation in the NAS, a 

small UAS operator that intends to 

operate in controlled airspace must 

ensure that the proposed operations are 

planned and conducted in the safest 

manner possible. The small UAS 

operator can do this by working closely 

with the ATC facility that controls the 

airspace. 

The ATC facility has the authority to 

approve or deny aircraft operations 

based on traffic density, controller 

workload, communication issues, or any 

other type of operations that could 

potentially impact the safe and 

expeditious flow of air traffic in that 

airspace. The more that a small UAS is 

able to show that it would satisfy the 

provisions of part 91 and comply with 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9565 

62See 14 CFR 1.1. 

63See id. 

64See 14 CFR 91.133. 

65See FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, 

para. 5–1–3. 

66See, e.g., https://www.notams.faa.gov/

dinsQueryWeb/ and http://www.faa.gov/pilots/flt_

plan/notams/. 

67See 14 CFR 91.609. Different components of the 

aircraft are also currently subject to additional 

component-specific inspection schedules. For 

example, in addition to the above general 

inspection requirements, altimeter instruments on 

airplanes and helicopters operating in controlled 

airspace under instrument flight rules must be 

inspected every 24 months. See 14 CFR 

91.411(a)(1). 

68See 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D (listing aircraft 

components that must be inspected and the 

hazardous characteristics that the inspection should 

look for). 

the local operating procedures, the 

easier the access to the airspace would 

be. These items should be outlined in a 

prior agreement with the ATC facility to 

identify shortfalls and establish 

operating procedures for small UAS to 

integrate into the existing air traffic 

operation. This agreement would ensure 

all parties involved are aware of 

limitations and special interest items 

and would enable the safe flow of 

aircraft operations in that airspace. The 

FAA seeks comments related to part 91 

compliance issues small UAS operators 

may encounter. 

ii. Prohibited or Restricted Areas 

The proposed rule would prohibit 

small UAS operations in prohibited and 

restricted areas without permission from 

the using or controlling agency as 

applicable. Prohibited and restricted 

areas are designated in 14 CFR part 73. 

Prohibited areas are established when 

necessary to prohibit flight over an area 

on the surface in the interest of national 

security or welfare. No person may 

operate an aircraft without permission 

of the using agency in a prohibited 

area.62 Restricted areas are areas 

established when determined necessary 

to confine or segregate activities 

considered hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. Although aircraft 

flight is not wholly prohibited in these 

areas, it is subject to restriction.63 The 

proposed provision concerning 

prohibited and restricted areas would be 

similar to the part 91 restriction on 

operations in these areas.64

iii. Areas Designated by Notice to 

Airmen 

This proposed rule would also 

prohibit operation of small UAS in 

airspace restricted by NOTAMs unless 

authorized by ATC or a certificate of 

waiver or authorization. This would 

include NOTAMs issued to designate a 

temporary flight restriction (TFR). 

NOTAMs contain time-critical 

aeronautical information that is either 

temporary in nature, or not sufficiently 

known in advance to permit publication 

on aeronautical charts or other 

publications.65 For example, NOTAMs 

may be used to limit or restrict aircraft 

operations during emergency situations 

or presidential or VIP movements. They 

may also be used to limit aircraft 

operations in the vicinity of aerial 

demonstrations or sporting events. 

NOTAMs are available to the public on 

the FAA’s Web site.66

Like other users of the airspace, small 

UAS operators would be required to 

review and comply with NOTAMs. As 

with other airspace restrictions in this 

rule, an operator could seek 

authorization from ATC or through a 

certificate of waiver or authorization to 

conduct operations in otherwise 

restricted airspace. The FAA believes 

that this process would permit an 

assessment of the operation in relation 

to the airspace restriction to determine 

whether the operation can be safely 

conducted. 

6. Airworthiness, Inspection, 

Maintenance, and Airworthiness 

Directives 

i. Inspections and Maintenance 

As discussed in section III.J.3 of this 

preamble, pursuant to section 333(b)(2) 

of Public Law 112–95, we have 

determined that a small UAS should not 

be required to obtain airworthiness 

certification if satisfying the provisions 

of this proposal. However, without an 

airworthiness certification process, the 

FAA still needs to ensure that a small 

UAS is in a condition for safe operation. 

In considering how to address this 

issue, the FAA notes that the current 

regulations applicable to manned civil 

aircraft generally require an annual 

aircraft inspection every 12 months.67

The inspection and any maintenance 

that might be necessary as a result of the 

inspection currently are governed by the 

provisions of 14 CFR part 43. Part 43 

requires that the inspection examine 

every component of the aircraft in detail 

to determine whether any hazardous 

characteristics are present that would 

render the aircraft unairworthy.68 If the 

inspection reveals any hazardous 

characteristics that would render the 

aircraft unairworthy, then maintenance, 

conducted pursuant to the regulations of 

part 43, must be performed in order to 

return the aircraft to an airworthy 

condition. 

In addressing the issue of 

airworthiness for small UAS, the FAA 

considered several approaches, 

including requiring small UAS 

operators to comply with the existing 

inspection and maintenance 

requirements of this chapter. The FAA 

also considered requiring a separate 

permit to operate (PTO) in addition to 

aircraft registration and airman 

certification. A PTO would have 

included airworthiness certification 

requirements that would have required 

an applicant to: 

• Describe the entire small UAS, 

including airframe, control station, and 

communications link; 

• Comply with a set of unvalidated 

consensus standards; 

• Test the design features required by 

the unvalidated consensus standards 

and determine that the UAS satisfies 

those standards; 

• Inspect the aircraft for compliance 

with the manufacturer’s requirements; 

• Determine whether the aircraft has 

been manufactured in compliance with 

unvalidated production acceptance and 

quality assurance consensus standards 

acceptable to the FAA; 

• Complete ground and flight testing 

of required UAS components and 

determine whether they demonstrated 

acceptable performance and safe 

operation. 

• Create a process for addressing 

unsafe conditions in the aircraft; and 

• Create a monitoring program to 

identify and correct safety-of-flight 

issues. 

After further consideration, the FAA 

decided that neither of these approaches 

is proportionate to the risk posed by 

small UAS. FAA noted that, as 

mentioned previously, due to their light 

weight, small unmanned aircraft 

generally pose a significantly lower risk 

to people and property on the ground 

than manned aircraft. This relatively 

low risk is mitigated even further by the 

see-and-avoid and loss-of-positivecontrol provisions of this proposed rule, 

which are discussed above. 

Accordingly, based on existing 

information, the FAA believes that 

requiring small UAS operators to 

conduct inspection and maintenance of 

the small UAS pursuant to the existing 

regulations of part 43, or to obtain a 

PTO, would not result in significant 

safety benefits. As a result, this 

proposed rule would not require small 

UAS compliance with part 43 or the 

application for, or issuance of, a PTO. 

Instead, this proposed rule would 

require, in § 107.21(b), that prior to each 

flight, the operator must inspect the 

small UAS to ensure that it is in a 

condition for safe operation. The 

operator could do this by, for example, 

performing a manufacturerVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:30 Feb 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23FEP3.SGM 23FEP3

Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9566 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

69Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the 

Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft Final Rule, 69 FR 

44772, 44855 (July 27, 2004). 

70 14 CFR 91.13(a). 

71 14 CFR 91.15. 

recommended preflight inspection or 

performing an on-the-ground test of the 

small UAS to determine whether safetycritical systems and components are 

working properly. 

If, as a result of the inspection, the 

operator determines that the small UAS 

is no longer in a condition for safe 

operation, then proposed §§ 107.21(a) 

and 107.15(a) would prohibit the 

operation of the small UAS until the 

necessary maintenance has been made 

and the small UAS is once again in a 

condition for safe operation. First, 

proposed § 107.21(a) would require that 

the operator must maintain the small 

UAS in a condition for safe operation. 

An example of how the operator could 

satisfy this proposed requirement would 

be performing the manufacturer’s 

recommended maintenance at 

manufacturer-recommended regular 

intervals. Second, § 107.15(a) would 

prohibit a person from operating a small 

UAS unless that UAS is in a condition 

for safe operation. Thus, if an operator 

notices during inspection, maintenance, 

or preflight action, that the small UAS 

is not in a condition for safe operation, 

then the operator would be in violation 

of § 107.15(a) if he or she flies the small 

unmanned aircraft while the UAS is not 

in a condition safe for operation. 

The FAA also notes that a small UAS 

that appears to be in a condition for safe 

operation prior to flight may become 

unsafe for operation during flight. For 

example, the small unmanned aircraft 

could sustain damage during flight 

rendering that aircraft unsafe for 

continuing the flight. As such, this 

proposed rule would require, in 

§ 107.15(b), that the operator must 

discontinue the flight of the small 

unmanned aircraft when he or she 

knows or has reason to know that 

continuing the flight would pose a 

hazard to other aircraft, people, or 

property. This proposed requirement is 

similar to a requirement that currently 

exists in § 91.7(b), which requires the 

PIC to ‘‘discontinue the flight [of an 

aircraft] when unairworthy mechanical, 

electrical, or structural conditions 

occur.’’ 

The FAA invites comments on the 

issues discussed in this section. The 

FAA also invites comments as to the 

costs and benefits of requiring small 

UAS operators to perform maintenance 

and inspections pursuant to existing 

regulations. 

ii. Airworthiness Directives 

The FAA typically issues 

airworthiness directives to correct an 

existing unsafe condition in a product 

when the condition is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. Airworthiness directives 

currently are issued for engines, 

propellers, and other products that are 

either: (1) Approved under a type 

certificate or a supplemental type 

certificate; or (2) that are manufactured 

under a production certificate, a parts 

manufacturer approval (PMA), or 

technical standard order (TSO) 

authorization. 

As discussed in section III.J of this 

preamble, the FAA does not propose to 

require a type certificate, a production 

certificate, a PMA or TSO authorization 

for small UAS or any part installed on 

the small UAS. However, to provide 

manufacturers with flexibility, 

manufacturers would not be prohibited 

from installing parts that are FAAcertificated, have received PMA, or are 

TSO-authorized for manned-aircraft use 

on the small UAS, provided the small 

unmanned aircraft remains under 55 

pounds after the installation of the part. 

The FAA anticipates that some 

manufacturers may choose to use these 

parts on the small UAS in order to 

obtain a higher level of reliability 

associated with a certificate, approval, 

or authorization. 

However, because parts that are FAAcertificated, have received PMA, or are 

TSO-authorized may have airworthiness 

directives that are applicable to those 

parts, the FAA proposes to require, in 

§ 107.13(d), that the owner or operator 

of the small UAS must comply with all 

applicable airworthiness directives. The 

FAA notes that it used a similar 

approach in its 2004 light-sport aircraft 

rulemaking. In that rulemaking, the 

FAA did not require a type or 

production certificate for light-sport 

aircraft but allowed the installation on 

the aircraft of parts that are FAAcertificated, have received PMA, or are 

TSO-authorized as long as the owner or 

operator complied with all applicable 

airworthiness directives.69

7. Miscellaneous Operating Provisions 

i. Careless or Reckless Operation 

The existing FAA regulations prohibit 

a person from operating an aircraft in a 

careless or reckless manner so as to 

endanger the life or property of 

another.70 These regulations also 

prohibit the PIC from allowing any 

object to be dropped from an aircraft in 

flight if doing so would create a hazard 

to persons or property.71 The FAA 

proposes to apply similar regulations to 

small UAS operations, in § 107.23 to 

ensure that a small UAS is not operated 

in a hazardous manner. 

ii. Drug and Alcohol Prohibition 

Proposed § 107.27 would require 

small UAS operators and visual 

observers to comply with the alcohol 

and drug use prohibitions that are 

currently in place in part 91 of the 

FAA’s regulations. Small UAS operators 

and visual observers would also be 

subject to the existing regulations of 

§ 91.19, which prohibit knowingly 

carrying narcotic drugs, marijuana, and 

depressant or stimulant drugs or 

substances. 

The purpose of these regulations is to 

ensure that the safety of small UAS 

operations are not impeded by alcohol 

or drug use and to prohibit the use of 

aircraft for drug trafficking. Section 

91.17 specifically prohibits use of 

alcohol or drugs during or for a time 

period prior to an operation. Moreover, 

operators and visual observers would 

need to submit to testing to determine 

alcohol concentration in the blood due 

to a suspected violation of law or 

§ 91.17. Operators or visual observers 

would be required to submit these tests 

to the FAA if the FAA has a reasonable 

basis to believe that the person has 

violated § 91.17. 

This section would also subject 

persons operating small UAS who 

knowingly carry illegal substances to 

FAA enforcement action, which could 

include certificate revocation. An 

exception exists for substances 

authorized by or under any Federal or 

State statute or by any Federal or State 

Agency. 

iii. Medical Conditions 

As discussed in section III.E of this 

preamble, this proposed rule would not 

require a small UAS operator or visual 

observer to hold an airman medical 

certificate. However, the FAA 

recognizes the possibility that a person 

acting as an operator or visual observer 

may have a medical condition that 

could interfere with the safe operation 

of the small UAS. Accordingly, the FAA 

proposes, in § 107.17, to prohibit a 

person from acting as an operator or 

visual observer if he or she knows or has 

reason to know of any physical or 

mental condition that would interfere 

with the safe operation of a small UAS. 

This proposed provision is similar to 

the regulatory provision of 14 CFR 

61.53(b), which currently applies to 

operations that do not require a medical 

certificate. 

iv. Sufficient Power for the Small UAS 

Proposed § 107.49(a)(4) would require 

a small UAS operator to ensure that, if 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9567 

72 49 U.S.C. 44101(a). 

73See 14 CFR part 45. 

74 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). 

75Parts 61, 63, and 65 currently apply to all 

airman certificates, which include small UAS 

airmen. However, under this proposed rule, these 

parts would no longer apply to small UAS airmen. 

Thus, the distinction discussed in this paragraph 

would segregate experience acquired while 

operating a small UAS from experience acquired 

while operating a manned aircraft. 

76 78 FR 42324 (July 15, 2013). 

77 Id. 78See, e.g., 14 CFR 61.83(c). 

powered, the small UAS has enough 

power to operate for its intended 

operational time and an additional five 

minutes. The 5-minute buffer would 

ensure that the small UAS has sufficient 

power to return to the operator, or 

another location, and be able to make a 

controlled landing. Additionally, 

control inputs to a small UAS may 

degrade as batteries lose charge because 

power to the flight control system(s) 

may be lost. Accordingly this proposed 

rule would help to ensure that the small 

UAS remains controllable throughout its 

intended operational time. The FAA 

notes that a small UAS travelling at 10 

miles per hour would be able to cover 

nearly one mile in 5 minutes. 

v. Registration and Marking 

As mentioned earlier, the FAA’s 

statute prohibits a person from 

operating a civil aircraft that is not 

registered.72 The FAA proposes to 

codify this statutory requirement in 

§ 107.13(b). In addition, all aircraft 

currently are required to display their 

registration number on the aircraft.73

The FAA proposes to impose a similar 

requirement, in § 107.13(c), on small 

unmanned aircraft subject to this 

proposed rule. The specific manner in 

which the small unmanned aircraft 

would register and display its 

registration number is discussed in 

section III.G of this preamble. 

E. Operator Certificate 

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

the FAA proposes to satisfy the 

statutory requirement for an airman to 

possess an airman certificate 74 by 

requiring small UAS operators to obtain 

and hold an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a small UAS rating in 

order to operate a small UAS. An 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

would be a new type of airman 

certificate created by this proposed rule, 

and this section explains the FAA’s 

proposal concerning this certificate. 

1. Applicability 

The FAA is proposing to require that 

individuals obtain an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating as a prerequisite to operating a 

small UAS. As with airman certificates 

that the FAA requires for operating 

other aircraft, an operator certificate 

would ensure that the operator is able 

to safely operate the small UAS. The 

FAA notes that airman certificates are 

currently issued to pilots who engage in 

commercial and non-commercial 

activities. The FAA is proposing to issue 

a new type of certificate for UAS 

operators, rather than require a private 

or commercial pilot certificate with 

UAS type rating, because many of the 

requirements for private and 

commercial pilots are not necessary for 

the types of operations that would be 

permitted under this rule. 

Moreover, the FAA wants to maintain 

a distinction between an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate and the 

airman certificates issued under parts 

61, 63 and 65.75 As such, proposed 

§ 61.8 would prohibit activities under 

this rule from being used to meet part 

61 requirements. Activities would 

include any training, certification, or 

flights associated with small UAS under 

proposed part 107. This proposal is 

consistent with the FAA’s statement in 

the 2013 Pilot Certification and 

Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations Final Rule that 

‘‘regulations do not currently permit the 

time acquired while operating [a UAS] 

to be logged to meet aeronautical 

experience requirements for FAA 

[manned-aircraft] certification.’’ 76

Additionally, that rule did not extend 

an exception from a flight time standard 

to graduates of training programs 

designed to qualify a military pilot 

solely for operation of UAS to qualify 

for a reduced flight time.77

The FAA considered proposing to 

require an individual to obtain a 

commercial pilot certificate with a UAS 

type endorsement before operating a 

small UAS. Issuance of such a certificate 

would require that the applicant obtain 

a Class II airman medical certificate, 

pass an aeronautical knowledge test, 

and demonstrate flight proficiency and 

aeronautical experience with a 

certificated flight instructor. However, 

given the lower level of public risk 

posed by small UAS operations, the 

FAA decided that imposing such 

requirements would be unduly 

burdensome to small UAS operators. 

Moreover, as explained in further detail 

in preamble section III.E.2.iii.a below, 

the FAA believes that the training, 

testing, proficiency and experience 

requirements for obtaining a commercial 

pilot license have limited relevance to 

the nature of small UAS operations. The 

FAA invites public comment on its 

proposal to create a new category of 

airman certificate for small UAS 

operators. 

2. Unmanned Aircraft Operator 

Certificate—Eligibility & Issuance 

This rule would establish the 

eligibility requirements to apply for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating and specify 

when a certificate would be issued. 

Military and former military pilots 

would be able to apply based on 

experience operating unmanned aircraft 

in the United States Armed Forces. 

i. Minimum Age 

Proposed § 107.61 would establish the 

eligibility requirements for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating. First, an 

applicant would need to be at least 17 

years of age. This minimum age is 

consistent with existing FAA minimum 

age requirements for the Sport Pilot, 

Recreational Pilot, and Private Pilot 

airman certificates—the base-level 

certificates authorizing pilots to operate 

aircraft while not under the supervision 

of an instructor. Because this rule would 

permit commercial small UAS 

operations, the FAA considered setting 

the minimum age at 18 years, consistent 

with the Commercial Pilot Certificate 

requirements which permit carrying 

persons or property for compensation or 

hire. However, the FAA determined that 

the higher age limit was not necessary 

because the proposed operational 

limitations will create an environment 

that minimizes risk to persons and 

property. 

The FAA notes that the minimum age 

necessary to apply for an airman 

certificate to operate a glider or a 

balloon category aircraft is 16 years old. 

The FAA invites comments on whether 

the minimum age necessary to apply for 

an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate should similarly be reduced 

to 16 years old in the final rule. The 

FAA also invites comments as to 

whether reducing the minimum 

applicant age to 16 years old would 

further enable academic use of small 

UAS. 

ii. English Language Proficiency 

A person would need to be able to 

read, speak, write and understand the 

English language to be eligible for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating. This 

requirement is consistent with all other 

airman certificates issued by the FAA.78

The English language has generally been 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9568 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

79See, e.g., 14 CFR 61.105–61.109. 

accepted as the international standard 

for aircraft operations by ICAO. 

However, this proposed rule would 

create an exception for people who are 

unable to meet one of the English 

language requirements due to medical 

reasons, as is the case for other airman 

certificates. Such a person would still be 

eligible for a certificate; however, the 

FAA would be able to specify 

limitations on that person’s small UAS 

operator certificate to account for the 

medical condition. For example, if an 

applicant is unable to communicate 

using speech then the FAA may impose 

a limitation that the operator may not 

conduct a small UAS operation 

requiring more than one person. 

iii. Pilot Qualification 

The third proposed requirement to 

obtain an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a small UAS rating 

would be to pass an initial aeronautical 

knowledge test. To ensure that a pilot is 

qualified to control an aircraft, the FAA 

generally requires that the applicant for 

a pilot certificate demonstrate the 

following three things: (1) Aeronautical 

knowledge; (2) flight proficiency (i.e. 

that the applicant has the requisite 

piloting skills); and (3) aeronautical 

experience.79 For the reasons stated 

below, the FAA has determined that a 

flight proficiency demonstration and 

aeronautical experience should not be 

required for issuance of an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating. Instead, the FAA proposes 

to require that applicants for this 

certificate simply demonstrate their 

aeronautical knowledge by passing an 

initial knowledge test and then passing 

a recurrent knowledge test every 24 

months thereafter. 

a. Flight Proficiency and Aeronautical 

Experience 

As mentioned in the previous 

paragraph, the FAA currently requires 

applicants for a pilot certificate to 

demonstrate that they have the requisite 

flight proficiency and aeronautical 

experience to properly control the flight 

of an aircraft. These existing regulations 

are intended to ensure that an aircraft 

can take off safely and arrive back on 

the ground: (1) With everyone on board 

the aircraft unharmed; (2) without 

harming people on the ground; and (3) 

without interfering with other users of 

the NAS. 

The first consideration for requiring a 

flight-proficiency demonstration and 

aeronautical experience (to prevent 

possible harm to people on board the 

aircraft) does not apply to small UAS 

operations because if a small unmanned 

aircraft was to crash, there would be no 

one on board the aircraft to be harmed 

by that crash. The second consideration 

for these requirements (to prevent harm 

to people on the ground) is addressed by 

the operating requirements of this rule, 

which limit the operation of the small 

unmanned aircraft to a confined area 

and require the operator to ensure that 

the aircraft will pose no hazard to 

people on the ground if there is a loss 

of positive control. An operator does not 

necessarily need special operating skills 

or aeronautical experience to ensure 

that the aircraft will not pose a hazard 

to people on the ground. For example, 

if an operator plans to fly the small 

unmanned aircraft in a residential area, 

the operator could approach the people 

who live in that area prior to the 

operation, inform them of the details of 

the operation, and ask them to either 

stay out of the area or stay indoors 

during the operation. Doing this would 

ensure the safety of people on the 

ground but would not require the use of 

special operating skills or aeronautical 

experience. 

The third consideration for requiring 

a flight-proficiency demonstration and 

aeronautical experience (to avoid 

interference with other users of the 

NAS) is mitigated by the fact that a 

small unmanned aircraft is generally: (1) 

Relatively easy to control; (2) highly 

maneuverable; and (3) much easier to 

terminate flight than a manned aircraft. 

Specifically, the control station for a 

small UAS is typically less complex 

than the interface used to control the 

flight of a manned aircraft. Many small 

UAS control stations currently consist 

of a basic two-joystick interface where 

one joystick controls the aircraft’s 

altitude and the other joystick controls 

the aircraft’s speed and direction. Other 

control stations utilize basic programs, 

such as smart-phone or tablet 

applications, to control the small 

unmanned aircraft. These programs are 

generally easy to learn and utilize. By 

contrast, the flight deck interface used 

to control a manned aircraft requires 

coordinated use of flight control inputs, 

interpretation of aircraft 

instrumentation, and onboard 

equipment operation. Some of this 

equipment includes communication and 

sophisticated navigation equipment. A 

manned-aircraft pilot must learn to 

properly use all of these flight-deckinterface components in order to control 

the flight of the manned aircraft. 

In addition, because a small 

unmanned aircraft is highly 

maneuverable and easy to land, an 

operator who finds the small unmanned 

aircraft to be difficult to control would 

still be able to easily land the aircraft. 

For instance, in the two-joystick control 

station example provided above, the 

operator could land a small unmanned 

rotorcraft simply by pressing the 

altitude joystick down until the 

rotorcraft descends to the ground. By 

contrast, a manned aircraft pilot would 

need to go through a significantly more 

complex process that includes adjusting 

aircraft attitude with flight controls, 

reducing engine power, and scanning 

for other traffic, in order to land the 

aircraft on the ground after takeoff. 

There are two additional 

considerations for not requiring a flight 

proficiency demonstration or 

aeronautical experience for small UAS 

operators. First, unlike the pilot of a 

manned aircraft, the small UAS operator 

has the option to sacrifice the small 

unmanned aircraft in response to an 

emergency. Second, as discussed 

previously, proposed §§ 107.19(b) and 

107.39 would require the operator to 

control the confined area of operation in 

order to ensure that the small 

unmanned aircraft will not pose a 

hazard to people on the ground in an 

emergency situation. Other operating 

rules proposed in this NPRM, such as 

the prohibition on operating within 

restricted areas without permission, the 

requirement to give way to manned 

aircraft, and the 500 feet AGL height 

limitation, would also mitigate the risk 

that a small unmanned aircraft 

interferes with other users of the NAS 

or poses a hazard to people on the 

ground. 

Because the considerations 

underlying the current flight proficiency 

demonstration and aeronautical 

experience requirements have, at best, a 

limited applicability to small UAS 

operations that would be subject to this 

proposed rule, the FAA proposes not to 

require that applicants for an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating demonstrate flight 

proficiency or aeronautical experience. 

The FAA invites comments on whether 

these applicants should be required to 

demonstrate flight proficiency and/or 

aeronautical experience. If so, what 

flight proficiency and/or aeronautical 

experience requirements should the 

FAA impose? The FAA also invites 

comments as to the costs and benefits of 

imposing these requirements. 

b. Initial Aeronautical Knowledge Test 

Turning to the remaining component 

of airman certification (aeronautical 

knowledge), the FAA proposes to 

require that applicants for an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating pass an initial knowledge 

test to demonstrate that they have 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9569 

sufficient aeronautical knowledge to 

safely operate a small UAS. The FAA 

proposes a knowledge test rather than a 

required training course in order to 

provide applicants with flexibility as to 

the method that they use to acquire 

aeronautical knowledge. For example, 

some individuals who wish to become 

small UAS operators may also hold a 

pilot certificate, and those individuals 

would already have acquired extensive 

aeronautical knowledge in order to 

obtain a pilot certificate. Other 

individuals may be able to acquire the 

necessary knowledge through self-study. 

Still other individuals may choose to 

use a commercial training course 

designed to provide them with the 

knowledge necessary to pass the initial 

knowledge test. In any case, passage of 

a knowledge test would ensure that the 

applicant has demonstrated the 

aeronautical knowledge necessary to 

safely operate a small UAS regardless of 

how the applicant happened to acquire 

that knowledge. The FAA invites 

comments as to whether other 

requirements, such as passage of an 

FAA-approved training course, should 

be imposed either instead of or in 

addition to the proposed knowledge 

test. 

c. Areas of Knowledge Tested on the 

Initial Knowledge Test 

This proposed initial knowledge test 

would test the following areas of 

knowledge. First, the knowledge test 

would test whether the applicant knows 

the regulations applicable to small UAS 

operations. By testing the applicant’s 

knowledge of the applicable regulations, 

the proposed initial knowledge test 

would ensure that the applicant 

understands what those regulations 

require and does not violate them 

through ignorance. 

Second, the initial knowledge test 

would test whether the applicant 

understands how to determine the 

classification of specific airspace and 

what the requirements are for operating 

in that airspace. To comply with the 

proposed airspace operating 

requirements, a small UAS operator 

would need to know how to determine 

the classification of the airspace in 

which he or she would like to operate. 

Third, the initial knowledge test 

would test whether the applicant 

understands flight restrictions affecting 

small unmanned aircraft operations. 

The proposed initial knowledge test 

would test whether the applicant knows 

how to determine which areas are 

prohibited, restricted, or subject to a 

TFR in order to comply with the 

proposed flight restrictions in §§ 107.45 

and 107.47. 

Fourth, the initial knowledge test 

would test whether the applicant 

understands how to clear an obstacle 

during flight. As discussed previously, 

proposed § 107.37(b) prohibits a person 

from creating a collision hazard with, 

among other things, a ground structure. 

The proposed initial knowledge test 

would test whether the applicant 

understands what types of small 

unmanned aircraft maneuvers would 

create a collision hazard with a ground 

structure. 

Fifth, the initial knowledge test would 

test whether the applicant understands 

the effects of weather and 

micrometeorology (weather on a 

localized and small scale) on small 

unmanned aircraft operation. 

Knowledge of weather is necessary for 

safe operation of a small unmanned 

aircraft because, due to the light weight 

of the small unmanned aircraft, weather 

could have a significant impact on the 

flight of that aircraft. For example, space 

around buildings, smokestacks and 

trees, which is safe during clear 

weather, could easily become hazardous 

in a windy situation. Accordingly, the 

proposed initial knowledge test would 

test whether an applicant understands 

the effect that different types of weather 

have on small unmanned aircraft 

performance and how to react to that 

weather. The proposed knowledge test 

would also test whether an applicant 

has knowledge of official sources that he 

or she can use to obtain weather 

information and predictions in order to 

plan the operation of the small UAS. 

Sixth, the proposed knowledge test 

would test whether an applicant 

understands how to calculate the weight 

and balance of the small unmanned 

aircraft to determine impacts on 

performance. In order to operate safely, 

operators need knowledge and 

understanding of some fundamental 

aircraft performance issues, which 

include load balancing and weight 

distribution as well as available power 

for the operation. 

Seventh, the operator of a small UAS 

may be presented with an emergency 

situation during an operation. 

Accordingly, the proposed initial 

knowledge test would test whether the 

applicant understands how to properly 

respond to an emergency. 

Eighth, the proposed initial 

knowledge test would test the 

applicant’s understanding of 

aeronautical decision-making/judgment 

and crew resource management. Even 

though this proposed rule would limit 

the flight of a small unmanned aircraft 

to operations at or below 500 feet AGL, 

some manned aircraft will still operate 

in the same airspace as the small 

unmanned aircraft. Accordingly, the 

small UAS operator would need to 

understand the aeronautical decisionmaking and judgment that mannedaircraft pilots engage in so that he or she 

can anticipate how the manned aircraft 

will react to the small unmanned 

aircraft. The small UAS operator would 

also need to understand how to function 

in a team environment (this is known as 

crew resource management) because 

this proposed rule would permit the use 

of visual observers to assist the small 

UAS operator and would place the 

operator in charge of those observers. 

Ninth, the proposed initial knowledge 

test would test the applicant’s 

understanding of airport operations and 

radio communication procedures, 

which would include standard 

terminology. While this proposed rule 

would limit small UAS operations in 

the vicinity of an airport, there are some 

instances where these operations would 

be permitted. For example, this 

proposed rule would allow a small 

unmanned aircraft to operate in Class B, 

C, or D airspace if the operator obtains 

prior ATC authorization. In order to 

operate safely near an airport, the 

operator would need to have knowledge 

of airport operations so that the small 

unmanned aircraft does not interfere 

with those operations. The operator 

would also need to have knowledge of 

radio communication procedures so that 

the operator can communicate with 

ATC. 

Lastly, the proposed initial knowledge 

test would test whether the applicant 

understands the physiological effects of 

drugs and alcohol. Many prescription 

and over-the-counter medications can 

significantly reduce an individual’s 

cognitive ability to process and 

determine what is happening around 

him or her. Accordingly, an operator 

needs to understand how drugs and 

alcohol can impact his or her ability to 

safely operate the small UAS. 

The FAA invites comments on the 

proposed areas of knowledge to be 

tested on the initial knowledge test. The 

FAA also invites comments as to 

whether the initial knowledge test 

should test any other areas of 

knowledge. If so, what additional areas 

of knowledge should be tested? What 

would be the costs and benefits of 

testing these other areas of knowledge? 

d. Administration of the Initial 

Knowledge Test 

Knowledge tests currently 

administered to prospective pilots 

under 14 CFR part 61 are created by the 

FAA and administered by FAAapproved knowledge testing centers. A 

knowledge testing center is a private 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9570 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

80See 14 CFR 61.35(b). 

81The current knowledge-test identification 

requirements can be found at 14 CFR 61.35(a)(2). 

82 14 CFR 61.49(a). 

entity that has received FAA approval to 

administer airman knowledge tests. 

These centers are all certificated and 

regularly evaluated to ensure that the 

testing center meets FAA certification 

requirements. There are currently about 

650 knowledge testing center spread 

throughout the country. The FAA 

proposes to apply its existing 

knowledge development and 

administration framework to knowledge 

tests that would be administered to 

prospective small UAS operators. Under 

this framework, the initial knowledge 

test would be created by the FAA and 

administered by an FAA-approved 

knowledge testing center. Just as it does 

now, the FAA will specify the minimum 

grade necessary to pass the knowledge 

test,80 and applicants who take the test 

will be issued an airman knowledge test 

report showing the results of the 

knowledge test. 

To ensure that the knowledge test is 

properly administered, this proposed 

rule would also impose the following 

requirements. First, proposed § 107.69 

would prohibit an applicant from 

cheating or engaging in unauthorized 

conduct during a knowledge test. This 

would include: (1) Copying or 

intentionally removing a knowledge 

test; (2) giving a copy of a knowledge 

test to another applicant or receiving a 

copy of the knowledge test from another 

applicant; (3) giving or receiving 

unauthorized assistance while the 

knowledge test is being administered; 

(4) taking any part of a knowledge test 

on behalf of another person; (5) being 

represented by or representing another 

person for a knowledge test; and (6) 

using any material not specifically 

authorized by the FAA while taking a 

knowledge test. Cheating or engaging in 

unauthorized conduct during a 

knowledge test in violation of proposed 

§ 107.69 would be grounds for 

suspending or revoking the certificate or 

denying an application for a certificate. 

In addition, a person who engages in 

unauthorized conduct would be 

prohibited from applying for a 

certificate or taking a knowledge test for 

a period of one year after the date of the 

unauthorized conduct. 

Second, to ensure that the person 

taking the knowledge test is correctly 

identified, proposed § 107.67 would 

require an applicant for a knowledge 

test to have proper identification at the 

time of the application. To ensure 

correct identification, the applicant for 

an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate would have to have his or her 

identification verified in person just like 

any other applicant for an FAA-issued 

airman certificate. The proposed 

requirements for proper identification 

would be the same as the identification 

requirements currently imposed on 

applicants who wish to take a 

knowledge test.81 Specifically, an 

applicant’s identification would need to 

include the applicant’s: (1) Photograph; 

(2) signature; (3) date of birth, which 

shows the applicant meets or will meet 

the proposed age requirements for an 

operator certificate; and (4) the 

applicant’s current residential address if 

the permanent mailing address is a post 

office box number. 

Finally, proposed § 107.71 would 

address circumstances in which an 

applicant wishes to retake a knowledge 

test after failure. To ensure that an 

applicant receives additional training 

after failing a knowledge test, the FAA 

currently requires an applicant who 

fails a knowledge test to receive 

additional training from a flight 

instructor and an endorsement from that 

instructor indicating that the instructor 

has determined that the applicant is 

now proficient to pass the test.82

However, as discussed previously, this 

proposed rule would not require any 

specific form of training or studying in 

order to pass a knowledge test. 

Accordingly, the FAA proposes to 

require that a person who fails a 

knowledge test wait 14 calendar days 

before retaking the knowledge test. This 

14-day waiting period would provide 

sufficient time for an applicant who 

fails a knowledge test to obtain 

additional training of his or her choice. 

The FAA also considered whether to 

offer an option for the knowledge test to 

be administered online. However, in 

examining this approach the FAA 

ultimately determined that there would 

be significant risk in the integrity of a 

knowledge test becoming compromised 

if that test was to be administered 

outside of a controlled environment. 

This could be accomplished through 

someone copying and circulating the 

test questions, using unauthorized 

materials to take the test, or even taking 

the test for another person. Using the 

identity of another person to take the 

knowledge test may also allow an 

applicant to manipulate the security 

vetting procedures that take place once 

the applicant’s identity is verified. 

In addition, the FAA determined that 

it would be more difficult to safeguard 

the personally identifiable information 

(PII) of a test-taker that would be 

collected online rather than in-person at 

a knowledge testing center. 

Accordingly, the FAA has decided 

against proceeding with an online testtaking option. The FAA invites 

comments on whether the small UAS 

aeronautical knowledge test should 

have an option for online test-taking 

and, if so, what safeguards should be 

implemented to protect the integrity of 

the small UAS knowledge test, assure 

the FAA of the identity of the test taker, 

and protect the test-taker’s PII that 

would be provided online. The FAA 

also invites comment on different UAS 

testing location options that might 

provide the lowest cost option for 

individuals, while protecting the 

integrity of the test and the information 

provided as part of the test-taking 

process. 

e. Recurrent Aeronautical Knowledge 

Test 

i. General Requirement and 

Administration of the Recurrent 

Knowledge Test 

The FAA also proposes to require 

small UAS operators to pass a recurrent 

aeronautical knowledge test after they 

receive their operator certificate. The 

FAA proposes this requirement because 

this proposed rule would not require 

small UAS operators to regularly 

conduct small UAS operations, and 

consequently, some operators may 

conduct small UAS operations 

infrequently and may not fully retain 

some of the knowledge that they 

acquired in order to pass the initial 

knowledge test. The FAA also notes that 

even operators who regularly conduct 

small UAS operations may not fully 

retain pieces of knowledge that they do 

not use during their regular operations. 

For example, a small UAS operator who 

conducts operations only in Class G 

airspace may not retain the knowledge 

that he or she needs ATC authorization 

in order to conduct operations in Class 

B, C, or D airspace. Some aeronautical 

knowledge that the small UAS operator 

learned for the initial knowledge test 

may also become outdated over time. 

Accordingly, the FAA proposes to 

require that the operator pass a 

recurrent knowledge test every 24 

months. The FAA proposes 24 months 

as the appropriate recurrent testing 

frequency because that is the frequency 

of the recurrent flight review that pilots 

currently complete under 14 CFR 61.56. 

This requirement has been in place for 

approximately 40 years. Based on the 

FAA’s experience with the existing 24- 

month flight review cycle, a recurrent 

knowledge test that is given every 24 

months would ensure that the small 

UAS operator properly maintains the 

pertinent aeronautical knowledge. The 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9571 

83As discussed in more detail further in the 

preamble, proposed § 107.75 would allow military 

or former military UAS operator applicants to take 

the recurrent test instead of the initial test in order 

to obtain an FAA-issued unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate. 84 14 CFR 61.23(a). 

FAA invites comments on this proposed 

requirement. 

The FAA also proposes that the 

recurrent aeronautical knowledge test be 

administered using the same framework 

as the initial aeronautical knowledge 

test. Specifically, under this proposed 

rule, the recurrent knowledge test 

would be created by the FAA and 

administered by FAA-approved 

knowledge testing centers. An applicant 

would be required to have proper 

identification in order to take the test, 

and he or she would be required to wait 

14 days after failure before retaking the 

knowledge test. A certificate holder or 

applicant 83 would also be prohibited 

from cheating or engaging in 

unauthorized conduct during the 

recurrent knowledge test. 

Just as with the initial knowledge test, 

the FAA invites comments on whether 

the small UAS recurrent aeronautical 

knowledge test should have an option 

for online test-taking and, if so, what 

safeguards should be implemented to 

protect the integrity of the small UAS 

knowledge test, assure the FAA of the 

identity of the test taker, and protect the 

test-taker’s PII that would be provided 

online. 

ii. Recurrent Test Areas of Knowledge 

Under this proposed rule, the 

recurrent knowledge test would test the 

following areas of knowledge. First, the 

knowledge test would test the operator’s 

knowledge of the regulations that 

govern small UAS operation to ensure 

that his or her knowledge is up to date 

regarding all aspects of small UAS 

operations permitted under the 

certificate, as the operator may not 

encounter all of these aspects in his or 

her regular operation. In the example 

provided earlier, an operator who 

regularly conducts small UAS 

operations in Class G airspace may not 

retain the knowledge concerning 

regulations governing operation in other 

classes of airspace. 

Second, the recurrent knowledge test 

would test the operator’s knowledge of 

airspace classification and operating 

requirements, obstacle clearance 

requirements, and flight restrictions. 

This is because: (1) Airspace that the 

operator is familiar with could become 

reclassified over time; (2) the location of 

existing flight restrictions could change 

over time; (3) new ground-based 

obstacles could be created as a result of 

new construction; and (4) some 

operators may not regularly encounter 

these issues in their regular operations. 

Third, the recurrent knowledge test 

would ensure that the operator has the 

latest knowledge concerning sources of 

weather and airport operations. This is 

because the official sources of weather 

could change over time. Market 

turnover could also affect a change in 

airport operations as new airports are 

built and old airports are demolished or 

repurposed. The FAA notes that airports 

can also change their operations in 

response to changes in operating 

environment by, for example, changing 

the approaches that manned aircraft use 

to line up for a landing. The recurrent 

knowledge test would ensure that the 

small UAS operator is familiar with the 

latest sources of weather and the latest 

information concerning airport 

operations. 

Fourth, the recurrent knowledge test 

would test the operator’s knowledge of 

emergency procedures, crew resource 

management, and aeronautical decisionmaking/judgment. A small UAS 

operator may not encounter any of these 

situations over a 24-month operating 

period because: (1) An emergency 

situation may not present itself; (2) the 

operator may be involved in operations 

that do not use visual observers; and (3) 

the operator may be involved in 

operations that do not take place in the 

vicinity of any manned aircraft. 

Accordingly, including these areas of 

knowledge on the recurrent knowledge 

test would ensure that the operator 

retains knowledge on these areas even if 

he or she does not regularly encounter 

them in his or her small UAS 

operations. 

iv. Issuance of an Unmanned Aircraft 

Operator Certificate with Small UAS 

Rating 

Proposed § 107.63 specifies that the 

FAA will issue the certificate to an 

airman eligible under § 107.61 if the 

airman submits an application 

including an airman knowledge test 

report showing that he or she passed the 

initial aeronautical knowledge test 

required for the certificate. The 

certificate will not have an expiration 

date, and once issued, it will remain 

valid until surrendered, suspended, or 

revoked. The FAA invites comments as 

to whether this certificate should expire 

after a certain period of time. If so, when 

should the certificate expire? 

The method of submission of the 

application is discussed further in 

section III.E.5.i of this preamble. The 

FAA notes that, as discussed in that 

section, all applicants for an airman 

certificate will be vetted by the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46111 to 

determine whether they pose a security 

threat. An applicant will not be issued 

an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate until the TSA determines that 

the applicant will not pose a security 

threat. 

v. Not Requiring an Airman Medical 

Certificate 

The FAA also considered whether to 

require an applicant seeking an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating to obtain an 

airman medical certificate as part of the 

application process. With certain 

exceptions, under 14 CFR part 61, the 

FAA currently requires an airman 

medical certificate for a student pilot 

certificate, a recreational pilot 

certificate, a private pilot certificate, a 

commercial pilot certificate, and an 

airline transport pilot certificate.84

Flight instructors are also required to 

have a valid medical certificate when 

required to act as pilot in command. 

The primary reason for medical 

certification is to determine if the 

airman has a medical condition that is 

likely to manifest as subtle or sudden 

incapacitation that could cause a pilot 

to lose positive control of the aircraft, or 

impair the pilots ability to ‘‘see and 

avoid.’’ 

The FAA has determined that 

traditional FAA medical certification 

may not be warranted for small UAS 

operators subject to this proposed rule 

mainly because small UAS operators 

and visual observers are operating 

within a ‘‘confined area of operation,’’ 

and subject to other operational 

limitations, discussed previously in this 

preamble. This is because the proposed 

visual-line-of-sight requirement for the 

operator and/or visual observer to be 

able to see the aircraft’s direction and 

attitude of flight in the proposed rule is 

preferable to a vision standard. Even 

with normal vision it is foreseeable that 

a small unmanned aircraft may be so 

small that the operational space must be 

reduced to meet the operational 

requirements proposed in this rule. As 

such, prescriptive medical standards 

may not be as critical as they are for 

individuals exercising pilot privileges 

and therefore are not proposed under 

this action. 

Rather, the FAA is proposing that 

operators self-certify, at the time of their 

airman application, that they do not 

have a medical condition that could 

interfere with the safe operation of a 

small UAS. As proposed in § 107.61(d), 

an applicant for an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9572 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

85See 14 CFR 61.73. 86See 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D). 

87See 6 U.S.C. 469. 

88FAA Order 8900.1, vol. 5, ch. 1, sec. 3, para. 

5–54; FAA Order 8900.2, ch. 7, sec. 2, para. 25, pg. 

7–36. 

rating would be ineligible for the 

certificate if he or she knows or has 

reason to know of any physical or 

mental condition that would interfere 

with the safe operation of a small UAS. 

The FAA also proposes, in § 107.63(a), 

that the applicant be required to make 

a certification to that effect. Both of 

these proposed requirements are similar 

to the regulatory provision of § 61.53(b), 

which prohibits operations during 

medical deficiency for individuals 

conducting operations that do not 

require a medical certificate. FAA also 

considered proposing to require a 

medical certificate for a visual observer, 

but decided not to propose this 

requirement for the same reason a 

medical certificate for an operator is not 

being proposed. The FAA, however, 

does invite public comment as to 

whether an FAA medical certificate 

should be required. The FAA also 

invites comments as to the costs and 

benefits of requiring an airman medical 

certificate for an operator or visual 

observer. 

4. Military Equivalency 

This proposed rule would allow pilots 

with military experience operating 

unmanned aircraft to take the recurrent 

knowledge test in lieu of the initial 

knowledge test in order to be eligible for 

an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a small UAS rating. The 

U.S. Armed Forces use many types and 

sizes of UAS in combat and non-combat 

operations, both in the United States 

and abroad, and have done so for many 

years. During that time, many 

servicemen and women have been 

trained to operate UAS. The FAA has 

established special rules for current or 

former military pilots allowing them to 

be issued FAA pilot certificates based 

on their military flight experience and 

passing a military knowledge check.85

Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to 

allow current or former military 

operators of unmanned aircraft to take a 

more limited recurrent aeronautical 

knowledge test rather than the initial 

aeronautical knowledge test to obtain an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating. They may not 

rely on that experience if they were 

subject to certain disciplinary action 

described in § 107.75(a). 

The FAA also considered whether to 

allow individuals who have been 

conducting UAS operations under a 

COA as a non-military UAS operator to 

take a recurrent test instead of an initial 

test in order to obtain an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating. However, the FAA decided 

not to include this provision in the 

proposed rule because: (1) There is no 

formally recognized recordation system 

for non-military COA pilots as there is 

for military pilots; and (2) non-military 

COA pilots are currently subject to 

different requirements than military 

COA pilots for operations above 400 feet 

AGL. The FAA invites comments on 

whether non-military COA pilots should 

be permitted to take the recurrent 

knowledge test instead of the initial 

knowledge test in order to obtain an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate. 

5. Unmanned Aircraft Operator 

Certificate: Denial, Revocation, 

Suspension, Amendment, and 

Surrender 

This rule would establish specific 

instances for when an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating can be denied, revoked, 

suspended, amended, or surrendered. 

This rule would allow the FAA to deny, 

suspend, or revoke the certificate for 

reasons including security risk posed by 

the applicant, drug or alcohol offenses, 

refusal to submit to an alcohol test or 

furnish the results. Certificate holders 

would also be able to voluntarily 

surrender certificates. 

i. Transportation Security 

Administration Vetting and Positive 

Identification 

The FAA will deny an application for 

a certificate or take certificate action if 

the TSA determines that a person poses 

a security threat. Specifically, under 49 

U.S.C. 46111, once an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate application 

is received, the FAA will verify 

compliance and the accuracy of the 

application and provide the applicant’s 

information to TSA for security vetting 

prior to certificate issuance. Under this 

proposed rule, the FAA would transmit 

a student pilot’s biographic information 

for security vetting to TSA and issue an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

only after receiving a successful 

response from TSA. However, if the 

TSA determines that an airman 

certificate applicant poses a security 

risk, section 46111 requires the FAA to 

deny the application for a certificate or 

amend, modify, suspend, or revoke (as 

appropriate) any part of an airman 

certificate based on the TSA’s security 

findings. 

The FAA may issue certificates to 

individuals who have first successfully 

completed a security threat assessment 

(STA) conducted by the TSA.86 TSA 

would conduct STAs of applicants for a 

UAS certificate and notify the applicant 

and/or the FAA when the STA is 

complete. The STA would consist of a 

check of intelligence-related databases, 

including Interpol and international 

databases, terrorist watch lists, and 

other sources relevant to determining 

whether an individual poses or may 

pose a threat to transportation security, 

and that confirm the individual’s 

identity. A successful STA is generally 

valid for five years, but may be revoked 

during that time if TSA’s recurrent 

vetting reveals that the individual poses 

or may pose a security threat. 

Congress requires TSA to recover the 

costs of vetting and credentialing 

services through user fees.87 The fees for 

vetting UAS certificate applicants 

would cover TSA’s costs for enrolling, 

processing, and replying to the 

application, as well as the costs of 

conducting the intelligence-related 

checks themselves. TSA is developing a 

process, through rulemaking, by which 

TSA’s vetting fees can be collected from 

applicants during the application 

process, as TSA currently does in other 

vetting and credentialing programs, and 

used to cover the cost of the security 

screening. Thus, while this rulemaking 

projects that these costs are currently 

governmental costs, these costs would 

be passed on to individuals in the 

future. 

As a result of the processes that go 

into the issuance of an airman 

certificate, the FAA estimates that it 

could take about 6 to 8 weeks after 

receipt of an application for the FAA to 

issue an applicant an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating. The FAA invites comments with 

suggestions for how this period could be 

reduced. The FAA also notes that the 

TSA will continue to examine certificate 

holders after FAA issuance of a 

certificate. 

In addition, in order for the TSA to be 

able to make the security assessments 

specified in 49 U.S.C. 46111, the agency 

must be sure of the identity of the 

person that it is assessing. Otherwise, a 

person who poses a security threat 

could evade TSA scrutiny simply by 

using someone else’s identity. To 

address this issue, the FAA currently 

requires all applicants for a pilot 

certificate to apply in person and 

present positive identification at the 

time of application.88 The identification 

must include an official photograph of 

the applicant, the applicant’s signature, 

and the applicant’s residential address, 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9573 

89 Id. 

90 Id. 

91TSA defines a flight school as any pilot school, 

flight training center, air carrier training facility, or 

flight instructor certificated under 14 CFR parts 61, 

121, 135, 141, or 142.49 CFR 1552.1(b). 

92See 14 CFR 61.15(a) and (b), 63.12, and 65.12. 

93 14 CFR 61.25. 

94 14 CFR 61.60. 

95 Id. 

if different from the mailing address.89

Acceptable methods of identification 

currently include, but are not limited to, 

U.S. driver’s licenses, government 

identification cards, and passports.90

Because positive identification of the 

applicant is necessary for TSA to be able 

to determine whether the applicant 

poses a security threat, this proposed 

rule would require an applicant for a 

small unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a small UAS rating to 

submit the application to a Flight 

Standards District Office (FSDO), a 

designated pilot examiner (DPE), an 

airman certification representative 

(ACR) for a pilot school, a certificated 

flight instructor (CFI), or other persons 

authorized by the Administrator. The 

person accepting the application 

submission would be required to verify 

that the identity of the applicant 

matches the identity that is provided on 

the application. 

This proposed rule would allow a 

DPE, an ACR for a pilot school, or a CFI 

to accept an application and verify the 

identity of the applicant because to do 

otherwise would severely limit the 

number of locations where an applicant 

for a certificate could submit his or her 

application. This is because of the 

limited number of FSDOs and qualified 

personnel in each FSDO needed to 

accept the anticipated number of 

application submissions each year. 

There are only 81 FDSOs in the United 

States, which are only open 5 days per 

week (excluding Federal holidays). 

However, there are an approximate 

combined total of 100,000 DPEs, ACRs, 

and CFIs potentially available to accept 

an application 7 days per week. Though 

there is no fee required to submit an 

application to a FSDO, there may be a 

nominal processing fee charged by the 

authorized FAA representative, none of 

which goes to the FAA. The FAA 

believes that this nominal fee (estimated 

average of $50), if charged by the FAA 

representative, would offset the average 

cost of travelling to a FSDO as well as 

the delay in submitting the application 

(measured possibly in weeks) due to 

having to make an appointment with the 

FSDO during the work week. 

DPEs represent the FAA, and are 

already required to positively identify 

an applicant for certification when the 

applicant takes the practical test for the 

certificate. ACRs are also currently 

required to positively identify the 

student/applicant for airman 

certification as part of the responsibility 

of the part 141 flight school with which 

the ACR is affiliated. 

CFIs are currently required to verify a 

pilot-certificate applicant’s identity 

pursuant to TSA regulations codified at 

49 CFR 1552.3(h)(1). That section 

requires a flight school 91 to endorse a 

pilot logbook verifying that a student is 

a U.S. citizen and presented 

identification prior to flight training, 

which likely would be at the same time 

that a person would apply for a student 

pilot certificate. 

Because DPEs, ACRs, and CFIs 

already have experience verifying an 

applicant’s identity, this proposed rule 

would allow these persons to accept an 

application for an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating and verify the identity of the 

applicant. Sections 61.193, 61.413, and 

183.23 would be revised accordingly. 

The FAA has also considered 

allowing knowledge testing centers to 

verify an applicant’s identity and accept 

an application for an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate. However, the FAA 

is proposing to limit positive 

identification and acceptance of an 

application to those persons who are 

either: (1) Already authorized to accept 

and sign airman applications (FAA 

personnel, DPEs, and ACRs); or (2) are 

already required to verify identity under 

the TSA’s regulations (CFIs). Knowledge 

testing centers do not fit into either of 

these categories, and thus, this proposed 

rule would not allow them to accept 

airman applications. The FAA invites 

comments on whether knowledge 

testing centers should be allowed to 

accept airman applications. 

ii. Drugs and Alcohol Violations 

Proposed § 107.57 would authorize 

the FAA to deny a certificate 

application or take other certificate 

action for violations of Federal or State 

drug laws. Certificates could also be 

denied, suspended or revoked for 

committing an act prohibited by § 91.17 

or § 91.19—which are discussed in 

section III.D.6 of this document. 

Specifically, proposed § 107.59 specifies 

that certificate action could be taken for: 

(1) Failure to submit for a blood alcohol 

test or to release test results to the FAA 

as required by § 91.17; or (2) carriage of 

illegal drugs in violation of § 91.19. This 

proposal mirrors current regulations 

that apply to all airman certificates.92

iii. Change of Name 

The FAA recognizes that individuals 

who hold airman certificates may 

change their names. Accordingly, the 

regulations governing pilot certificates 

currently issued under part 61 allow the 

holder of a pilot certificate to change the 

name on a certificate by submitting 

appropriate paperwork to the FAA.93

This proposed rule would provide 

operators with the same opportunity in 

§ 107.77(a). Specifically, proposed 

§ 107.77(a) would allow a person 

holding an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a small UAS rating to 

change the name on the certificate by 

submitting a name-change application 

to the FAA accompanied by the 

applicant’s: (1) Operator certificate; and 

(2) a copy of the marriage license, court 

order, or other document verifying the 

name change. After reviewing these 

documents, the FAA would return them 

to the applicant. 

iv. Change of Address 

To ensure that the FAA has an airman 

certificate holder’s proper contact 

information, part 61 currently requires 

the holder of a pilot, flight instructor, or 

ground instructor airman certificate who 

has made a change in permanent 

mailing address to notify the FAA 

within 30 days of making the address 

change.94 Failure to do so prohibits the 

certificate holder from exercising the 

privileges of the airman certificate until 

he or she has notified the FAA of the 

changed address.95 Because this 

regulatory provision helps ensure that 

the FAA is able to contact airman 

certificate holders, proposed § 107.77(c) 

would extend the existing change-ofmailing-address requirement to holders 

of an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate with a small UAS rating. 

v. Voluntary Surrender of Certificate 

The FAA also recognizes that some 

individuals who obtain an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating may decide to stop serving 

as a small UAS operator. Accordingly, 

proposed § 107.79 would allow a holder 

of an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate to voluntarily surrender it to 

the FAA for cancellation. However, the 

FAA emphasizes that cancelling the 

operator certificate pursuant to § 107.79 

would mean that the certificate no 

longer exists, and the individual who 

surrendered the certificate would need 

to again go through the entire 

certification process (including passing 

the initial aeronautical knowledge test) 

if he/she subsequently changes his/her 

mind. Accordingly, proposed 

§ 107.79(b) would require the individual 

surrendering the certificate to include 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9574 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

96 49 U.S.C. 44101(a). 

97 14 CFR 47.3. This limitation on the 

applicability of part 47 stems from a statute (49 

U.S.C. 44103), which allows the FAA to only 

register aircraft that meet the above criteria. 

98See 14 CFR 47.40. 

99 Id. 100 14 CFR 45.21(c). 

the following signed statement (or an 

equivalent) in his or her cancellation 

request: 

I voluntarily surrender my unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating for cancellation. This request is made 

for my own reasons with full knowledge that 

my certificate will not be reissued to me 

unless I again complete the requirements 

specified in §§ 107.61 and 107.63. 

F. Registration 

As mentioned earlier, the FAA’s 

statute prohibits a person from 

operating a civil aircraft that is not 

registered,96 and this proposed rule 

would codify this statutory requirement. 

The registration of aircraft and the 

assignment of an identifying registration 

number to be displayed on the aircraft 

are primary foundation blocks in the 

regulatory structures that provide for 

safe and orderly aircraft activity within 

the NAS. The registration number 

provides a quick call-sign for 

communications between air traffic 

control and aircraft in flight. It also 

provides a link to information about the 

aircraft and the owner responsible for its 

operations. This information may assist 

the FAA and law enforcement agencies 

to respond to inappropriate behavior, to 

share safety information, respond to 

emergency situations, and populate data 

fields for studies that track trends and 

help shape future management 

decisions. 

Part 47 of 14 CFR currently governs 

the 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.97

This proposed rule would not apply 

to UAS operations that have certain 

international ownership components. 

This would exclude any aircraft whose 

ownership fails to meet the criteria for 

registration under part 47. Because this 

proposed rule would apply only to 

aircraft that are eligible for registration 

under part 47, the FAA proposes to 

satisfy the statutory aircraft-registration 

requirement by requiring all small 

unmanned aircraft subject to this 

proposed rule to be registered pursuant 

to the existing registration process of 

part 47. 

The FAA also proposes to make a 

single change to part 47 to accommodate 

small unmanned aircraft registration. 

Specifically, small unmanned aircraft, 

which can easily be obtained for as low 

as several hundred dollars, are 

significantly smaller assets than manned 

aircraft, which can cost hundreds of 

thousands or millions of dollars. 

Because small unmanned aircraft are 

small assets, the FAA proposes to 

exempt small unmanned aircraft which 

have not previously been registered 

anywhere from the regulatory 

requirements of § 47.15, which were 

designed to apply to large-asset manned 

aircraft. 

Thus, under this proposed rule, a 

small unmanned aircraft would 

generally be registered as follows. The 

aircraft’s owner would send the 

following items to the FAA: (1) An 

Aircraft Registration Application 

providing information about the aircraft 

and contact information for the aircraft 

owner; (2) evidence of ownership (such 

as a bill of sale); and (3) the $5.00 

registration fee. If the application and 

supporting materials satisfy the criteria 

of part 47, the FAA would then assign 

a registration number (‘‘N’’ number) to 

the aircraft and issue a Certificate of 

Aircraft Registration to the applicant. If 

the aircraft was last previously 

registered in the U.S., once the new 

application has been sent to the 

Registry, its second copy (pink copy) 

may be used to operate the aircraft for 

a reasonable time while the application 

is being processed and the new 

certificate issued. 

The FAA also notes that a Certificate 

of Aircraft Registration issued under 

part 47 currently expires every three 

years.98 This is because ownership of 

the aircraft may change hands or the 

aircraft owner could move after 

registering. A requirement to 

periodically reregister the aircraft 

increases the likelihood that the FAA’s 

registration database contains the latest 

information concerning each registered 

aircraft. The aircraft owner can easily 

reregister the aircraft by submitting to 

the FAA: (1) An application for 

registration renewal containing updated 

information about the aircraft and its 

owner; and (2) a $5.00 reregistration 

fee.99 Because the current three-year 

registration expiration provision in part 

47 would increase the likelihood that 

the FAA’s registration database contains 

the latest information on small 

unmanned aircraft and their owners, the 

FAA proposes to retain this requirement 

for small unmanned aircraft registration. 

In addition, the FAA notes that 

because most manned aircraft are typecertificated, the FAA currently 

possesses a significant amount of 

information about each aircraft type (as 

a result of the type-certification process) 

that it can use to supplement 

information in an individual registration 

application. This results in the current 

registration requirements of part 47 

asking for a minimal amount of 

information for most manned aircraft. 

However, small unmanned aircraft, 

which would not be type-certificated 

under this proposed rule, come in a 

variety of forms, many of which are not 

currently standardized. This situation is 

likely to continue as the small UAS 

market will continue broad innovation 

until designs emerge that are well 

balanced against the tasks found to be 

best served by this segment of aviation. 

To enable the FAA to both identify 

particular aircraft against a stated 

description as well as to identify and 

share safety related information as it 

develops, the FAA invites comments as 

to whether small unmanned aircraft 

owners should be required to provide 

additional information during the 

registration process. The FAA 

anticipates that the additional 

information requirement imposed on 

small unmanned aircraft could be 

similar to the requirements imposed on 

amateur-built aircraft under 14 CFR 

47.33(c), as amateur aircraft pose the 

same lack-of-standardization issues as a 

small UAS. 

G. Marking 

1. Display of Registration Number 

Subpart C of 14 CFR part 45 currently 

requires an aircraft to display its 

registration number on the aircraft. This 

requirement is intended to allow aircraft 

identification for oversight purposes. 

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.100

To increase the likelihood of aircraft 

identification during flight, part 45, 

Subpart C specifies highly visible 

surfaces on the aircraft where the 

aircraft registration number must be 

displayed. Those surfaces differ based 

on the type of aircraft that is used. For 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9575 

101 14 CFR 45.27(a). Section 45.27(a) also allows 

the number to be displayed on both surfaces of the 

cabin, but an unmanned aircraft will not have a 

cabin. 

102 14 CFR 45.25(a). 

103 14 CFR 45.29(f). 

104 14 CFR 45.29(b)(1) and (3). 

105 14 CFR 45.29(c)–(e). 

106See 14 CFR 45.29(f). 107See, e.g., 14 CFR 45.25(a) and 45.27(a). 

108Executive Order 13563, section 1(b) 

(summarizing and reaffirming Executive Order 

12866). 

109 18 U.S.C. 1001 

110The FAA has exercised this power in 14 CFR 

61.59, 67.403, 121.9, and 139.115, which currently 

impose civil prohibitions on fraud and false 

statements made in matters within the FAA’s 

jurisdiction. 

example, a rotorcraft is required to 

display its registration number 

horizontally on the fuselage, boom or 

tail.101 Conversely, a fixed wing 

unmanned aircraft is generally required 

to display its registration number on 

either the vertical tail surfaces or the 

sides of its fuselage.102

To ensure maximum visibility, 

Subpart C also specifies a minimum size 

for the registration number display.103

For fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft, 

the registration number display must 

generally be at least 12 inches high.104

Characters in the display must also be: 

(1) Generally two thirds as wide as they 

are high; (2) formed by solid lines that 

are one-sixth as thick as the character is 

high; and (3) spaced out so that the 

space between the characters is at least 

one-fourth of the character width.105

Because some aircraft subject to part 45 

may be small, § 45.29(f) allows aircraft 

that are too small to comply with the 

size requirements to display the 

registration number on the aircraft in as 

large a manner as practicable.106

This proposed rule would require a 

small unmanned aircraft to display its 

registration number in the manner 

specified in Subpart C of part 45. For 

unmanned aircraft that are not too small 

to comply with the display-size 

requirements discussed above, this 

proposed rule would require 

compliance with all of those 

requirements. This is because small 

unmanned aircraft present the same 

identification and oversight concerns as 

manned aircraft. For example, if a 

bystander was to observe a small 

unmanned aircraft being flown in a 

dangerous manner, the FAA would be 

able to determine the aircraft’s owner if 

the bystander is able to see the aircraft’s 

registration number. Because the current 

requirements in Subpart C of part 45 are 

intended to provide for the maximum 

visibility of an aircraft’s registration 

number, compliance with those 

requirements would greatly increase the 

probability of a small unmanned aircraft 

being identified during a small UAS 

operation. 

The FAA acknowledges that some 

small unmanned aircraft may be too 

small to comply with the minimumdisplay-size requirements of part 45. 

However, as mentioned previously, part 

45 already contains a provision, 

§ 45.29(f), that would address this issue 

by allowing the too-small aircraft to 

simply display its registration number 

in as large a manner as practicable. 

Accordingly, the size of the small 

unmanned aircraft would not be a 

barrier to compliance with the 

provisions of Subpart C of part 45. 

The FAA also notes that, as discussed 

above, the registration-display-location 

requirements of part 45, Subpart C are 

specific to different types of aircraft.107

Under this proposed rule, the FAA 

would expect small unmanned aircraft 

to comply with the display-location 

provisions that apply to the specific 

type of small unmanned aircraft being 

used. For example, rotorcraft small 

unmanned aircraft would be expected to 

comply with the display-location 

provisions that are applicable to 

rotorcraft. Conversely, fixed-wing small 

unmanned aircraft would be expected to 

comply with the provisions that are 

applicable to fixed-wing aircraft. 

The FAA invites comments on 

whether a small unmanned aircraft 

should be required to display its 

registration number in accordance with 

Subpart C of part 45. If compliance with 

Subpart C should not be required, what 

standard should the FAA impose for 

how a small unmanned aircraft displays 

its registration number in order to fulfill 

its safety oversight obligation regarding 

small unmanned aircraft operations? 

The FAA invites comments with 

supporting documentation on this issue. 

2. Marking of Products and Articles 

The FAA also considered requiring 

small unmanned aircraft to comply with 

the marking of products and articles 

requirement of Subpart B of part 45. 

This subpart requires the manufacturer 

of an aircraft or aircraft component to 

attach a fireproof identification plate to 

the aircraft and/or component 

containing the manufacturer’s name, 

model designation, serial number, and, 

if applicable, the type certificate. The 

purpose of these requirements is to 

allow the FAA to trace the pertinent 

aircraft and/or aircraft parts back to the 

manufacturer if an issue arises with the 

aircraft and/or aircraft parts. 

The FAA does not believe that 

requiring small unmanned aircraft 

manufacturers to comply with the 

requirements of Subpart B of part 45 

would be cost-justified. Under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the 

FAA may ‘‘propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that [the regulation’s] 

benefits justify its costs.’’ 108 As 

discussed elsewhere in this preamble, 

the FAA’s primary safety concerns with 

regard to small UAS operations are: (1) 

The ability to ‘‘see and avoid’’ other 

aircraft with no pilot on board; and (2) 

the operator losing positive control of 

the small unmanned aircraft. Here, both 

of these safety concerns would be 

mitigated by the other provisions of this 

proposed rule. Accordingly, the FAA 

does not believe that the safety benefits 

of requiring small UAS manufacturers to 

install fireproof plating with their 

identification information would be 

sufficient to justify the costs of doing so. 

The FAA invites comments, with 

supporting documentation, as to the 

costs and benefits of mandating 

compliance with Subpart B of part 45. 

The FAA also invites comments, with 

supporting documentation, on whether 

alternative methods of small-UAS 

manufacturer marking should be 

required. 

H. Fraud and False Statements 

Currently, the U.S. criminal code 

prohibits fraud and falsification in 

matters within the jurisdiction of the 

executive branch.109 The FAA too may 

impose civil sanctions in instances of 

fraud and falsification in matters within 

its jurisdiction.110

Similarly, in § 107.5(a), this proposed 

rule would prohibit a person from 

making a fraudulent or intentionally 

false record or report that is required for 

compliance with the provisions of this 

proposed rule. Proposed § 107.5(a) 

would also prohibit a person from 

making any reproduction or alteration, 

for a fraudulent purpose, of any 

certificate, rating, authorization, record, 

or report that is made pursuant to 

proposed part 107. Finally, proposed 

§ 107.5(b) would specify that the 

commission of a fraudulent or 

intentionally false act in violation of 

§ 107.5(a) could result in the suspension 

or revocation of a certificate or waiver 

issued by the FAA pursuant to this 

proposed rule. This proposed civil 

sanction would be similar to the 

sanctions that the FAA currently 

imposes on fraudulent and false 

statements pursuant to §§ 61.59(b), 

67.403(c), and 121.9(b). 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9576 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

111The proposed 10-day timeframe to submit a 

report is similar to the 10-day timeframe that is 

currently required by the NTSB for accident 

reporting. See 49 CFR 830.15(a). 

I. Oversight 

1. Inspection, Testing, and 

Demonstration of Compliance 

The FAA’s oversight statutes, codified 

at 49 U.S.C. 44709 and 46104, provide 

the FAA with broad investigatory and 

inspection authority for matters within 

the FAA’s jurisdiction. Under section 

46104, the FAA may subpoena 

witnesses and records, administer oaths, 

examine witnesses, and receive 

evidence at a place in the United States 

that the FAA designates. Under section 

44709, the FAA may ‘‘reinspect at any 

time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, 

propeller, appliance, design 

organization, production certificate 

holder, air navigation facility, or agency, 

or reexamine an airman holding a 

certificate issued [by the FAA].’’ 

This rule would codify the FAA’s 

oversight authority in proposed § 107.7. 

Proposed § 107.7(b) would require the 

operator, visual observer, or owner of a 

small UAS to, upon FAA request, allow 

the FAA to make any test or inspection 

of the small unmanned aircraft system, 

the operator, and, if applicable, the 

visual observer to determine compliance 

with the provisions of proposed part 

107. 

Section 107.7(a) would require an 

operator or owner of a small UAS to, 

upon FAA request, make available to 

the FAA any document, record, or 

report required to be kept by the 

provisions of proposed part 107. This 

would include the operator’s unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating and the certificate of aircraft 

registration for the small UAS being 

operated. 

2. Accident Reporting 

The FAA notes that UAS is a 

relatively new industry and that 

operators of small UAS may not have 

prior experience with aviation 

regulations or FAA oversight. In 

addition, because of the newness of the 

small UAS industry, the FAA currently 

does not have the oversight experience 

with small UAS that it has with manned 

aircraft operations. Accordingly, to 

ensure proper oversight of small UAS 

operations, this proposed rule, in 

§ 107.9, would require a small UAS 

operator to report to the FAA any small 

UAS operation that results in: (1) Any 

injury to a person; or (2) damage to 

property other than the small unmanned 

aircraft. The report would have to be 

made within 10 days of the operation 

that resulted in injury or damage to 

property.111 After receiving this report, 

the FAA may conduct further 

investigation to determine whether any 

FAA regulations were violated. 

The FAA emphasizes that this 

proposed reporting requirement would 

be triggered only during operations that 

result in injury to a person or property 

damage. The FAA invites comments as 

to whether this type of accidentreporting should be required. The FAA 

also invites suggestions for alternative 

methods of ensuring compliance with 

the regulations governing small UAS 

operations. The FAA specifically invites 

comments as to whether small UAS 

accidents that result in minimal 

amounts of property damage should be 

exempted from the reporting 

requirement. If so, what is the threshold 

of property damage that should trigger 

the accident reporting requirement? 

J. Section 333 Statutory Findings 

As mentioned previously, in order to 

determine whether certain UAS may 

operate safely in the NAS pursuant to 

section 333 of Public Law 112–95, the 

Secretary must find that the operation of 

the UAS would not: (1) Create a hazard 

to users of the NAS or the public; or (2) 

pose a threat to national security. The 

Secretary must also determine whether 

small UAS operations subject to this 

proposed rule pose a safety risk 

sufficient to require airworthiness 

certification. 

1. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the 

Public 

Section 333 of Public Law 112–95 

requires the Secretary to determine 

whether the operation of the UAS 

subject to this proposed rule would 

create a hazard to users of the NAS or 

the public. As discussed in the 

Background section of this preamble, 

due to their extremely light weight, 

small UAS could pose a significantly 

smaller public risk than do manned 

aircraft. 

Two primary safety concerns 

associated with small UAS operations 

are: (1) The ability to ‘‘see and avoid’’ 

other aircraft with no pilot on board; 

and (2) the operator losing positive 

control of the small unmanned aircraft. 

Here, both of these safety concerns 

would be mitigated by the other 

provisions of this proposed rule. 

Specifically by requiring operations to 

be conducted within visual line of sight; 

limiting maximum gross weight of the 

small unmanned aircraft to be below 55 

pounds; limiting the operating altitude 

to below 500 feet AGL; requiring 

operators to be certificated; defining the 

area of operation; and prohibiting 

operations over any person not directly 

participating in the operation, the risk 

associated with this group of aircraft 

would be significantly reduced when 

compared with other categories of 

aircraft that weigh more, fly higher, and 

faster. 

Accordingly, the Secretary proposes 

to find that small UAS operations 

subject to this proposed rule would not 

create a hazard to users of the NAS or 

the public. We invite comments on this 

proposed finding. 

2. National Security 

Section 333 of Public Law 112–95 

also requires the Secretary to determine 

whether the operation of UAS subject to 

this proposed rule would pose a threat 

to national security. Proposed part 107 

would expand small UAS operations in 

the NAS to include commercial 

operations. Under proposed part 107, 

these operations would be subject to 

specific requirements, such as being 

able to operate only during daylight and 

only within visual line of sight of the 

operator and, if applicable, a visual 

observer. The small unmanned aircraft 

would also have to be registered with 

the FAA and display its FAA-issued 

registration marking prominently on the 

aircraft. 

In addition, the operator of the small 

unmanned aircraft would be required to 

obtain an FAA-issued unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating. The process for obtaining 

this certificate would include the same 

TSA-review procedures that are 

currently used under 49 U.S.C. 46111 in 

order to screen out airman-certificate 

applicants who pose a security risk. 

Because the above provisions would 

limit the security risk that could be 

posed by small UAS operations subject 

to this proposed rule, the Secretary 

proposes to find that these small UAS 

operations would not pose a threat to 

national security. We invite comments 

on this proposed finding. 

3. Airworthiness Certification 

Finally, section 333(b)(2) of Public 

Law 112–95 requires the Secretary to 

determine whether small UAS 

operations subject to this proposed rule 

pose a safety risk sufficient to require 

airworthiness certification. The 

Secretary has determined that 

airworthiness certification should not be 

required for small UAS subject to this 

proposed rule due to their low-risk 

operational characteristics. Specifically, 

as mentioned previously, because of the 

other provisions in this proposed rule, 

the risk associated with small UAS 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9577 

112http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4 

113A copy of the forecast can be found in the 

rulemaking docket. The FAA notes that a small 

UAS could incur a cost for registration and then 

retire or leave the fleet during the analysis interval. 

The FAA also notes that our small UAS forecast 

may be understated if operators choose to own more 

than one FAA-registered aircraft (for example, as a 

backup in case one aircraft is disabled). To account 

for this possibility, as a sensitivity analysis, if there 

were an additional 20 percent increase in our small 

UAS forecast, then the costs in Table 7 and Table 

10, found in the regulatory evaluation 

accompanying this NPRM, would increase by 20 

percent. The FAA requests comments, with 

supporting documentation, on this sensitivity 

analysis. 

subject to this proposed rule is 

significantly reduced. 

The FAA emphasizes that, under this 

proposed rule, the operator would not 

need to determine design conformity or 

reliability probabilities when evaluating 

the airworthiness of small UAS. Instead, 

the operator would need to make a 

determination of whether the small UAS 

is in a safe condition during flight 

operations and ground operations 

conducted for the purpose of flight. 

During preflight and post flight 

inspections, a small UAS operator 

should look for simple inspection items 

such as dents, corrosion, mis-alignment, 

loose wires, binding controls, loose 

fasteners, and excessive wear. This 

simple but not all-inclusive list will 

identify most problems that could 

impact the airworthiness and reliability 

of the aircraft. 

Another inspection method unique to 

small UAS that would be governed by 

this proposed rule would be a check of 

the control link. This check can be 

accomplished by using the control 

station to verify proper flight control 

deflection prior to flight. The check can 

also be used to ensure the flight controls 

deflect freely, without binding. Like the 

aforementioned inspection items, this 

too is a simple visual inspection that 

should not require any specialized 

training. 

Because the proposed airworthiness 

provisions discussed above would 

sufficiently ensure that the small UAS is 

in a condition for safe operation and 

because the other provisions of this rule 

would ensure that the risk posed by 

small unmanned aircraft is significantly 

smaller than public risk posed by other 

groups of aircraft, the Secretary finds, 

pursuant to section 333(b)(2) of Public 

Law 112–95, that airworthiness 

certification would be unnecessary for 

small UAS subject to this proposed rule. 

We invite comments on this finding. 

IV. 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 (Public Law 96–39) prohibits 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

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 proposed rule. 

Readers seeking greater detail can read 

the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of 

which has been placed in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) 

is an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would have a significant positive 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; (5) would not 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States; 

and (6) would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

This proposed rule reflects the fact 

that technological advances in small 

unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) 

have led to a developing commercial 

market for their uses by providing a safe 

operating environment for them and for 

other aircraft in the NAS. In time, the 

FAA anticipates that the proposed rule 

would provide an opportunity to 

substitute small UAS operations for 

some risky manned flights, such as 

photographing houses, towers, bridges, 

or parks, thereby averting potential 

fatalities and injuries. It would also lead 

to more efficient methods of performing 

certain commercial tasks that are 

currently performed by other methods. 

For any commercial operation 

occurring because this rule is enacted, 

the operator/owner of that small UAS 

will have determined the expected 

revenue stream of the flights exceeds the 

cost of the flights’ operation. In each 

such case this rule helps enable new 

markets to develop. The FAA identified 

how the proposed rule would improve 

the safety of the NAS when small UAS 

are operated in place of a hazardous 

manned operation or a laborer working 

at heights. 

The estimated out-of-pocket cost for a 

small UAS operator to be FAA-certified 

is less than $300. As this proposal 

enables new businesses to be 

established, the private sector benefits 

would exceed private sector costs when 

new entrepreneurs earn a profit. As 

more profitable opportunities increase, 

so will the social benefits. Therefore, 

each new small UAS operator will have 

determined that their expected benefits 

exceed their costs. In addition, if the use 

of a small UAS replaces a dangerous 

non-UAS operation and saves one 

human life, that alone would result in 

benefits outweighing the costs of this 

proposed rule. The costs are shown in 

the table in the ‘‘Cost Summary’’ section 

below. 

2. Who is potentially affected by this 

rule? 

Manufacturers and operators of small 

unmanned aircraft systems. 

3. Assumptions 

• Because the commercial small UAS 

industry is not yet established and may 

evolve differently from current 

expectations, the FAA determined that 

a five-year time frame of analysis would 

be appropriate. 

• The base year is 2014. 

• The FAA uses a seven percent 

discount rate for the benefits as 

prescribed by OMB in Circular A–4.112

• Since the year that the proposed 

rule is published is unknown, the FAA 

uses Year 1 as the current year so that 

the first discounting occurs in Year 2. 

• In the small UAS future fleet 

forecast, the FAA assumes that 20 

percent of the fleet would retire or leave 

the fleet every year.113

• Because only one operator is 

required to operate a small UAS, the 

FAA assumes that there would be one 

qualified FAA-approved operator per 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9578 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

114The FAA notes that a person first must apply 

to become a small UAS operator. During the 

application process, this analysis will refer to a 

person applying to become a small UAS operator 

as an applicant. After the applicant has successfully 

passed the application process, this analysis will 

refer to the person as a small UAS operator. 

115The FAA has not yet created or administered 

the knowledge test proposed in the NPRM. 

However, the weighted average failure rate for all 

categories of airman taking knowledge tests in 2013 

was 10%. See Appendix 3 of the regulatory 

evaluation accompanying this NPRM for details. 

116http://www.catstest.com/airman-testingexams/recreational-private-pilot.php 

117See ‘‘Travel Expense’’ section for methodology 

and source information. 

118http://www.irs.gov/2014-Standard-MileageRates-for-Business,-Medical-and-MovingAnnounced 119Source: Revised Departmental Guidance on 

The Valuation of Travel time in Economic Analysis 

(published June 9, 2014). Per this guidance, median 

Household income divided by 2,080 hours is used 

to establish a wage rate (see Table 3). This wage 

rate, as noted in this guidance, serves as an 

approximate value for leisure time. Consistent with 

this guidance wage rates are augmented by 1.2 

percent per year to reflect projected annual growth 

of real median household income. Year 1 (2012$) 

wage rates estimates are calculated as $24.50 * 

1.0122 = $25.09; Year 2 as $24.50 * 1.0123 = $25.39; 

Year 3 as $24.50 * 1.0124 = $25.70; Year 4 as $24.50 

* 1.0125 = $26.01; and Year 5 as $24.50 * 1.0126

= $26.32. 

120Source: Revised Departmental Guidance on 

The Valuation of Travel time in Economic Analysis 

(published June 9, 2014)-Local Travel (Business). 

Per this guidance future Travel Time Saving 

estimates are also augmented by 1.2 percent per 

year to reflect projected annual growth of real 

median household income. Year 1 (2012$) travel 

time savings estimates are calculated as $24.10 * 

1.0122 = $24.68; Year 2 as $24.10 * 1.0123 = $24.98; 

Year 3 as $24.10 * 1.0124 =$25.28; Year 4 as $24.10 

* 1.0125 = $25.58; and Year 5 as $24.10 * 1.0126

= $25.89. See table 4. 

121https://my.faa.gov/content/dam/myfaa/org/

staffoffices/ahr/program_policies/policy_guidance/

hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/media/core_

salary_with_conversion.xls. 

registered and operating small UAS. 

Even though 20 percent of the small 

UAS equipment leaves the fleet each 

year, the FAA expects that small UAS 

operators, once tested and certificated, 

would remain employable and some 

would take jobs as small UAS operators 

in the following years of the analysis 

interval. Also, operators would incur a 

cost for recurrent knowledge testing 

every 24 months. This will be explained 

in detail in the ‘‘Costs’’ section below. 

• The FAA assumes that the failure 

rate of applicants 114 taking the small 

UAS initial and recurrent knowledge 

based test would be 10 percent.115

However, applicants and operators who 

fail are assumed to pass the knowledge 

test on the second attempt. 

• Since this proposed rule allows 

knowledge test centers (KTC) to 

administer small UAS operator initial or 

recurrent knowledge tests, the FAA 

assumes that the KTC would collocate 

themselves with a Designated Pilot 

Examiner (DPE), Certificated Flight 

Instructor (CFI) or Other Designated 

Authority to validate an applicant’s 

identity, accept the knowledge test 

results and the small UAS operator 

application for review and submission 

to the FAA AFS–760 Airman 

Certification Branch for processing. 

• The cost to administer an FAA 

approved small UAS knowledge test, 

including compliance fees, to a small 

UAS applicant or operator is $150.116

• The FAA estimates that a small 

UAS operator applicant would need to 

travel 19 miles one way to reach their 

closest KTC location.117

• The 2014 published IRS variable 

cost mileage rate of $0.235 per mile is 

used to estimate the cost of Vehicle 

usage.118

• The FAA assigns the hourly value 

for personal time to equal $25.09 for 

Year 1.119

• The FAA assigns the hourly value 

for travel time to equal $24.68 for Year 

1.120

• The FAA assigns the hourly value 

of FAA or KTC clerical time to $20.06 

by calculating the mean for a Level 2 

(FG 5/6) Clerical Support person from 

the Core Compensation Plan Pay Bands, 

effective January 12, 2014 working in 

the Washington DC locality.121 The FAA 

then divides the mean of the annual 

salaries by 2,080 for an hourly rate. 

• The FAA assigns the value of 

$28.00 as the estimate for the FAA’s cost 

to register an aircraft. This estimate is 

based on an internal cost model 

developed in September 2014 by the 

FAA civil aviation registry to use for 

managerial estimates. 

• The FAA uses a $50 fee to validate 

the identity of an applicant. 

The FAA requests comments, with 

supporting documentation, on each of 

these assumptions and data values. 

4. Benefit Summary 

The potential benefits from this 

proposed rule would arise from 

improved safety and from opening up 

new commercial aviation activities. The 

FAA currently does not permit 

commercial activity involving small 

UAS due to the potential hazards they 

could pose to other aircraft and to the 

civilian population. This proposed rule 

would allow certain types of unmanned 

aerial observational operations to 

replace manned aerial observational 

operations that are currently being 

conducted under potentially hazardous 

conditions. The proposed rule would 

also allow small UAS to replace laborers 

inspecting high towers or in certain 

other hazardous locations. This 

proposed rule would allow the creation 

and development of new industries able 

to operate with minimal potential risks 

to operators and the public. 

Specifically, with respect to the 

potential safety benefits from 

substituting small unmanned aircraft for 

aerial photography, the FAA reviewed 

17 aerial aviation photography accidents 

and incidents that occurred between 

2005 and 2009. Of these accidents, the 

FAA determined that a small UAS could 

have substituted for the manned 

operation in two cases. If the use of a 

small UAS replaces a dangerous nonUAS operation and saves one human 

life, that alone would result in benefits 

outweighing the costs of this proposed 

rule. 

The potential benefits would be 

driven by the market and small UAS 

airspace availability. In the Regulatory 

Evaluation, the FAA explores only four 

of the many potential small UAS 

markets this proposal could enable. The 

four potential small UAS markets are: 

1. Aerial photography, 

2. Precision agriculture, 

3. Search and rescue/law 

enforcement, and 

4. Bridge inspection. 

The FAA estimates that the proposed 

rule could not only enable numerous 

new industries, but also provide safety 

benefits and create a safe operating 

environment. The FAA has not 

quantified the specific benefits due to a 

lack of data. The FAA invites 

commenters to provide data that could 

be used to quantify benefits of this 

proposed rule. 

5. Cost Summary 

Several provisions in the proposed 

rule would impose compliance costs on 

potential commercial small UAS 

operators. However, the FAA assumes 

that commercial small UAS operators 

would incur these costs only if they 

anticipated revenues that would more 

than offset these costs. The business 

decision to enter a previously nonexistent market is borne by each 

operator who knowingly chooses to 

operate a small UAS within the 

regulated environment of this proposal. 

In the Regulatory Evaluation, the FAA 

estimates these costs by provision. As 

summarized in the following table, the 

FAA estimates the total cost of the 

proposed rule for the 5 year period of 

analysis. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9579 

122Public Law 112–95, section 333(c). In 

addition, Public Law 112–95, section 332(b)(1) 

requires the FAA to issue ‘‘a final rule on small 

unmanned aircraft systems that will allow for civil 

operation of such systems in the national airspace 

system, to the extent the systems do not meet the 

requirements for expedited operational 

authorization under section 333 of [Pub. L. 112– 

95].’’ 

TOTAL AND PRESENT VALUE COST SUMMARY BY PROVISION

[Thousands of current year dollars] 

Type of cost Total costs 

(000) 

7% P.V. 

(000) 

Applicant/small UAS operator: 

Travel Expense .................................................................................................................................................. $151.7 .............. $125.9 

Knowledge Test Fees ........................................................................................................................................ $2,548.6 ........... 2,114.2 

Positive Identification of the Applicant Fee ....................................................................................................... $434.3 .............. 383.7 

Owner: 

Small UAS Registration Fee ............................................................................................................................. $85.7 ................ 70.0 

Time Resource Opportunity Costs: 

Applicants Travel Time ...................................................................................................................................... $296.1 .............. 245.3 

Knowledge Test Application .............................................................................................................................. $108.9 .............. 90.2 

Physical Capability Certification ........................................................................................................................ $20.0 ................ 17.7 

Knowledge Test Time ........................................................................................................................................ $1,307.1 ........... 1,082.9 

Small UAS Registration Form ........................................................................................................................... $220.5 .............. 179.7 

Change of Name or Address Form ................................................................................................................... $14.9 ................ 12.3 

Knowledge Test Report ..................................................................................................................................... $154.9 .............. 128.5 

Pre-flight Inspection ........................................................................................................................................... Not quantified ... ....................

Accident Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ Minimal cost ..... ....................

Government Costs: 

TSA Security Vetting ......................................................................................................................................... $1,026.5 ........... 906.9 

FAA—sUAS Operating Certificate ..................................................................................................................... $39.6 ................ 35.0 

FAA—Registration ............................................................................................................................................. $394.3 .............. 321.8 

Total Costs ................................................................................................................................................. $6,803.1 ........... 5,714.0 

* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination (IRFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

The FAA believes that this proposed 

rule would have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of entities. 

Therefore, under section 603(b) of the 

RFA, the initial analysis must address: 

• Description of reasons the agency is 

considering the action. 

• Statement of the legal basis and 

objectives for the proposed rule. 

• Description of the record keeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the proposed rule. 

• All federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed 

rule. 

• Description and an estimated 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply. 

• Describe alternatives considered. 

1. Description of Reasons the Agency Is 

Considering the Action 

The FAA is proposing to amend its 

regulations to adopt specific rules to 

allow the operation of small unmanned 

aircraft system (small UAS) operations 

in the National Airspace System (NAS). 

These changes would address the 

operation of small UAS, certification of 

their operators, registration, and display 

of registration markings. The proposed 

requirements would allow small UAS to 

operate in the NAS while minimizing 

the risk they may pose to manned 

aviation operations and the general 

public. 

If the proposed rule were adopted, 

operators would be permitted to 

participate in certain commercial 

activities from which they are currently 

prohibited. The proposed requirements 

are intended to enable the opportunity 

for the private sector to develop 

commercial small UAS businesses and 

facilitate legal and safe operations. 

Currently commercial activity using a 

small UAS is prohibited by federal 

regulation unless the civil aircraft has 

an airworthiness certificate in effect and 

operations are approved by the FAA on 

a case by case basis via an exemption 

from the pertinent regulations. 

2. Statement of the Legal Basis and 

Objectives for the Proposed Rule 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (Pub. L. 112–95). Section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95 directs the Secretary 

of Transportation to determine whether 

‘‘certain unmanned aircraft systems may 

operate safely in the national airspace 

system.’’ If the FAA determines, 

pursuant to section 333, that certain 

unmanned aircraft systems may operate 

safely in the NAS, then the FAA must 

‘‘establish requirements for the safe 

operation of such aircraft systems in the 

national airspace system.’’ 122

This rulemaking is also promulgated 

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

(2), which charge the FAA with issuing 

regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of 

aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; 

and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for 

purposes of navigating, protecting and 

identifying aircraft, and protecting 

individuals and property on the ground. 

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


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9580 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

123 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). 124 49 U.S.C. 44101. 

charges the FAA with prescribing 

regulations that the FAA finds necessary 

for safety in air commerce and national 

security. 

Finally, the model-aircraft component 

of this rulemaking is promulgated 

pursuant to Public Law 112–95, section 

336(b), which clarifies that the FAA’s 

existing authority, under 49 U.S.C. 

40103(b) and 44701(a)(5), provides the 

FAA with the power to pursue 

enforcement ‘‘against persons operating 

model aircraft who endanger the safety 

of the national airspace system.’’ 

3. Description of the Record Keeping 

and Other Compliance Requirements of 

the Proposed Rule 

The FAA’s statute 123 prohibits a 

person from serving as an airman 

without an airman certificate. This 

proposed rule would create a new 

airman certificate for small UAS 

operators to satisfy the statutory 

requirement. The airman certificate 

would be called an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating, and in order to obtain it, a person 

would have to: (1) Take and pass an 

aeronautical knowledge test; and (2) 

submit an application for the certificate. 

To take and pass an aeronautical 

knowledge test, a person would have to: 

(1) Apply to take the test at an FAAapproved Knowledge Testing Center; (2) 

spend time taking the test; and (3) 

obtain an airman knowledge test report 

showing that he or she passed the test. 

After passing a knowledge test, the 

person would then apply for the 

certificate by: (1) Filling out and 

submitting an application for the 

certificate, which would include a 

certification stating that the applicant is 

physically capable of safely operating a 

small UAS; and (2) attaching a copy of 

the airman knowledge test report to the 

application. This proposed rule would 

also require a small UAS operator to 

report to the FAA any accident that 

results in: (1) Any injury to a person; or 

(2) damage to property other than the 

small unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA’s statute also prohibits the 

operation of an aircraft that is not 

registered.124 Consequently this 

proposed rule would require owners of 

a small unmanned aircraft to register 

that aircraft with the FAA. The owner 

of a small unmanned aircraft can do this 

simply by sending the following items 

to the FAA: (1) An Aircraft Registration 

Application providing information 

about the aircraft and contact 

information for the aircraft owner; (2) 

evidence of ownership (such as a bill of 

sale); and (3) the $5.00 registration fee. 

4. All Federal Rules That May 

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Proposed Rule 

The FAA is unaware that the 

proposed rule will overlap, duplicate or 

conflict with existing federal rules. 

5. Description and an Estimated Number 

of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rule Will Apply 

The FAA believes that the proposed 

rule would enable numerous new 

industries, while maintaining a safe 

operating environment in the NAS. 

Because the commercial small UAS 

industry is not yet established and legal 

operation of commercial small UAS in 

the NAS constitutes a new market, 

available data for these operations is 

sparse. Accordingly, the FAA has not 

quantified number of small entities to 

which the proposed rule would apply 

because the FAA cannot reasonably 

predict how the market will develop for 

individual commercial uses of small 

UAS. 

With respect to the potential operator 

costs, the FAA assumes that each 

operator would be a new entrant into 

the commercial market and that each 

operator would have one small UAS. 

The following table shows the proposed 

rule’s estimated out-of-pocket startup 

and recurrent direct compliance costs 

for a new small UAS operator or owner. 

SMALL UAS OPERATOR STARTUP AND RECURRENT COSTS

[Current dollars] 

Type of cost 

Cost 

Initial Recurrent 

Applicant/small UAS operator: .................... ....................

Travel Expense ......................................................................................................................................................... $9 $9 

Knowledge Test Fees ............................................................................................................................................... 150 150 

Positive Identification of the Applicant Fee .............................................................................................................. 50 ....................

Total applicant/small UAS operator ................................................................................................................................. 209 159 

Owner: .................... ....................

Small UAS Registration Fee .................................................................................................................................... 5 5 

Total Owner ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 5 

Total ................................................................................................................................................................... 214 164 

* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding. 

The FAA does not believe that $214 

per operator would be a significant 

negative economic impact to small 

entity operators because $214 is 

relatively inexpensive to be licensed for 

operation of a commercial vehicle. 

The FAA expects this proposed rule 

would be a significant positive 

economic impact because it enables new 

businesses to operate small UAS for hire 

and would stimulate a manufacturing 

support industry. The FAA believes that 

most, if not all, of these new commercial 

activities would be conducted by 

operators of small UAS who are small 

business entities. Therefore, the FAA 

believes that this proposed rule would 

have a positive significant impact on a 

substantial number of entities. 

6. Alternatives Considered 

The FAA considered both more costly 

and less costly alternatives as part of its 

NPRM. The FAA rejected the more 

costly alternatives due to policy 

considerations and undue burden that 

would be imposed on small UAS 

operators. The less costly alternatives 

and the FAA’s reasons for rejecting 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9581 

125 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). 

those alternatives in the NPRM are 

discussed below. 

• Allowing knowledge testing centers 

to verify ID and accept airman 

applications. The FAA decided, as part 

of its proposal, to limit positive 

identification and acceptance of an 

application to those persons who are 

either: (1) Already authorized to accept 

and sign airman applications (FAA 

personnel, DPEs, and ACRs); or (2) are 

already required to verify identity under 

the TSA’s regulations (CFIs). Knowledge 

testing centers do not fit into either of 

these categories, and thus, after 

considering the alternative of allowing 

them to accept airman applications, the 

FAA decided not to include this 

alternative in the NPRM. 

• Allowing individuals who have 

been conducting UAS operations under 

a COA as a non-military UAS operator 

to take a recurrent test instead of an 

initial test in order to obtain an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating. However, the 

FAA decided not to include this 

provision in the proposed rule because: 

(1) There is no formally recognized 

recordation system for non-military 

COA pilots as there is for military pilots; 

and (2) non-military COA pilots are 

currently subject to different 

requirements than military COA pilots 

for operations above 400 feet AGL. 

Therefore this proposed rule would 

have a significant positive economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA solicits comments 

regarding this determination. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA invites comments on the 

inclusion of foreign-registered small 

unmanned aircraft in this new 

framework. In particular, FAA invites 

comments on foreign experiences with 

differing levels of stringency in their 

UAS regulation. The FAA recognizes 

that several other countries have 

adopted different standards with regard 

to the commercial operation of UAS in 

their respective airspaces. Data from 

their experiences regarding safety 

outcomes and economic activity could 

form the basis for studying the effect of 

these different regulatory approaches. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any 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 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

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 

proposed information collection 

requirements: 

• Submission of an application for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating; 

• submission of an application to 

register a small unmanned aircraft; and 

• reporting any accident that results 

in injury to a person or damage to 

property other than the small unmanned 

aircraft. 

Below, we discuss each of these 

information-collection requirements in 

more detail. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

these proposed information collection 

amendments to OMB for its review. 

1. Obtaining an Unmanned Aircraft 

Operator Certificate With a Small UAS 

Rating 

Summary: The FAA’s statute 125

prohibits a person from serving as an 

airman without an airman certificate. 

This proposed rule would create a new 

airman certificate for small UAS 

operators to satisfy the statutory 

requirement. The airman certificate 

would be called an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating, and in order to obtain it, a person 

would have to: (1) Take and pass an 

aeronautical knowledge test; and (2) 

submit an application for the certificate. 

To take and pass an aeronautical 

knowledge test, a person would have to: 

(1) Apply to take the test at an FAAapproved Knowledge Testing Center; (2) 

spend time taking the test; and (3) 

obtain an airman knowledge test report 

showing that he or she passed the test. 

After passing a knowledge test, the 

person would then apply for the 

certificate by: (1) Filling out and 

submitting an application for the 

certificate, which would include a 

certification stating that the applicant is 

physically capable of safely operating a 

small UAS; and (2) attaching a copy of 

the airman knowledge test report to the 

application. 

The above requirements would not 

result in a new collection of 

information, but would instead expand 

an existing OMB-approved collection of 

information that is approved under 

OMB control number 2120–0021. This 

collection of information governs 

information that the FAA collects to 

certificate pilots and flight instructors. 

The above requirements would increase 

the burden of this already-existing 

collection of information. 

Use: The above requirements would 

be used by the FAA to issue airman 

certificates to UAS operators in order to 

satisfy the statutory requirement that an 

airman must possess an airman 

certificate. 

Estimate of Increase in Annualized 

Burden (there are 7,896 unique 

applicants): 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9582 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

126 49 U.S.C. 44101. 

2. Registering a Small Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Summary: The FAA’s statute 126

prohibits the operation of an aircraft 

unless the aircraft is registered. 

Pursuant to this statutory prohibition, 

this proposed rule would require small 

unmanned aircraft to be registered with 

the FAA using the current registration 

process found in 14 CFR part 47. In 

order to register a small unmanned 

aircraft with the FAA, the aircraft’s 

owner would have to submit to the FAA 

an Aircraft Registration Application 

providing information about the aircraft 

and contact information for the aircraft 

owner. This registration would need to 

be renewed every three years. 

The above requirements would not 

result in a new collection of 

information, but would instead expand 

an existing OMB-approved collection of 

information that is approved under 

OMB control number 2120–0042. This 

collection of information governs 

information that the FAA collects in 

order to register an aircraft. The above 

requirements would increase the burden 

of this already-existing collection of 

information. 

Use: The above requirements would 

be used by the FAA to register small 

unmanned aircraft in order to satisfy the 

statutory requirement that an aircraft 

must be registered in order to operate. 

Estimate of Increase in Annualized 

Burden: 

3. Accident Reporting 

Summary: To ensure proper oversight 

of small UAS operations, this proposed 

rule would require a small UAS 

operator to report to the FAA any small 

UAS operation that results in: (1) Any 

injury to a person; or (2) damage to 

property other than the small unmanned 

aircraft. After receiving this report, the 

FAA may conduct further investigation 

to determine whether any FAA 

regulations were violated. This 

proposed requirement would constitute 

a new collection of information. 

However, the FAA emphasizes that this 

proposed reporting requirement would 

be triggered only during operations that 

result in injury to a person or property 

damage. 

Use: The above requirements would 

be used by the FAA to ensure proper 

oversight of small UAS operations. A 

report of an accident that resulted in an 

injury to a person or property damage 

may serve to initiate an FAA 

investigation into whether FAA 

regulations were violated. 

Annualized Burden Estimate: 

There is one page of paperwork 

associated with reporting an accident. 

The FAA calculated the probability of 

an accident by dividing the accident 

rate for general aviation pilots by the 

total number of hours and estimated 

that an accident would occur .001% of 

the time. Applying .001% to the small 

UAS in the analysis interval shows that 

the probability of an accident where 

property damage, injury, or death occurs 

is negligible; therefore the FAA 

estimates that there are no costs for this 

provision. 

4. Total Annualized Burden Estimate 

The total annualized burden estimate 

of the information-collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rule is as follows: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP23FE15.003</GPH> EP23FE15.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9583 

The agency is soliciting comments 

to— 

• 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; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• 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 April 24, 

2015. 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 20053. 

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. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

Additionally, Executive Order 13609, 

Promoting International Regulatory 

Cooperation, promotes international 

regulatory cooperation to meet shared 

challenges involving health, safety, 

labor, security, environmental, and 

other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or 

prevent unnecessary differences in 

regulatory requirements. 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. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E 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 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying 14 CFR regulations in a 

manner affecting intrastate aviation in 

Alaska, to consider the extent to which 

Alaska is not served by transportation 

modes other than aviation, and to 

establish appropriate regulatory 

distinctions. Because this proposed rule 

would limit small unmanned aircraft 

operations to daylight hours only, it 

could, if adopted, affect intrastate 

aviation in Alaska. The FAA, therefore, 

specifically requests comments on 

whether there is justification for 

applying the proposed rule differently 

in intrastate operations in Alaska. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP23FE15.005</GPH>
9584 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 21 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Recording 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 43 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 45 

Aircraft, Signs and symbols. 

14 CFR Part 47 

Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, 

Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Recreation 

and recreation areas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures, Teachers. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 101 

Aircraft, Aviation Safety. 

14 CFR Part 107 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, Signs 

and symbols, Small unmanned aircraft, 

Unmanned aircraft. 

14 CFR Part 183 

Airmen, Authority delegations 

(Government agencies). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 21—CERTIFICATION 

PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND 

PARTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

106(g), 40101 note, 40105, 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 

44715, 45303; Sec. 333 of Pub. L. 112–95. 

■ 2. Amend § 21.1 by revising paragraph 

(a) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 21.1 Applicability and definitions. 

(a) Except for aircraft subject to the 

provisions of part 107 of this chapter, 

this part prescribes— 

* * * * * 

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, 

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, 

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 43 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

44701, 44703, 44705, 44707, 44711, 44713, 

44717, 44725. 

■ 4. Amend § 43.1 by revising paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 43.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) This part does not apply to— 

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA 

has issued an experimental certificate, 

unless the FAA has previously issued a 

different kind of airworthiness 

certificate for that aircraft; 

(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA 

has issued an experimental certificate 

under the provisions of § 21.191(i)(3) of 

this chapter, and the aircraft was 

previously issued a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category under the provisions of 

§ 21.190 of this chapter; or 

(3) Any aircraft subject to the 

provisions of part 107 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND 

REGISTRATION MARKING 

■ 5. 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. 

■ 6. Add § 45.9 to subpart B to read as 

follows: 

§ 45.9 Small unmanned aircraft systems. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of this part, this subpart does not apply 

to aircraft subject to part 107 of this 

chapter. 

PART 47—AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 47 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 4 U.S.T. 1830; Pub. L. 108–297, 

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

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

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

44703–44704, 44713, 45302, 46104, 46301. 

■ 8. Amend § 47.15 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 47.15 Registration number. 

(a) Number required. An applicant for 

aircraft registration must place a U.S. 

registration number (registration mark) 

on the Aircraft Registration Application, 

AC Form 8050–1, and on any evidence 

submitted with the application. There is 

no charge for the assignment of numbers 

provided in this paragraph. This 

paragraph does not apply to an aircraft 

manufacturer who applies for a group of 

U.S. registration numbers under 

paragraph (c) of this section; a person 

who applies for a special registration 

number under paragraphs (d) through (f) 

of this section; a holder of a Dealer’s 

Aircraft Registration Certificate, AC 

Form 8050–6, who applies for a 

temporary registration number under 

§ 47.16; or an owner of a small 

unmanned aircraft weighing less than 

55 pounds that has not previously been 

registered anywhere. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102– 

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 10. Amend § 61.1 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions. 

(a) Except as provided in part 107 of 

this chapter, this part prescribes: 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Add § 61.8 to read as follows: 

§ 61.8 Inapplicability of unmanned aircraft 

operations. 

Any action conducted pursuant to 

part 107 of this chapter or Subpart E of 

part 101 of this chapter cannot be used 

to meet the requirements of this part. 

■ 12. Revise § 61.193 to read as follows: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9585 

§ 61.193 Flight instructor privileges. 

(a) A person who holds a flight 

instructor certificate is authorized 

within the limitations of that person’s 

flight instructor certificate and ratings to 

train and issue endorsements that are 

required for: 

(1) A student pilot certificate; 

(2) A pilot certificate; 

(3) A flight instructor certificate; 

(4) A ground instructor certificate; 

(5) An aircraft rating; 

(6) An instrument rating; 

(7) A flight review, operating 

privilege, or recency of experience 

requirement of this part; 

(8) A practical test; and 

(9) A knowledge test. 

(b) A person who holds a flight 

instructor certificate is authorized to 

accept an application for an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating and verify the identity of the 

applicant in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

■ 13. Revise § 61.413 to read as follows: 

§ 61.413 What are the privileges of my 

flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating? 

(a) If you hold a flight instructor 

certificate with a sport pilot rating, you 

are authorized, within the limits of your 

certificate and rating, to provide training 

and endorsements that are required for, 

and relate to— 

(1) A student pilot seeking a sport 

pilot certificate; 

(2) A sport pilot certificate; 

(3) A flight instructor certificate with 

a sport pilot rating; 

(4) A powered parachute or weightshift-control aircraft rating; 

(5) Sport pilot privileges; 

(6) A flight review or operating 

privilege for a sport pilot; 

(7) A practical test for a sport pilot 

certificate, a private pilot certificate 

with a powered parachute or weightshift-control aircraft rating or a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating; 

(8) A knowledge test for a sport pilot 

certificate, a private pilot certificate 

with a powered parachute or weightshift-control aircraft rating or a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating; and 

(9) A proficiency check for an 

additional category or class privilege for 

a sport pilot certificate or a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating. 

(b) A person who holds a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating is authorized to accept an 

application for an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating and verify the identity of the 

applicant in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 14. 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). 

■ 15. Amend § 91.1 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text and 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 91.1 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b), (c), and (e) of this section and 

§§ 91.701 and 91.703, this part 

prescribes rules governing the operation 

of aircraft within the United States, 

including the waters within 3 nautical 

miles of the U.S. coast. 

* * * * * 

(e) Except as provided in §§ 107.27, 

107.47, 107.57, and 107.59 of this 

chapter, this part does not apply to any 

aircraft or vehicle governed by part 103 

of this chapter, part 107 of this chapter, 

or subparts B, C, or D of part 101 of this 

chapter. 

PART 101—MOORED BALLOONS, 

KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS AND 

UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS 

■ 16. The authority citation for part 101 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

note, 40103, 40113–40114, 45302, 44502, 

44514, 44701–44702, 44721, 46308, Sec. 

336(b), Pub. L. 112–95. 

■ 17. Amend § 101.1 by adding 

paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 101.1 Applicability. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Any model aircraft that meets the 

conditions specified in § 101.41. For 

purposes of this part, a model aircraft is 

an unmanned aircraft that is: 

(i) Capable of sustained flight in the 

atmosphere; 

(ii) Flown within visual line of sight 

of the person operating the aircraft; and 

(iii) Flown for hobby or recreational 

purposes. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Add subpart E, consisting of 

§§ 101.41 and 101.43, to read as follows: 

Subpart E—Special Rule for Model 

Aircraft 

§ 101.41 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes the rules 

governing the operation of a model 

aircraft that meets all of the following 

conditions as set forth in section 336 of 

Public Law 112–95: 

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for 

hobby or recreational use; 

(b) The aircraft is operated in 

accordance with a community-based set 

of safety guidelines and within the 

programming of a nationwide 

community-based organization; 

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more 

than 55 pounds unless otherwise 

certified through a design, construction, 

inspection, flight test, and operational 

safety program administered by a 

community-based organization; 

(d) The aircraft is operated in a 

manner that does not interfere with and 

gives way to any manned aircraft; and 

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an 

airport, the operator of the aircraft 

provides the airport operator and the 

airport air traffic control tower (when an 

air traffic facility is located at the 

airport) with prior notice of the 

operation. 

§ 101.43 Endangering the safety of the 

National Airspace System. 

No person may operate model aircraft 

so as to endanger the safety of the 

national airspace system. 

■ 19. Add part 107 to read as follows: 

PART 107—SMALL UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

107.1 Applicability. 

107.3 Definitions. 

107.5 Falsification, reproduction or 

alteration. 

107.7 Inspection, testing, and 

demonstration of compliance. 

107.9 Accident reporting. 

Subpart B—Operating Rules 

107.11 Applicability. 

107.13 Registration, certification, and 

airworthiness directives. 

107.15 Civil small unmanned aircraft 

system airworthiness. 

107.17 Medical condition. 

107.19 Responsibility of the operator. 

107.21 Maintenance and inspection. 

107.23 Hazardous operation. 

107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or 

aircraft. 

107.27 Alcohol or drugs. 

107.29 Daylight operation. 

107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft 

operation. 

107.33 Visual observer. 

107.35 Operation of multiple small 

unmanned aircraft systems. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way 

rules. 

107.39 Operation over people. 

107.41 Operation in certain airspace. 

107.45 Operation in prohibited or restricted 

areas. 

107.47 Flight restrictions in the proximity 

of certain areas designated by notice to 

airmen. 

107.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, 

and actions for aircraft operation. 

107.51 Operating limitations for small 

unmanned aircraft. 

Subpart C—Operator Certification 

107.53 Applicability. 

107.57 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs. 

107.59 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test 

or to furnish test results. 

107.61 Eligibility. 

107.63 Issuance of an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating. 

107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency. 

107.67 Knowledge tests: General 

procedures and passing grades. 

107.69 Knowledge tests: Cheating or other 

unauthorized conduct. 

107.71 Retesting after failure. 

107.73 Initial and recurrent knowledge 

tests. 

107.75 Military pilots or former military 

pilots. 

107.77 Change of name or address. 

107.79 Voluntary surrender of certificate. 

Subpart D—Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Registration and Identification. 

107.87 Applicability. 

107.89 Registration and identification. 

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

40103(b), 44701(a)(5); Sec. 333 of Pub. L. 

112–95. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 107.1 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, this part applies to 

the registration, airman certification, 

and operation of civil small unmanned 

aircraft systems within the United 

States. 

(b) This part does not apply to the 

following: 

(1) Air carrier operations; 

(2) Any aircraft subject to the 

provisions of part 101 of this chapter; 

(3) Any aircraft conducting an 

external load operation; 

(4) Any aircraft towing another 

aircraft or object; or 

(5) Any aircraft that does not meet the 

criteria specified in § 47.3 of this 

chapter. 

§ 107.3 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply to 

this part. If there is a conflict between 

the definitions of this part and 

definitions specified in § 1.1 of this 

chapter, the definitions in this part 

control for purposes of this part: 

Control station means an interface 

used by the operator to control the flight 

path of the small unmanned aircraft. 

Corrective lenses means spectacles or 

contact lenses. 

Operator means a person who 

manipulates the flight controls of a 

small unmanned aircraft system. 

Small unmanned aircraft means an 

unmanned aircraft weighing less than 

55 pounds including everything that is 

on board 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. 

Visual observer means a person who 

assists the small unmanned aircraft 

operator to see and avoid other air 

traffic or objects aloft or on the ground. 

§ 107.5 Falsification, reproduction or 

alteration. 

(a) No person may make or cause to 

be made— 

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false record or report that is required to 

be made, kept, or used to show 

compliance with any requirement under 

this part. 

(2) Any reproduction or alteration, for 

fraudulent purpose, of any certificate, 

rating, authorization, record or report 

under this part. 

(b) The commission by any person of 

an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of 

this section is a basis for denying an 

application for certificate, or suspending 

or revoking the applicable certificate or 

waiver issued by the Administrator 

under this part and held by that person. 

§ 107.7 Inspection, testing, and 

demonstration of compliance. 

(a) An operator or owner of a small 

unmanned aircraft system must, upon 

request, make available to the 

Administrator: 

(1) The operator’s unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating; 

(2) The certificate of aircraft 

registration for the small unmanned 

aircraft system being operated; and 

(3) Any other document, record, or 

report required to be kept by an operator 

or owner of a small unmanned aircraft 

system under the regulations of this 

chapter. 

(b) The operator, visual observer, or 

owner of a small unmanned aircraft 

system must, upon request, allow the 

Administrator to make any test or 

inspection of the small unmanned 

aircraft system, the operator, and, if 

applicable, the visual observer to 

determine compliance with this part. 

§ 107.9 Accident reporting. 

No later than 10 days after an 

operation that meets the criteria of 

either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, an operator must report to the 

nearest Federal Aviation Administration 

Flight Standards District Office any 

operation of the small unmanned 

aircraft that involves the following: 

(a) Any injury to any person; or 

(b) Damage to any property, other 

than the small unmanned aircraft. 

Subpart B—Operating Rules 

§ 107.11 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to the operation 

of all civil small unmanned aircraft 

systems to which this part applies. 

§ 107.13 Registration, certification, and 

airworthiness directives. 

No person may operate a civil small 

unmanned aircraft system for purposes 

of flight unless: 

(a) That person has an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating issued pursuant to subpart 

C of this part and satisfies the 

requirements of § 107.65; 

(b) The small unmanned aircraft being 

operated has been registered with the 

FAA pursuant to subpart D of this part; 

(c) The small unmanned aircraft being 

operated displays its registration 

number in the manner specified in 

subpart D of this part; and 

(d) The owner or operator of the small 

unmanned aircraft system complies 

with all applicable airworthiness 

directives. 

§ 107.15 Civil small unmanned aircraft 

system airworthiness. 

(a) No person may operate a civil 

small unmanned aircraft system unless 

it is in a condition for safe operation. 

This condition must be determined 

during the preflight check required 

under § 107.49 of this part. 

(b) The operator must discontinue the 

flight when he or she knows or has 

reason to know that continuing the 

flight would pose a hazard to other 

aircraft, people, or property. 

§ 107.17 Medical condition. 

No person may act as an operator or 

visual observer if he or she knows or has 

reason to know that he or she has a 

physical or mental condition that would 

interfere with the safe operation of a 

small unmanned aircraft system. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9587 

§ 107.19 Responsibility of the operator. 

(a) The operator is directly 

responsible for, and is the final 

authority as to the operation of the small 

unmanned aircraft system. 

(b) The operator must ensure that the 

small unmanned aircraft will pose no 

undue hazard to other aircraft, people, 

or property in the event of a loss of 

control of the aircraft for any reason. 

§ 107.21 Maintenance and inspection. 

An operator must: 

(a) Maintain the system in a condition 

for safe operation; and 

(b) Inspect the small unmanned 

aircraft system prior to flight to 

determine that the system it is in a 

condition for safe operation. 

§ 107.23 Hazardous operation. 

No person may: 

(a) Operate a small unmanned aircraft 

system in a careless or reckless manner 

so as to endanger the life or property of 

another; or 

(b) Allow an object to be dropped 

from a small unmanned aircraft if such 

action endangers the life or property of 

another. 

§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle 

or aircraft. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft system— 

(a) From a moving aircraft; or 

(b) From a moving vehicle unless that 

vehicle is moving on water. 

§ 107.27 Alcohol or drugs. 

A person acting as an operator or as 

a visual observer must comply with the 

provisions of §§ 91.17 and 91.19 of this 

chapter. 

§ 107.29 Daylight operation. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft system except 

between the hours of official sunrise 

and sunset. 

§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft 

operation. 

With vision that is unaided by any 

device other than corrective lenses, the 

operator or visual observer must be able 

to see the unmanned aircraft throughout 

the entire flight in order to: 

(a) Know the unmanned aircraft’s 

location; 

(b) Determine the unmanned aircraft’s 

attitude, altitude, and direction; 

(c) Observe the airspace for other air 

traffic or hazards; and 

(d) Determine that the unmanned 

aircraft does not endanger the life or 

property of another. 

§ 107.33 Visual observer. 

If a visual observer is used during the 

aircraft operation, all of the following 

requirements must be met: 

(a) The operator and the visual 

observer must maintain effective 

communication with each other at all 

times. 

(b) The operator must ensure that the 

visual observer is able to see the 

unmanned aircraft in the manner 

specified in §§ 107.31 and 107.37. 

(c) At all times during flight, the small 

unmanned aircraft must remain close 

enough to the operator for the operator 

to be capable of seeing the aircraft with 

vision unaided by any device other than 

corrective lenses. 

(d) The operator and the visual 

observer must coordinate to do the 

following: 

(1) Scan the airspace where the small 

unmanned aircraft is operating for any 

potential collision hazard; and 

(2) Maintain awareness of the position 

of the small unmanned aircraft through 

direct visual observation. 

§ 107.35 Operation of multiple small 

unmanned aircraft systems. 

A person may not act as an operator 

or visual observer in the operation of 

more than one unmanned aircraft 

system at the same time. 

§ 107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-ofway rules. 

(a) Each operator must maintain 

awareness so as to see and avoid other 

aircraft and vehicles and must yield the 

right-of-way to all aircraft, airborne 

vehicles, and launch and reentry 

vehicles. 

(1) In order to maintain awareness so 

as to see other aircraft and vehicles, 

either the operator or a visual observer 

must, at each point of the small 

unmanned aircraft’s flight, satisfy the 

criteria specified in § 107.31. 

(2) Yielding the right-of-way means 

that the small unmanned aircraft must 

give way to the aircraft or vehicle and 

may not pass over, under, or ahead of 

it unless well clear. 

(b) No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft so close to another 

aircraft as to create a collision hazard. 

§ 107.39 Operation over people. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft over a human being 

who is: 

(a) Not directly participating in the 

operation of the small unmanned 

aircraft; or 

(b) Not located under a covered 

structure that can provide reasonable 

protection from a falling small 

unmanned aircraft. 

§ 107.41 Operation in certain airspace. 

(a) A small unmanned aircraft may 

not operate in Class A airspace. 

(b) A small unmanned aircraft may 

not operate in Class B, Class C, or Class 

D airspace or within the lateral 

boundaries of the surface area of Class 

E airspace designated for an airport 

unless the operator has prior 

authorization from the Air Traffic 

Control (ATC) facility having 

jurisdiction over that airspace. 

§ 107.45 Operation in prohibited or 

restricted areas. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft in prohibited or 

restricted areas unless that person has 

permission from the using or controlling 

agency, as appropriate. 

§ 107.47 Flight restrictions in the proximity 

of certain areas designated by notice to 

airmen. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft in areas designated 

in a Notice to Airmen under §§ 91.137 

through 91.145, or § 99.7 of this chapter, 

unless authorized by: 

(a) Air Traffic Control (ATC); or 

(b) A Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization issued by the FAA. 

§ 107.49 Preflight familiarization, 

inspection, and actions for aircraft 

operation. 

(a) Prior to flight, the operator must: 

(1) Assess the operating environment, 

considering risks to persons and 

property in the immediate vicinity both 

on the surface and in the air. This 

assessment must include: 

(i) Local weather conditions; 

(ii) Local airspace and any flight 

restrictions; 

(iii) The location of persons and 

property on the surface; and 

(iv) Other ground hazards. 

(2) Ensure that all persons involved in 

the small unmanned aircraft operation 

receive a briefing that includes 

operating conditions, emergency 

procedures, contingency procedures, 

roles and responsibilities, and potential 

hazards; 

(3) Ensure that all links between 

ground station and the small unmanned 

aircraft are working properly; and 

(4) If the small unmanned aircraft is 

powered, ensure that there is enough 

available power for the small unmanned 

aircraft system to operate for the 

intended operational time and to 

operate after that for at least five 

minutes. 

(b) Each person involved in the 

operation must perform the duties 

assigned by the operator. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9588 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

§ 107.51 Operating limitations for small 

unmanned aircraft. 

An operator must comply with all of 

the following operating limitations 

when operating a small unmanned 

aircraft system: 

(a) The airspeed of the small 

unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 

knots (100 miles per hour) calibrated 

airspeed at full power in level flight; 

(b) The altitude of the small 

unmanned aircraft cannot be higher 

than 500 feet (150 meters) above ground 

level; 

(c) The minimum flight visibility, as 

observed from the location of the 

ground control station must be no less 

than 3 statute miles (5 kilometers); and 

(d) The minimum distance of the 

small unmanned aircraft from clouds 

must be no less than: 

(1) 500 feet (150 meters) below the 

cloud; and 

(2) 2,000 feet (600 meters) 

horizontally away from the cloud. 

Subpart C—Operator Certification 

§ 107.53 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes the 

requirements for issuing an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating. 

§ 107.57 Offenses involving alcohol or 

drugs. 

(a) A conviction for the violation of 

any Federal or State statute relating to 

the growing, processing, manufacture, 

sale, disposition, possession, 

transportation, or importation of 

narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressant 

or stimulant drugs or substances is 

grounds for: 

(1) Denial of an application for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating for a period of 

up to 1 year after the date of final 

conviction; or 

(2) Suspension or revocation of an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating. 

(b) Committing an act prohibited by 

§ 91.17(a) or § 91.19(a) of this chapter is 

grounds for: 

(1) Denial of an application for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating for a period of 

up to 1 year after the date of that act; 

or 

(2) Suspension or revocation of an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating. 

§ 107.59 Refusal to submit to an alcohol 

test or to furnish test results. 

A refusal to submit to a test to 

indicate the percentage by weight of 

alcohol in the blood, when requested by 

a law enforcement officer in accordance 

with § 91.17(c) of this chapter, or a 

refusal to furnish or authorize the 

release of the test results requested by 

the Administrator in accordance with 

§ 91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter, is 

grounds for: 

(a) Denial of an application for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating for a period of 

up to 1 year after the date of that refusal; 

or 

(b) Suspension or revocation of an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating. 

§ 107.61 Eligibility. 

Subject to the provisions of §§ 107.57 

and 107.59, in order to be eligible for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating under this 

subpart, a person must: 

(a) Be at least 17 years of age; 

(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and 

understand the English language. If the 

applicant is unable to meet one of these 

requirements due to medical reasons, 

the FAA may place such operating 

limitations on that applicant’s certificate 

as are necessary for the safe operation of 

the small unmanned aircraft; 

(c) Pass an initial aeronautical 

knowledge test covering the areas of 

knowledge specified in § 107.73(a); and 

(d) Not know or have reason to know 

that he or she has a physical or mental 

condition that would interfere with the 

safe operation of a small unmanned 

aircraft system. 

§ 107.63 Issuance of an unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS rating. 

An applicant for an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating under this subpart must 

make the application in a form and 

manner acceptable to the Administrator. 

(a) The application must include: 

(1) An airman knowledge test report 

showing that the applicant passed an 

initial aeronautical knowledge test, or 

recurrent aeronautical knowledge test 

for those individuals that satisfy the 

requirements of § 107.75; and 

(2) A certification signed by the 

applicant stating that the applicant does 

not know or have reason to know that 

he or she has a physical or mental 

condition that would interfere with the 

safe operation of a small unmanned 

aircraft system. 

(b) The application must be submitted 

to a Flight Standards District Office, a 

designated pilot examiner, an airman 

certification representative for a pilot 

school, a certified flight instructor, or 

other person authorized by the 

Administrator. The person accepting the 

application submission must verify the 

identity of the applicant in a manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

§ 107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency. 

A person may not operate a small 

unmanned aircraft system unless that 

person has completed one of the 

following, within the previous 24 

calendar months: 

(a) Passed an initial aeronautical 

knowledge test covering the areas of 

knowledge specified in § 107.73(a); or 

(b) Passed a recurrent aeronautical 

knowledge test covering the areas of 

knowledge specified in § 107.73(b). 

§ 107.67 Knowledge tests: General 

procedures and passing grades. 

(a) Knowledge tests prescribed by or 

under this part are given at times and 

places, and by persons designated by 

the Administrator. 

(b) An applicant for a knowledge test 

must have proper identification at the 

time of application that contains the 

applicant’s: 

(1) Photograph; 

(2) Signature; 

(3) Date of birth, which shows the 

applicant meets or will meet the age 

requirements of this part for the 

certificate sought before the expiration 

date of the airman knowledge test 

report; and 

(4) If the permanent mailing address 

is a post office box number, then the 

applicant must provide a current 

residential address. 

(c) The minimum passing grade for 

the knowledge test will be specified by 

the Administrator. 

§ 107.69 Knowledge tests: Cheating or 

other unauthorized conduct. 

(a) An applicant for a knowledge test 

may not: 

(1) Copy or intentionally remove any 

knowledge test; 

(2) Give to another applicant or 

receive from another applicant any part 

or copy of a knowledge test; 

(3) Give assistance on, or receive 

assistance on, a knowledge test during 

the period that test is being given; 

(4) Take any part of a knowledge test 

on behalf of another person; 

(5) Be represented by, or represent, 

another person for a knowledge test; 

(6) Use any material or aid during the 

period that the test is being given, 

unless specifically authorized to do so 

by the Administrator; and 

(7) Intentionally cause, assist, or 

participate in any act prohibited by this 

paragraph. 

(b) An applicant who the 

Administrator finds has committed an 

act prohibited by paragraph (a) of this 

section is prohibited, for 1 year after the 

date of committing that act, from: 

(1) Applying for any certificate, rating, 

or authorization issued under this 

chapter; and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9589 

(2) Applying for and taking any test 

under this chapter. 

(c) Any certificate or rating held by an 

applicant may be suspended or revoked 

if the Administrator finds that person 

has committed an act prohibited by 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

§ 107.71 Retesting after failure. 

An applicant for a knowledge test 

who fails that test may not reapply for 

the test for 14 calendar days after failing 

the test. 

§ 107.73 Initial and recurrent knowledge 

tests. 

(a) An initial aeronautical knowledge 

test covers the following areas of 

knowledge: 

(1) Applicable regulations relating to 

small unmanned aircraft system rating 

privileges, limitations, and flight 

operation; 

(2) Airspace classification and 

operating requirements, obstacle 

clearance requirements, and flight 

restrictions affecting small unmanned 

aircraft operation; 

(3) Official sources of weather and 

effects of weather on small unmanned 

aircraft performance; 

(4) Small unmanned aircraft system 

loading and performance; 

(5) Emergency procedures; 

(6) Crew resource management; 

(7) Radio communication procedures; 

(8) Determining the performance of 

small unmanned aircraft; 

(9) Physiological effects of drugs and 

alcohol; 

(10) Aeronautical decision-making 

and judgment; and 

(11) Airport operations. 

(b) A recurrent aeronautical 

knowledge test covers the following 

areas of knowledge: 

(1) Applicable regulations relating to 

small unmanned aircraft system rating 

privileges, limitations, and flight 

operation; 

(2) Airspace classification and 

operating requirements, obstacle 

clearance requirements, and flight 

restrictions affecting small unmanned 

aircraft operation; 

(3) Official sources of weather; 

(4) Emergency procedures; 

(5) Crew resource management; 

(6) Aeronautical decision-making and 

judgment; and 

(7) Airport operations. 

§ 107.75 Military pilots or former military 

pilots. 

(a) General. Except for a person who 

has been removed from unmanned 

aircraft flying status for lack of 

proficiency or because of a disciplinary 

action involving any aircraft operation, 

a U.S. military unmanned aircraft pilot 

or operator or former U.S. military 

unmanned aircraft pilot or operator who 

meets the requirements of this section 

may apply, on the basis of his or her 

U.S. military unmanned aircraft pilot or 

operator qualifications, for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with small UAS rating issued under this 

part. 

(b) Military unmanned aircraft pilots 

or operators and former military 

unmanned aircraft pilots or operators in 

the U.S. Armed Forces. A person who 

qualifies as a U.S. military unmanned 

aircraft pilot or operator or former U.S. 

military unmanned aircraft pilot or 

operator may apply for an unmanned 

aircraft operator certificate with a small 

UAS rating if that person— 

(1) Passes a recurrent aeronautical 

knowledge test covering the areas of 

knowledge specified in § 107.73(b); and 

(2) Presents evidentiary documents 

that show: 

(i) The person’s status in the U.S. 

Armed Forces; 

(ii) That the person is or was a U.S. 

military unmanned aircraft pilot or 

operator. 

§ 107.77 Change of name or address. 

(a) Change of Name. An application to 

change the name on a certificate issued 

under this subpart must be 

accompanied by the applicant’s: 

(1) Operator certificate; and 

(2) A copy of the marriage license, 

court order, or other document verifying 

the name change. 

(b) The documents in paragraph (a) of 

this section will be returned to the 

applicant after inspection. 

(c) Change of address. The holder of 

an unmanned aircraft operator 

certificate issued under this subpart 

who has made a change in permanent 

mailing address may not, after 30 days 

from that date, exercise the privileges of 

the certificate unless the holder has 

notified the FAA of the change in 

address using one of the following 

methods: 

(1) By letter to the FAA Airman 

Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 providing the 

new permanent mailing address, or if 

the permanent mailing address includes 

a post office box number, then the 

holder’s current residential address; or 

(2) By using the FAA Web site portal 

at www.faa.gov providing the new 

permanent mailing address, or if the 

permanent mailing address includes a 

post office box number, then the 

holder’s current residential address. 

§ 107.79 Voluntary surrender of certificate. 

(a) The holder of a certificate issued 

under this subpart may voluntarily 

surrender it for cancellation. 

(b) Any request made under 

paragraph (a) of this section must 

include the following signed statement 

or its equivalent: ‘‘I voluntarily 

surrender my unmanned aircraft 

operator certificate with a small UAS 

rating for cancellation. This request is 

made for my own reasons, with full 

knowledge that my certificate will not 

be reissued to me unless I again 

complete the requirements specified in 

§§ 107.61 and 107.63.’’ 

Subpart D—Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Registration and Identification 

§ 107.87 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes the rules 

governing the registration and 

identification of all civil small 

unmanned aircraft to which this part 

applies. 

§ 107.89 Registration and identification. 

(a) All small unmanned aircraft must 

be registered in accordance with part 47 

of this chapter. 

(b) All small unmanned aircraft must 

display their nationality and registration 

marks in accordance with the 

requirements of subpart C of part 45 of 

this chapter. 

PART 183—REPRESENTATIVES OF 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

■ 20. The authority citation for part 183 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

106(g), 40113, 44702, 45303. 

■ 21. Amend § 183.23 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 183.23 Pilot examiners. 

* * * * * 

(b) Under the general supervision of 

the appropriate local Flight Standards 

Inspector, conduct those tests; 

(c) In the discretion of the appropriate 

local Flight Standards Inspector, issue 

temporary pilot certificates and ratings 

to qualified applicants; and 

(d) Accept an application for an 

unmanned aircraft operator certificate 

with a small UAS rating and verify the 

identity of the applicant in a form and 

manner acceptable to the Administrator. 

Issued under the authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note; and Sec. 333 of 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9590 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Public Law 112–95, in Washington, DC, on 

February 15, 2015. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03544 Filed 2–18–15; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3