Document ID: FAA-2019-1100-53264
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
Posted Date: 2021-01-15T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4390-4513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28948]

[[Page 4389]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 10

January 15, 2021

Part IV

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Aviation Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 47, et al.

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft; Final Rule

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

[[Page 4390]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 47, 48, 89, 91, and 107

[Docket No.: FAA-2019-1100; Amdt. Nos. 1-75, 11-63, 47-31, 48-3, 89-1, 
91-361, and 107-7]
RIN 2120-AL31

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action requires the remote identification of unmanned 
aircraft. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft in the 
airspace of the United States will address safety, national security, 
and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these 
aircraft into the airspace of the United States, laying a foundation 
for enabling greater operational capabilities.

DATES: 
    Effective dates: This rule is effective March 16, 2021, except for 
amendatory instruction 19, adding subpart C to part 89, which is 
effective September 16, 2022.
    Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of March 16, 2021.
    Compliance dates: Compliance with Sec. Sec.  89.510 and 89.515 is 
required September 16, 2022. Compliance with Sec. Sec.  89.105, 89.110, 
and 89.115, and subpart C of part 89 is required September 16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Walsh, Flight Technologies and 
Procedures Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, Suite 4102, Washington, DC, 20024; telephone 1-844-FLY-MY-UA 
(1-844-359-6981); email: UAShelp@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Remote Identification Requirements
    B. Registration Requirements
    C. Elimination of the Network-Based Remote Identification 
Requirement
    D. Summary of Benefits and Costs
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
IV. Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
    A. Clarification of Use of the Term Unmanned Aircraft in This 
Rule
    B. Purpose for the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
    C. Public Comments and FAA Response
V. Terms Used in This Rule
    A. Definition of Unmanned Aircraft System
    B. Definition of Visual Line of Sight
    C. Definition of Broadcast
    D. Definition of Home-Built Unmanned Aircraft
    E. Definition of Declaration of Compliance
    F. Requests for Other Definitions
VI. Applicability of Operating Requirements
    A. Discussion of the Final Rule
    B. Public Comments and FAA Response
VII. Operating Requirements for Remote Identification
    A. Elimination of Network-Based Remote Identification 
Requirement
    B. Limited Remote Identification UAS
    C. Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
    D. Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
    E. Other Broadcast Requirements Applicable to Standard Remote 
Identification Unmanned Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft With Remote 
Identification Broadcast Modules
    F. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote Identification
VIII. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements: 
Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
    A. Message Elements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned 
Aircraft
    B. Minimum Performance Requirements for Standard Remote 
Identification Unmanned Aircraft
    C. Message Elements Performance Requirements for Standard Remote 
Identification Unmanned Aircraft
IX. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements: Remote 
Identification Broadcast Modules
X. Privacy Concerns on the Broadcast of Remote Identification 
Information
    A. Discussion of the Final Rule
    B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XI. Government and Law Enforcement Access to Remote Identification 
Information
    A. Discussion of the Final Rule
    B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XII. FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
    A. Discussion of the Final Rule
    B. Eligibility
    C. Time Limit for Submitting an Application To Request an FAA-
Recognized Identification Area
    D. Process To Request an FAA-Recognized Identification Area and 
FAA Review for Approval
    E. Official List of FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
    F. Amendment of the FAA-Recognized Identification Area
    G. Duration of an FAA-Recognized Identification Area, 
Expiration, and Renewal
    H. Requests To Terminate an FAA-Recognized Identification Area
    I. Termination by FAA and Petitions To Reconsider the FAA's 
Decision To Terminate an FAA-Recognized Identification Area
XIII. Means of Compliance
    A. Performance-Based Regulation
    B. Applicability and General Comments
    C. Submission of a Means of Compliance
    D. Acceptance of a Means of Compliance
    E. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Means of Compliance
    F. Record Retention Requirements
XIV. Remote Identification Design and Production
    A. Applicability of Design and Production Requirements
    B. Exceptions to the Applicability of Design and Production 
Requirements
    C. Requirement To Issue Serial Numbers
    D. Labeling Requirements
    E. Production Requirements
    F. Accountability
    G. Filing a Declaration of Compliance
    H. Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance
    I. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance
    J. Record Retention
XV. Registration
    A. Aircraft Registration Requirements
    B. Registration Fees for the Registration of Individual Aircraft
    C. Information Included in the Application for Registration
    D. Proposed Changes to the Registration Requirements To Require 
a Serial Number as Part of the Registration Process
    E. Serial Number Marking
    F. Compliance Dates
XVI. Foreign Registered Civil Unmanned Aircraft Operated in the 
United States
    A. Discussion of the Final Rule
    B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XVII. ADS-B Out and Transponders for Remote Identification
    A. Discussion of the Final Rule
    B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XVIII. Environmental Analysis
    A. Public Comments and FAA Response
XIX. Effective and Compliance Dates
    A. Effective Date of This Rule
    B. Production Requirements Compliance Date
    C. Operational Requirements Compliance Date
    D. Incentives for Early Compliance
XX. Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis--Benefits and Costs
    A. General Comments about Cost Impacts of the Rule
    B. Comments on Benefits and Cost Savings
    C. Comments on Data and Assumptions
    D. Comments on Regulatory Alternatives
    E. Miscellaneous Comments
XXI. Guidance Documents
XXII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
    G. Environmental Analysis
XXIII. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments

[[Page 4391]]

    C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation
    E. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
XXIV. Additional Information
    A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document

AC--Advisory Circular
ADS-B--Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
AGL--above ground level
ARC--Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATC--Air traffic control
BVLOS--Beyond visual line of sight
DOT--U.S. Department of Transportation
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
GPS--Global Positioning System
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
LAANC--Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability
LOS--line-of-sight
MOA--Memorandum of Agreement
NPRM--notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
UAS--Unmanned aircraft system
UAS-ID ARC--UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee
USS--UAS service supplier
UTM--Unmanned aircraft systems traffic management
VLOS--visual line of sight

I. Executive Summary

    This rule establishes requirements for the remote identification of 
unmanned aircraft \1\ operated in the airspace of the United States. 
Remote identification (commonly known as Remote ID) is the capability 
of an unmanned aircraft in flight to provide certain identification, 
location, and performance information that people on the ground and 
other airspace users can receive. The remote identification of unmanned 
aircraft is necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and 
efficiency of the airspace of the United States. Remote identification 
provides airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law 
enforcement entities, and other government officials. The information 
can be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those 
potentially posing a safety or security risk. Remote identification 
will become increasingly important as the number of unmanned aircraft 
operations increases in all classes of airspace in the United States. 
While remote identification capability alone will not enable routine 
expanded operations, such as operations over people or beyond visual 
line of sight, it is the next incremental step toward enabling those 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The FAA does not use the terms unmanned aircraft system and 
unmanned aircraft interchangeably. The FAA uses the term unmanned 
aircraft as defined in 14 CFR 1.1 to refer specifically to the 
unmanned aircraft itself. The FAA uses the term unmanned aircraft 
system to refer to both the unmanned aircraft and any communication 
links and components that control the unmanned aircraft. As 
explained in section V.A of this rule, the FAA is adding the 
definition of unmanned aircraft system to 14 CFR part 1.
    The FAA acknowledges that UAS may have components produced by 
different manufacturers (e.g., an unmanned aircraft could be 
manufactured by one manufacturer and the control station could be 
manufactured by another). In addition, unmanned aircraft that 
operate beyond the radio-line-of-sight may use third-party 
communication links. As finalized, the remote identification 
requirements in this final rule apply to the operation and the 
design and production of unmanned aircraft. Unmanned aircraft 
producers are responsible for ensuring that the unmanned aircraft 
comply with the design and production requirements of this rule even 
when the unmanned aircraft uses control station equipment (such as a 
smart phone) or communication links manufactured by a different 
person. The unmanned aircraft producer must address how any 
dependencies on control station functionality are incorporated as 
part of the remote identification design and production 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States 
are subject to the operating requirements of this rule, irrespective of 
whether they are operating for recreational or commercial purposes. The 
rule requires operators to seek special authorization to operate 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification for aeronautical 
research and other limited purposes.
    Unmanned aircraft produced for operation in the airspace of the 
United States are subject to the production requirements of this rule. 
There are limited exceptions allowing the production of unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification, which include home-built 
unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft of the United States 
Government, amongst others.

A. Remote Identification Requirements

    There are three ways to comply with the operational requirements 
for remote identification. The first way is to operate a standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft that broadcasts identification, 
location, and performance information of the unmanned aircraft and 
control station. The second way to comply is by operating an unmanned 
aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module. The broadcast 
module, which broadcasts identification, location, and take-off 
information, may be a separate device that is attached to an unmanned 
aircraft, or a feature built into the aircraft. The third way to comply 
allows for the operation of unmanned aircraft without any remote 
identification equipment, where the UAS is operated at specific FAA-
recognized identification areas. The requirements for all three of 
these paths to compliance are specified in this rule.
    Except in accordance with the requirements of this rule, no 
unmanned aircraft can be produced for operation in the airspace of the 
United States after September 16, 2022, and no unmanned aircraft can be 
operated in the airspace of the United States after September 16, 2023.
1. Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
    Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft broadcast the 
remote identification message elements directly from the unmanned 
aircraft from takeoff to shutdown. The required message elements 
include: (1) A unique identifier to establish the identity of the 
unmanned aircraft; (2) an indication of the unmanned aircraft latitude, 
longitude, geometric altitude, and velocity; (3) an indication of the 
control station latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude; (4) a time 
mark; and (5) an emergency status indication. Operators may choose 
whether to use the serial number of the unmanned aircraft or a session 
ID (e.g., an alternative form of identification that provides 
additional privacy to the operator) as the unique identifier. The 
required message elements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft are discussed in section VIII.A of this preamble.
    A person can operate a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft only if: (1) It has a serial number that is listed on an FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance; (2) its remote identification 
equipment is functional and complies with the requirements of the rule 
from takeoff to shutdown; (3) its remote identification equipment and 
functionality have not been disabled; and (4) the Certificate of 
Aircraft Registration of the unmanned aircraft used in the operation 
must include the serial number of the unmanned aircraft, as per 
applicable requirements of parts 47 and 48, or the serial number of the 
unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a notice of 
identification pursuant to Sec.  89.130 prior to the operation.
    Persons operating a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft in the airspace of the United States must comply with the 
operational rules in subpart B of part 89 by September 16, 2023.
    Operating requirements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft are discussed in greater detail in section VII.C of this 
preamble.

[[Page 4392]]

2. Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
    An unmanned aircraft can be equipped with a remote identification 
broadcast module that broadcasts message elements from takeoff to 
shutdown. The required message elements include: (1) The serial number 
of the broadcast module assigned by the producer; (2) an indication of 
the latitude, longitude, geometric altitude, and velocity of the 
unmanned aircraft; (3) an indication of the latitude, longitude, and 
geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft takeoff location; and (4) a 
time mark. The required message elements for remote identification 
broadcast modules are discussed in section IX of this preamble.
    Persons can operate an unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote 
identification broadcast module only if: (1) The remote identification 
broadcast module meets the requirements of this rule; (2) the serial 
number of the remote identification broadcast module is listed on an 
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance; (3) the Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration of the unmanned aircraft used in the operation includes 
the serial number of the remote identification broadcast module, or the 
serial number of the unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a 
notice of identification pursuant to Sec.  89.130 prior to the 
operation; (4) from takeoff to shutdown the remote identification 
broadcast module broadcasts the remote identification message elements 
from the unmanned aircraft; and (5) the person manipulating the flight 
controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the 
unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.
    A person operating an unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote 
identification broadcast module in the airspace of the United States 
must comply with the operational rules in subpart B of part 89 by 
September 16, 2023.
    The operating requirements for remote identification broadcast 
modules are discussed in greater detail in section VII.D of this 
preamble.
3. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote Identification Equipment
    This rule requires all unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace 
of the United States to have remote identification capabilities, except 
as described below.
    Upon full implementation of this rule, most unmanned aircraft will 
have to be produced as standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft. However, there will be some unmanned aircraft (e.g., home-
built unmanned aircraft and existing unmanned aircraft produced prior 
to the date of compliance of the production requirements of this rule) 
that might not meet the requirements for standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft.
    Persons operating an unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification in the airspace of the United States must comply with 
the operational rules in subpart B of part 89 by September 16, 2023. 
Unless operating under an exception to the remote identification 
operating requirements, a person operating an unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification must always operate within visual line of sight 
\2\ and within an FAA-recognized identification area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Part 89 limits unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification and unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules to visual line of sight operations. Nothing in 
part 89 authorizes beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations 
for any unmanned aircraft; such authority will spring from other FAA 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area 
where persons can operate UAS without remote identification, provided 
they maintain visual line of sight. Persons eligible to request 
establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas include community-
based organizations recognized by the Administrator and educational 
institutions including primary and secondary educational institutions, 
trade schools, colleges, and universities. The FAA will begin accepting 
applications for FAA-recognized identification areas on September 16, 
2022. The FAA will maintain a list of FAA-recognized identification 
areas at https://www.faa.gov. FAA-recognized identification areas are 
discussed further in section XII of this preamble.
4. Prohibition Against the Use of ADS-B Out and Transponders
    This rule prohibits use of ADS-B Out and transponders for UAS 
operations under 14 CFR part 107 unless otherwise authorized by the 
FAA, and defines when ADS-B Out is appropriate for UAS operating under 
part 91. The FAA is concerned the potential proliferation of ADS-B Out 
transmitters on unmanned aircraft may negatively affect the safe 
operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The 
projected numbers of unmanned aircraft operations have the potential to 
saturate available ADS-B frequencies, affecting ADS-B capabilities for 
manned aircraft and potentially blinding ADS-B ground receivers. 
Therefore, unmanned aircraft operators, with limited exceptions, are 
prohibited from using ADS-B Out or transponders. The prohibition 
against the use of ADS-B Out and transponders is discussed in section 
XVII of this preamble.
    Persons must comply with the ADS-B Out and transponder prohibition 
as of March 16, 2021.
5. Design and Production
    Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules must be designed and produced to meet 
the requirements of this rule. The FAA recognizes that UAS technology 
is continually evolving, making it necessary to harmonize new 
regulatory action with technological advancements. To promote that 
harmonization, the FAA is implementing performance-based requirements 
to describe the desired outcomes, goals, and results for remote 
identification without establishing a specific means or process for 
regulated entities to follow.
    A person designing or producing a standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or broadcast module for operation in the United 
States must show that the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module meets 
the requirements of an FAA-accepted means of compliance. A means of 
compliance describes the methods by which the person complies with the 
performance-based requirements for remote identification.
    Under this rule, anyone can create a means of compliance; however, 
the FAA must accept that means of compliance before it can be used for 
the design or production of any standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module. A person seeking 
acceptance by the FAA of a means of compliance for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
modules is required to submit the means of compliance to the FAA. The 
FAA reviews the means of compliance to determine if it meets the 
minimum performance requirements and includes appropriate testing and 
validation procedures in accordance with the rule. Specifically, the 
person must submit a detailed description of the means of compliance, a 
justification for how the means of compliance meets the minimum 
performance requirements of the rule, and any substantiating material 
the person wishes the FAA to consider as part of the application. FAA-
accepted consensus standards are one way, but not the only way, to show 
compliance

[[Page 4393]]

with the performance requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the FAA 
encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of compliance 
and submit them to the FAA for acceptance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A means of compliance is not considered to be ``FAA-
accepted'' until the means of compliance has been evaluated by the 
FAA, the submitter has been notified of acceptance, and the means of 
compliance has been published at https://www.faa.gov as available 
for use in meeting the requirements of part 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA indicates acceptance of a means of compliance by notifying 
the submitter of the acceptance of the proposed means of compliance. 
The FAA also expects to notify the public that it has accepted the 
means of compliance by including it on a list of accepted means of 
compliance at https://www.faa.gov. The FAA will not disclose 
commercially sensitive information from the means of compliance that 
has been marked as such. The FAA may disclose the non-proprietary 
broadcast specification and radio frequency spectrum so that sufficient 
information is available to develop receiving and processing equipment 
and software for the FAA, law enforcement, and members of the public.
    See section XIII of this preamble for more information on means of 
compliance and FAA acceptance.
    In addition, a person responsible for the production of standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft (with limited exceptions) or 
remote identification broadcast modules is required to:
     Issue each unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module a serial number that complies with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A 
serial number standard.
     Label the unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module to indicate that it is remote identification 
compliant.
     Submit a declaration of compliance for acceptance by the 
FAA, declaring that the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module complies with the 
requirements of the rule.
    A person producing a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft for operation in the airspace of the United States must comply 
with the requirements of subpart F of part 89 by September 16, 2022.
    A person producing a remote identification broadcast module must 
comply with the requirements of subpart F of part 89 by March 16, 2021.
    See the design and production requirements in section XIV of this 
preamble for more information about the production requirements for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules, and the process for declarations of 
compliance.

B. Registration Requirements

    The FAA proposed requiring all unmanned aircraft, including those 
used for limited recreational operations, to obtain a unique 
registration number. After reviewing comments and further 
consideration, the FAA decided not to adopt this requirement. Owners of 
small unmanned aircraft used in civil operations (including commercial 
operations), limited recreational operations,\4\ or public aircraft 
operations, among others, continue to be eligible to register the 
unmanned aircraft under part 48 in one of two ways: (1) Under an 
individual registration number issued to each unmanned aircraft; or (2) 
under a single registration number issued to an owner of multiple 
unmanned aircraft used exclusively for limited recreational operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FAA is revising its regulations and guidance documents 
to delete references to ``model aircraft.'' Consistent with the 
exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft 
in 49 U.S.C. 44809, the FAA now refers to recreational unmanned 
aircraft or limited recreational operations of UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA adopts the requirement tying remote identification 
requirements to registration requirements and the requirements to 
submit the unmanned aircraft's serial number and other information.
    This rule also revises and adopts certain requirements originally 
established in the interim final rule on Registration and Marking 
Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft.\5\ These requirements 
directly affect registration-related proposals made in the Remote 
Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM (``the NPRM'') (84 FR 
72438, Dec. 31, 2019). See section XV of this preamble for more 
information about registration requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 80 FR 78593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Elimination of the Network-Based Remote Identification Requirement

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed requiring standard remote 
identification UAS and limited remote identification UAS to transmit 
remote identification message elements through a network connection.\6\ 
To comply with this requirement, UAS would have had to transmit the 
remote identification message elements through the internet to a third-
party service provider, referred to as a Remote ID UAS Service Supplier 
(USS). Remote ID USS would have collected and, as appropriate, 
disseminated the remote identification information through the 
internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As used in this rule, terms such as ``network,'' ``network-
based requirement,'' ``network solution,'' ``network framework,'' 
and ``network transmission'' typically refer to the transmission of 
remote identification message elements through an internet 
connection to a Remote ID USS, as proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NPRM, the FAA received significant feedback 
about the network requirement identifying both public opposition to, 
and technical challenges with, implementing the network requirements. 
The FAA had not foreseen or accounted for many of these challenges when 
it proposed using the network solution and USS framework. After careful 
consideration of these challenges, informed by public comment, the FAA 
decided to eliminate the requirement in this rulemaking to transmit 
remote identification messages through an internet connection to a 
Remote ID USS.
    Without the requirement to transmit remote identification through 
the internet, limited remote identification UAS, as proposed, would 
have no means to disseminate remote identification information. As a 
result, limited remote identification UAS as proposed in the NPRM are 
no longer a viable concept. Nonetheless, the FAA recognizes the need 
for the existing unmanned aircraft fleet to be able to comply with 
remote identification requirements. To meet that need, the FAA 
incorporates a modified regulatory framework in this rule under which 
persons can retrofit unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules.
    The FAA's decision to eliminate the network-based remote 
identification requirement is discussed in greater detail in section 
VII.A of this preamble.

D. Summary of Benefits and Costs

    This rule requires remote identification of unmanned aircraft to 
address safety, security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the 
further integration of these aircraft into the airspace of the United 
States. The remote identification framework promotes compliance by 
operators of unmanned aircraft by providing UAS-specific data, which 
may be used in tandem with new technologies and infrastructure to 
provide airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law 
enforcement entities, and other government officials which can

[[Page 4394]]

use the data to discern compliant airspace users from those potentially 
posing a safety or security risk. In addition, as being finalized, the 
rule reduces obsolescence of the existing unmanned aircraft fleet.
    This rule results in additional costs for persons responsible for 
the production of unmanned aircraft, owners and operators of registered 
unmanned aircraft, entities requesting the establishment of an FAA-
recognized identification area, and the FAA. This rule provides cost 
savings for the FAA from a reduction in hours and associated costs 
expended investigating unmanned aircraft incidents.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This analysis includes quantified savings to the FAA only. A 
variety of other entities involved with airport operations, facility 
and infrastructure security, and law enforcement would also save 
time and resources involved with unmanned aircraft identification 
and incident reporting, response, and investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis of this rule is based on the fleet forecast for small 
unmanned aircraft as published in the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-
2040.\8\ The FAA forecast includes base, low, and high scenarios. This 
analysis provides a range of net impacts from low to high based on 
these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers the primary estimate of net 
impacts of the rule to be the base scenario. For the primary estimate, 
over a 10-year period of analysis this rule would result in present net 
value costs of about $227.1 million at a three percent discount rate 
with annualized net costs of about $26.6 million. At a seven percent 
discount rate, the present value net costs are about $186.5 million 
with annualized net costs of $26.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020-2040, available at 
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. The forecast provides a 
base (i.e., likely) with high (or optimistic) and low (or 
pessimistic) scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table presents a summary of the primary estimates of 
the quantified costs and cost savings of this rule, as well as 
estimates for the low and high forecast scenarios. Additional details 
are provided in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

                                    Table 1--Costs and Savings of Final Rule
                                                  [$Millions] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10 Year present    Annualized    10 Year present    Annualized
               Forecast scenario                   value (3%)         (3%)          value (7%)         (7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Scenario--Primary Estimate:
    Costs.....................................           230.69           27.04           189.38           26.96
    Cost Savings..............................           (3.58)          (0.42)           (2.85)          (0.41)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Costs.............................           227.11           26.62           186.53           26.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Scenario:
    Costs.....................................           217.08           25.45           178.60           25.43
    Cost Savings..............................           (3.47)          (0.41)           (2.77)          (0.39)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Costs.............................           213.61           25.04           175.83           25.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Scenario:
    Costs.....................................           250.18           29.33           204.90           29.17
    Cost Savings..............................           (3.74)          (0.44)           (2.98)          (0.42)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Costs.............................           246.44           28.89           201.92           28.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table notes: Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish
  from costs. Estimates are provided at three and seven percent discount rates per Office of Management and
  Budget (OMB) guidance.

    The final rule incorporates several important changes that reduce 
costs and provide additional flexibilities compared to the proposed 
rule. These include simplifying the approach to remote identification 
by requiring only broadcast transmission of data, and authorizing a 
remote identification broadcast module option that enables retrofitting 
of unmanned aircraft that do not meet the requirements for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft. These changes allow unmanned 
aircraft built without remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned 
aircraft fleet, home built unmanned aircraft) to be operated outside of 
FAA-recognized identification areas. These changes also eliminate the 
requirement for a person to connect the unmanned aircraft to the 
internet. This shift allows unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification broadcast modules to operate in areas where the internet 
is unavailable. As a result, the final rule reduces compliance costs 
compared to the proposed rule.
    The net costs of the final rule have decreased by about 60 percent 
as compared to the proposed rule. The NPRM stated that the primary 
estimate over a 10-year period of analysis for the proposed rule would 
have resulted in net present value costs of about $582 million at a 
three percent discount rate with annualized net costs of about $68 
million. At a seven percent discount rate, the net present value costs 
for the proposed rule were about $474 million with annualized net costs 
of $67 million.
    The FAA expects this rule will result in several important benefits 
and enhancements to support safety and security in the airspace of the 
United States. Remote identification provides information that helps 
address existing challenges faced by the FAA, law enforcement entities, 
and national security agencies responsible for the safety and security 
of the airspace of the United States. As unmanned aircraft operations 
increase, so does the risk of unmanned aircraft being operated in close 
proximity to manned aircraft, or people and property on the ground, or 
in airspace unsuitable for these operations. Remote identification 
provides a means to identify these aircraft and locate the person who 
controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in command). It allows the FAA, 
law

[[Page 4395]]

enforcement, and national security agencies to distinguish compliant 
airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk. 
It permits the FAA and law enforcement to conduct oversight of persons 
operating UAS and to determine whether compliance actions, enforcement, 
educational, training, or other types of actions are needed to mitigate 
safety or security risks and foster increased compliance with 
regulations. Remote identification data also informs the public and 
users of the airspace of the United States of the local operations that 
are being conducted at any given moment.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes the scope of the Agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) 
and (2), which direct the FAA to issue regulations: (1) To ensure the 
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern 
the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and 
identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the 
ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by prescribing regulations the 
FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
    Section 2202 of Public Law 114-190 requires the Administrator to 
convene industry stakeholders to facilitate the development of 
consensus standards for remotely identifying operators and owners of 
UAS and associated unmanned aircraft and to issue regulations or 
guidance based on any standards developed.
    The Administrator has authority under 49 U.S.C. 44805 to establish 
a process for, among other things, accepting risk-based consensus 
safety standards related to the design and production of small UAS. 
Under 49 U.S.C. 44805(b)(7), one of the considerations the 
Administrator must take into account prior to accepting such standards 
is any consensus identification standard regarding remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft developed pursuant to section 2202 
of Public Law 114-190.
    In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44809(f) provides that the Administrator is 
not prohibited from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned 
aircraft, including those UAS eligible for the exception for limited 
recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. Among other things, this 
authority extends to rules relating to the registration and marking of 
unmanned aircraft and the standards for remotely identifying owners and 
operators of UAS and associated unmanned aircraft.
    The FAA has authority to regulate registration of aircraft under 49 
U.S.C. 44101-44106 and 44110-44113, which require aircraft to be 
registered as a condition of operation, and to establish the 
registration requirements and registration processes.
    This rulemaking is also promulgated under the authority described 
in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules, and 49 U.S.C. 
40101(d), which authorizes the FAA to consider in the public interest, 
among other things, the enhancement of safety and security as the 
highest priorities in air commerce, the regulation of civil and 
military operations in the interest of safety and efficiency, and 
assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws 
related to regulation of controlled substances, to the extent 
consistent with aviation safety.
    Finally, this rulemaking is also being issued consistent with DOT's 
regulatory policy which requires that DOT regulations ``be 
technologically neutral, and, to the extent feasible, they should 
specify performance objectives, rather than prescribing specific 
conduct that regulated entities must adopt.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 CFR 5.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

    The rapid proliferation of unmanned aircraft has created 
significant opportunities and challenges for their integration into the 
airspace of the United States. The relatively low cost of highly 
capable UAS technology has allowed for hundreds of thousands of new 
operators to enter the aviation community.
    The complexities surrounding the full integration of UAS into the 
airspace of the United States have led the FAA to engage in a phased, 
incremental, and risk-based approach to rulemaking based on the 
statutory authorities delegated to the Agency. On December 16, 2015, 
the Administrator and Secretary jointly published an interim final rule 
in the Federal Register titled Registration and Marking Requirements 
for Small Unmanned Aircraft (``Registration Rule''),\10\ which provides 
for a web-based aircraft registration process for small unmanned 
aircraft in 14 CFR part 48 that serves as an alternative to the 
registration requirements for aircraft established in 14 CFR part 47. 
The Registration Rule imposes marking requirements on small unmanned 
aircraft registered under part 48, according to which the small 
unmanned aircraft must display a unique identifier in a manner that is 
visible upon inspection. The unique identifier could be the 
registration number issued to an individual or to the small unmanned 
aircraft by the FAA Registry or the small unmanned aircraft's serial 
number if authorized by the Administrator and provided with the 
application for the certificate of aircraft registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 80 FR 78594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2016, the FAA and DOT jointly published the final rule 
for Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
(``the 2016 Rule'') in the Federal Register.\11\ This was an important 
step towards the integration of civil small UAS operations (for 
aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) into the airspace of the United 
States. The 2016 Rule set the initial operational structure and certain 
restrictions to allow routine civil operations of small UAS in the 
airspace of the United States in a safe manner. Prior to the 2016 Rule, 
the FAA authorized commercial UAS operations, including but not limited 
to real estate photography, precision agriculture, and infrastructure 
inspection, under section 333 of Public Law 112-95. Over 5,500 
operators received this authorization. The FAA also issued over 900 
Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA), allowing Federal, State, 
and local governments, law enforcement agencies, and public 
universities to perform numerous tasks with UAS, including but not 
limited to search-and-rescue, border patrol, and research activities. 
The 2016 Rule allows certain operations of small UAS to be conducted in 
the airspace of the United States without an airworthiness certificate, 
exemption, or COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 81 FR 42064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Rule also imposed certain restrictions on small UAS 
operations. The restrictions included a prohibition on nighttime 
operations, limitations on operations conducted during civil twilight, 
restrictions on operations over people, a requirement for all 
operations to be conducted within visual line of sight, and other 
operational, airspace, and pilot certification requirements. Since the 
2016 Rule took effect on August 29, 2016, most low-risk small UAS 
operations that were previously authorized on a case-by-case basis 
under

[[Page 4396]]

section 333 of Public Law 112-95 became routine operations. With some 
exceptions,\12\ these operations are now permitted without further 
interaction with the FAA if they comply with the requirements of part 
107. Publishing part 107 was the first significant regulatory step to 
enable lower risk, less complex UAS operations in the airspace of the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., 14 CFR 107.41 (requiring prior FAA authorization 
for small unmanned aircraft operation in certain types of airspace).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 107 opened the airspace of the United States to the vast 
majority of routine small UAS operations, allowing flight within visual 
line of sight while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future 
technological innovations. Part 107 allows individuals to request 
waivers from certain provisions, including those prohibiting operations 
over people and beyond visual line of sight. Petitions for waivers from 
the provisions of part 107 must demonstrate that the petitioner has 
provided sufficient mitigations to safely conduct the requested 
operation.
    On October 5, 2018, Congress enacted Public Law 115-254, also known 
as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 
2018 amended part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code by 
inserting a new chapter 448 titled Unmanned Aircraft Systems and 
incorporating additional authorities and mandates to support the 
further integration of UAS into the airspace of the United States, 
including several provisions that specifically deal with the need for 
remote identification of UAS. Section 376 of the FAA Reauthorization 
Act of 2018 requires the FAA to perform testing of remote 
identification technology, and to assess the use of remote 
identification for the development of unmanned aircraft systems traffic 
management (UTM).
    Additional congressional action supports the implementation of 
remote identification requirements for most UAS. Section 349 of the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018 goes so far as to indicate that the 
Administrator may promulgate rules requiring remote identification of 
UAS and apply those rules to UAS used for limited recreational 
operations.\13\ The provision denotes Congress' acknowledgment that 
remote identification is an essential part of the UAS regulatory 
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 13, 2019, the FAA published three rulemaking documents 
in the Federal Register as part of the next phase of integrating small 
UAS into the airspace of the United States. The first of such documents 
was an interim final rule titled ``External Marking Requirement for 
Small Unmanned Aircraft,'' \14\ in which the FAA required small 
unmanned aircraft owners to display the registration number assigned by 
the FAA on an external surface of the aircraft. The second rulemaking 
document was a notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Operation of 
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People,'' \15\ in which the FAA 
proposed to allow operations of small unmanned aircraft over people in 
certain conditions and operations of small UAS at night without 
obtaining a waiver. The third rulemaking document was an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking titled ``Safe and Secure Operations of Small 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems,'' \16\ in which the FAA sought information 
from the public on whether, and under which circumstances, the FAA 
should promulgate new rules to require stand-off distances, additional 
operating and performance restrictions, the use of UTM, additional 
payload restrictions, and whether the Agency should prescribe UAS 
design requirements and require that unmanned aircraft be equipped with 
critical safety systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On December 31, 2019, the FAA published the Remote Identification 
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM. The FAA received approximately 
53,000 comments on the NPRM. A significant amount of the comments were 
submitted by individuals, many of whom identified as recreational 
flyers. In addition, the FAA received numerous comments from UAS 
manufacturers, other aviation manufacturers, organizations representing 
UAS interest groups, organizations representing various sectors of 
manned aviation, State and local governments, news media organizations, 
academia, and others.

IV. Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft

A. Clarification of Use of the Term Unmanned Aircraft in This Rule

    As a result of the comments concerning the use of the term unmanned 
aircraft system (UAS), the FAA clarifies that the term ``unmanned 
aircraft'' is used when referring to the aircraft, and UAS is used when 
referring to the entire system, including the control station.
    The FAA acknowledges that UAS may have components produced by 
different manufacturers (e.g., an unmanned aircraft could be 
manufactured by one manufacturer and the control station could be 
manufactured by another). In addition, unmanned aircraft that operate 
beyond the range of the radio signal being transmitted from the control 
station may use third-party communication links, such as the cellular 
network. As finalized, the remote identification requirements in this 
rule apply to the operation, and the design and production of unmanned 
aircraft. Unmanned aircraft producers are responsible for ensuring that 
the unmanned aircraft comply with the design and production 
requirements of this rule even when the unmanned aircraft uses control 
station equipment (such as a smart phone) or communication links 
manufactured by a different person. The unmanned aircraft producer must 
address how any dependencies on control station functionality are 
incorporated as part of the remote identification design and production 
requirements.

B. Purpose for the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft

    UAS are fundamentally changing aviation and the FAA is committed to 
working to fully integrate them into the airspace of the United States. 
The next step in that integration is enabling unmanned aircraft 
operations over people and at night. Remote identification of unmanned 
aircraft is a critical element to enable those operations that 
addresses safety and security concerns.
    Remote identification is the capability of an unmanned aircraft in 
flight to provide identification, location, and performance information 
that people on the ground and other airspace users can receive. In its 
most basic form, remote identification can be described as an 
electronic identification or a ``digital license plate'' for UAS.
    Remote identification provides information that helps address 
existing challenges of the FAA, law enforcement entities, and national 
security agencies responsible for the safety and security of the 
airspace of the United States. As a wider variety of UAS operations 
such as operations over people are made available, the risk of unmanned 
aircraft being operated in an unsafe manner, such as in close proximity 
to people and property on the ground, is increased. Remote 
identification provides a means to identify these aircraft and locate 
the person who controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in command). It 
allows the FAA, law enforcement, and national security agencies to 
distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a 
safety or security risk. It permits the FAA and law

[[Page 4397]]

enforcement to conduct oversight of persons operating unmanned aircraft 
and to determine whether compliance actions, enforcement, educational, 
training, or other types of actions are needed to mitigate safety or 
security risks and foster increased compliance with regulations.
    The requirements for the identification of manned and unmanned 
aircraft form an integral part of the FAA's regulatory framework. Prior 
to this rule, the requirements included aircraft registration and 
marking and electronic identification using transponders and Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). This rule creates a new 
regulation, 14 CFR part 89, which establishes the remote identification 
requirements for unmanned aircraft. These requirements are particularly 
important for unmanned aircraft because the person operating the 
unmanned aircraft is not onboard the aircraft, creating challenges for 
associating the aircraft with its operator. In addition, the small size 
of many unmanned aircraft means the registration marking is only 
visible upon close inspection, making visual identification of unmanned 
aircraft in flight difficult or impossible.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the remote identification framework is 
necessary to enable expanded UAS operations and further integration. 
This final rule scales that framework to support the next steps in that 
integration: Operations over people and operations at night. Though the 
NPRM discussed remote identification as a building block for UAS 
Traffic Management (UTM), the FAA has determined that, at this time, 
this rule will only finalize the broadcast-based remote identification 
requirements. See section VII.A of this preamble for a discussion on 
the FAA's decision to eliminate network-based remote identification 
requirements at this time. The broadcast-based approach of this rule 
contains the minimum requirements necessary to allow for remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft under the current operational 
rules.

C. Public Comments and FAA Response

1. General Support for Remote Identification
    Comments: Many commenters expressed general support for the NPRM, 
including the Helicopter Association International, the League of 
California Cities, and, commenting jointly, the Michigan Department of 
Transportation Office of Aeronautics, Michigan Aeronautics Commission, 
and Michigan Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force. Most commenters in 
support of the rule cited improvements to safety and privacy. 
Commenters expressed that with UAS becoming increasingly widespread, 
the rule would make identification easier, increase the safety of 
airspace, particularly for manned aircraft operating at the same 
altitudes as unmanned aircraft, and protect citizens' privacy.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Though remote identification potentially allows for greater 
ability of law enforcement to locate the person controlling an 
unmanned aircraft, this rule has not been promulgated for the 
purpose of addressing concerns about unmanned aircraft that violate 
privacy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions 
supported the rule, stating that the rule would enhance situational 
awareness and foster accountability of the operator and improved 
knowledge for the FAA, law enforcement, and operators of certain 
facilities identified by Congress in section 2209 of the FAA Extension, 
Safety and Security Act of 2016.\18\ The Edison Electric Institute, 
American Public Power Association, and National Rural Electric 
Association, commenting jointly, expressed support for the rule and for 
FAA's real-time access to UAS location information, particularly over 
energy infrastructure. Various institutions of higher education 
expressed support for remote identification and mentioned it would 
assist law enforcement agencies affiliated with said institutions to 
better identify UAS operators, particularly where the UAS poses risk or 
nuisance to bystanders, facilities, or other aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 2209 requires ``the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish a process to allow applicants to petition the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit or 
restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close proximity to 
a fixed site facility.'' The FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act 
of 2016, Public Law 114-190, sec. 2209, 130 Stat. 615, 633-635 
(2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Transportation Safety Board stated it had no technical 
objections provided the FAA can ensure that remote identification 
functions do not interfere with aviation safety.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the support of commenters and 
finalizes this rule and related policies to implement a remote 
identification framework that provides near-real time information 
regarding unmanned aircraft operations and increases situational 
awareness of unmanned aircraft to the public, operators of other 
aircraft, law enforcement and security officials, and other related 
entities.
2. General Opposition to Remote Identification
    The FAA received a multitude of comments opposing remote 
identification. Many of the commenters opposed the concept, as a whole, 
while others expressed opposition to specific aspects, concepts, or 
proposed in the NPRM.
    Comments: Among the comments expressing general disagreement with 
the proposed rule was one of the two form letters written and submitted 
by the First Person View Freedom Coalition (FPVFC) and 90 of its 
members. The commenters argued that the proposed rule would have many 
negative effects, including destroying the hobby of building and flying 
recreational remote controlled aircraft, making the sport of drone 
racing illegal, ending the ``multi-million [dollar] cottage industry 
around home built drones,'' outlawing ``acrobatic drone videography,'' 
imposing costs on both hobbyists and the drone industry by making 
current fleets obsolete, and making criminals of hobbyists. These 
commenters asked the FAA to rewrite the proposed rule with input from 
the FPVFC and Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). Similar concerns were 
common among many other commenters who opposed the NPRM in general 
terms. Instead of finalizing the rule as proposed, a member of the 
executive board for the AMA suggested the FAA adopt a ``technology 
agnostic'' approach to remote identification, so a variety of technical 
solutions could be used to meet the remote identification needs.
    The most common objections to the proposed rule were that it would 
impose burdens and costs that would make it difficult or impossible for 
hobbyists to fly model aircraft; that it would impose an unnecessary 
financial burden on UAS or model aircraft owners; and that it would 
harm or end the recreational UAS hobby. Commenters noted that it would 
be very difficult to upgrade many existing UAS because of the burden of 
carrying and powering new equipment such as navigation receivers and 
remote identification transmitters. They argued that this would reduce 
available flight time and could affect safety of operations if the 
additional weight is excessive. The FPVFC form letter and many other 
comments included similar objections.
    Many commenters, including 33 persons who submitted a form letter 
addressed as the ``Traditional Hobbyist Form Letter Campaign,'' argued 
that the proposed rule would not achieve its

[[Page 4398]]

objectives of providing safety for the airspace of the United States 
and protecting national security. Many of these commenters questioned 
whether the FAA provided an adequate justification for the proposed 
rule, with many commenters stating the FAA has not demonstrated that 
UAS are dangerous. The commenters questioned the need for the rule, 
often stating that existing regulations and standards are sufficient 
for protecting public safety. They mentioned that historically UAS have 
not been dangerous and have not caused fatalities and indicated the FAA 
should concentrate on enforcing current rules. A related and separate 
statement repeatedly made by commenters was that model aircraft are not 
dangerous. These comments often distinguish between model aircraft and 
other UAS, stating that model aircraft are not dangerous because they 
must remain in the pilot's visual line of sight to stay airborne due to 
lack of navigation equipment, flight planning capability, flight 
stabilization, first person view capability, or automation that is 
common on newer UAS. Some commenters saw the proposed rule as an 
attempt to privatize the airspace in which UAS and model aircraft 
operate.
    Commenters indicated remote identification would have negative 
effects. Many stated the proposed rule would harm innovation in the UAS 
industry. Others believed it would harm the educational and research 
potential of UAS or model aviation. Commenters pointed to model 
aviation driving young people's interest in science, technology, 
engineering, and math fields and aviation; and providing educational 
benefits that relate to these fields. Those commenters believed the 
rule would contribute to exacerbating a national shortage of manned 
aircraft pilots.
    Many commenters believed the rule would be unenforceable. A related 
argument was that only lawful flyers would follow the rules and that 
the rule would do nothing to change the behavior of bad actors. Some 
expressed concerns for widespread noncompliance with the rule.
    A significant number of commenters opposed any regulation of UAS 
used for recreational operations.
    A number of commenters believed remote identification requirements 
for UAS are stricter than ADS-B Out or transponder requirements for 
manned aircraft. Several commenters suggested permitting UAS operations 
without remote identification in uncontrolled airspace and away from 
airports, similar to the requirements for ADS-B Out that only apply in 
certain airspace. Commenters also stated that manned aircraft should be 
required to broadcast ADS-B Out in all airspace if all UAS are required 
to transmit remote identification. Several commenters also noted that 
manned aircraft were offered grants and rebates to help cover the cost 
of ADS-B implementation and had over 10 years to equip for ADS-B Out 
compared to the shorter implementation time proposed for remote 
identification.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the significant number of 
comments opposing the proposed regulation and related policies. After 
further consideration of public comments, the FAA has modified some of 
the remote identification policies in the final rule, as further 
discussed throughout this preamble, to reduce the burdens on unmanned 
aircraft operators and producers while maintaining the necessary 
requirements to address the safety and security needs of the FAA, law 
enforcement, and national security agencies. The FAA does not agree 
with commenters who believed remote identification will harm innovation 
in the UAS industry. On the contrary, the Agency believes that this 
performance-based regulation provides opportunities for innovation and 
growth of the UAS industry by addressing the security concerns 
associated with unmanned aircraft flight at night and over people. In 
addition, the FAA does not agree that the remote identification 
requirements are stricter than ADS-B Out requirements. Remote 
identification has fewer technical requirements compared to ADS-B, and 
this rule provides accommodations for unmanned aircraft operations 
without remote identification.
    The FAA does not agree that the requirements of this rule are 
unenforceable. In fact, the enforcement mechanism for this rule will in 
many respects parallel existing regulatory compliance activities for 
manned aviation. The Agency intends to meet its statutory and 
regulatory compliance and enforcement responsibilities by following a 
documented compliance and enforcement program that includes legal 
enforcement action, including civil penalties and certificate actions, 
as appropriate, to address violations and help deter future violations.
    Many commenters opposed remote identification because they believed 
it would impact the recreational UAS community. The remote 
identification requirements apply to unmanned aircraft operating in the 
airspace of the United States irrespective of what the unmanned 
aircraft are being used for. However, the FAA has incorporated 
additional flexibilities into this rule to facilitate compliance with 
the remote identification requirements. For example, an operator of an 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification can now retrofit the 
unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module to 
identify remotely. See section VII.D of this preamble for further 
discussion of remote identification broadcast modules.
    The Agency has also eliminated the requirement to transmit remote 
identification message elements through the internet to a Remote ID 
USS, which will decrease costs to operators by eliminating the 
potential for subscription fees. See section VII.A of this preamble for 
further discussion on the elimination of the limited remote 
identification UAS concept. The revised rule also increases the 
availability of FAA-recognized identification areas where operations 
may occur without remote identification equipment. See section XII of 
this preamble for further discussion on FAA-recognized identification 
areas. The FAA also revised the definition of amateur-built UAS as 
discussed in section V.D of this preamble. The term is now addressed in 
this rule as home-built unmanned aircraft.
3. Alternatives Proposed by Commenters
    Many commenters, including the Academy of Model Aeronautics, 
AirMap, American Farm Bureau Federation, the Experimental Aircraft 
Association, Flite Test, Kittyhawk, and the Small UAV Coalition noted 
that the best path to widespread compliance is a simple, affordable 
solution. They recommended an application-based interface that would 
permit a UAS operator to self-declare an operational area and time 
either at the beginning, or in advance of, operations in areas where 
internet service might not be available, similar to current LAANC 
implementations. Some commenters suggested either a smart phone 
application or phone-in option where UAS operators could reserve a 
small block of airspace so other non-participating UAS could 
voluntarily re-route around that operations area.
    The Academy of Model Aeronautics recommended providing a path to 
compliance using ground-based or application-based remote 
identification for the pilot in command rather than specific equipment 
mandates applicable to manufacturers. For non-autonomous UAS which 
require continuous pilot input and visual line of sight (e.g., no 
programmable waypoints or other automation), the Charles River Radio 
Controllers also recommended a pre-flight registration via the internet 
where

[[Page 4399]]

operators would indicate their destination, flight parameters, and time 
of operation. Streamline Designs suggested permitting UAS that self-
report location to operate in rural locations.
    Wing Aviation suggested revising limited remote identification UAS 
to permit recreational operations within VLOS for UAS that are not 
highly automated and not available for sale to third parties, provided 
that operators declare their operational intent to a Remote ID USS. The 
intent information would include the flight area, maximum height AGL, 
earliest and latest operations times, and the actual or expected 
location of the ground control station, while also requiring the 
operator to share actual control station location if the internet is 
available. SenseFly also supported uploading a flight plan and stated 
that this type of identification would give adequate information, 
especially for a short-range flight, such as those limited to a 400-
foot range. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Technology Engagement Center 
recommended permitting remote identification UAS to continue to operate 
without a persistent connection to a Remote ID USS if operators declare 
their identifier and flight intent to provide situation awareness for 
other airspace users.
    Kittyhawk stated that network-based solutions are the most agile, 
scalable, and information-rich, but also recommended providing a 
variety of options to better achieve remote identification compliance. 
They proposed a three-tier solution that would permit volume-based 
reservations without requiring network or broadcast remote 
identification information for UAS operations in VLOS below 200 feet in 
Class G airspace and 100 feet in controlled airspace, as well as UAS 
operations within VLOS below 400 feet with volume-based reservations 
and transmission of remote identification information by either 
broadcast or network.
    One commenter suggested permitting the installation of Broadcom 
chips in UAS so they could be tracked similar to cellular phones. One 
commenter suggested the FAA supply RFID tags to track each UAS for a 
fee upon completion of their UAS knowledge test. Several commenters, 
including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, 
suggested remote identification data could be stored locally and 
uploaded after flight in areas with no internet coverage. The New 
Hampshire Department of Transportation assumed that many retrofit UAS 
would become limited remote identification UAS and recommended 
permitting those UAS to operate when the internet is not available if 
equipped with an anti-collision beacon that is visible for at least 3 
statute miles to increase conspicuity for manned aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA considered the alternative approaches 
proposed by commenters and assessed whether they met the needs of the 
FAA, law enforcement, and national security agencies to ensure the 
safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United States sufficient 
to enable unmanned aircraft to fly over people and at night. The Agency 
agrees with commenters that a retrofit option could enable operators to 
meet the remote identification requirements of this rule. Therefore, 
the FAA adopts the concept in this rule by incorporating operating 
requirements, discussed in section VII.D of this preamble, and 
production requirements, discussed in section XIV.E.3 of this preamble, 
to permit the production and use of remote identification broadcast 
modules. A person may now equip an unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification with a remote identification broadcast module to enable 
the unmanned aircraft to identify remotely.
    At this time, the FAA has determined that the other options 
proposed by commenters do not meet the needs of the Agency or are 
outside the scope of this rule. For example, the volume-based 
reservation proposal from Kittyhawk would affect airspace access and is 
outside the scope of identification. The FAA declines to require the 
installation of Broadcom chips as suggested by one commenter because 
the FAA is committed to performance-based requirements that do not 
require using a specific manufacturer's equipment. The recommendation 
to require unmanned aircraft to be equipped with anti-collision 
lighting when not transmitting remote identification information is 
unacceptable because it does not provide information about the identity 
of the unmanned aircraft or the control station location. The FAA also 
notes that providing flight intent information as a means to satisfy 
the remote identification requirements would not ensure that flight 
information is available in areas where there is no internet 
connectivity. However, the remote identification broadcast requirements 
in this rule ensure that remote identification information is available 
even in areas where the internet may not be available.

V. Terms Used in This Rule

    The NPRM proposed to define a number of terms to facilitate the 
implementation of the remote identification of unmanned aircraft. In 
part 1, definitions and abbreviations, the FAA proposed to add 
definitions of unmanned aircraft system and visual line of sight to 
Sec.  1.1. The FAA also proposed several definitions to be included in 
Sec.  89.1, including the definitions for broadcast, amateur-built 
unmanned aircraft system, and Remote ID USS.

A. Definition of Unmanned Aircraft System

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that the term unmanned aircraft system (UAS) means 
an unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including 
communication links and the components that control the unmanned 
aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the 
unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The FAA adopts 
the term ``unmanned aircraft system'' as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters suggested that the definition be changed 
for a variety of reasons including a need to distinguish between 
various categories of UAS, particularly to distinguish between drones, 
quadcopters, and remote control model aircraft. Commenters raised 
issues such as the interchangeable nature of home-built kits and models 
with interchangeable parts. Commenters also cited a lack of clarity 
regarding when the communication links are considered part of the UAS. 
In addition, some commenters stated the definition of UAS was not 
detailed enough and recommended it be amended to list the specific 
components that are covered.
    FAA Response: Congress established the definition of unmanned 
aircraft system in 49 U.S.C. 44801(12). Therefore, the FAA adopts the 
definition of unmanned aircraft system as proposed. The FAA also 
considers that any kit containing all the parts and instructions 
necessary to assemble a UAS would meet this definition. As further 
explained in section XIV.B.2 of this preamble, producers of complete 
kits offered for sale are subject to the production requirements of 
this rule.

B. Definition of Visual Line of Sight

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that the term visual line of sight means the 
ability of a person manipulating the flight

[[Page 4400]]

controls of the unmanned aircraft or a visual observer (if one is used) 
to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight with vision 
that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. The FAA 
recognized that this definition is consistent with how ``visual line of 
sight'' is currently used in part 107. The term is specifically 
described in Sec.  107.31(a). The FAA proposed that because visual line 
of sight will now be used in multiple parts, providing a definition in 
Sec.  1.1 would ensure that the term is used consistently throughout 
all FAA regulations. To account for the use of the term in proposed 
part 89 and the potential use of the term in other parts of 14 CFR, the 
FAA proposed to include a slightly modified version of the description 
used in part 107.
    The FAA will not be adopting the definition in this rule because 
the concept may apply differently to various persons and conditions 
depending upon the type of operation. In addition, future rules, such 
as rules providing for routine unmanned aircraft BVLOS operations, may 
need to describe visual line of sight in a different manner or context 
in order to establish the difference between VLOS and BVLOS operations.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: An individual commenter noted that the maximum distance 
one can operate under visual line of sight varies based on several 
factors such as the size and speed of the aircraft, terrain, and 
weather.
    FAA Response: As noted, the FAA has determined not to adopt a 
definition for ``visual line of sight'' in this rule. The FAA 
recognizes that the concept of visual line of sight allows for 
variation in the distance to which an unmanned aircraft may fly and 
still be within visual line of sight of the person manipulating the 
flight controls of the UAS or the visual observer. The FAA believes 
this is appropriate given the performance-based nature of current UAS 
regulations.

C. Definition of Broadcast

    The FAA proposed to define broadcast in part 89 to mean ``to send 
information from an unmanned aircraft using radio frequency spectrum.'' 
The definition was necessary to distinguish the concept from the 
transmission of remote identification information through the internet 
to a Remote ID USS. As explained in section VII.A of this preamble, the 
Agency has determined there is no longer a need to draw a difference 
between the terms ``broadcast'' and ``transmission'' because the FAA is 
eliminating the network framework and focusing on a broadcast-only 
solution for the time being. Therefore, the FAA will not be adopting 
the definition in this rule.

D. Definition of Home-Built Unmanned Aircraft

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that amateur-built unmanned aircraft system be 
defined in part 89 as ``an unmanned aircraft system, the major portion 
of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook 
the construction project solely for their own education or 
recreation.'' Under this proposal, the person building the amateur-
built UAS would have been required to fabricate and assemble at least 
50 percent of the UAS. After reviewing comments and further 
consideration, the FAA relabeled this definition as home-built unmanned 
aircraft and eliminated the fabrication and major portion requirements 
for the reasons explained in the responses to comments below. 
Accordingly, this rule finalizes the definition of home-built unmanned 
aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that an individual built solely for 
education or recreation.
    This rule adopts the term home-built unmanned aircraft as opposed 
to home-built UAS to reflect the changes discussed in section IV.A of 
this preamble.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. Fabrication and Assembly
    Comments: The FAA received numerous comments arguing that the 
proposed definition of amateur-built unmanned aircraft system failed to 
account for common ways that amateur builders of unmanned aircraft put 
together UAS. These commenters noted that it is not common practice for 
builders of amateur unmanned aircraft to fabricate UAS components and 
that UAS are often assembled by hobbyists from a variety of different 
levels of kits or prefabricated components. Commenters also pointed out 
that many typical components of home-built UAS are electrical and 
difficult for the average hobbyist to fabricate on his or her own. 
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University--Prescott Campus mentioned that 
its students assemble unmanned aircraft from parts purchased online but 
do not fabricate the parts that are necessary for the assembly of an 
unmanned aircraft. They noted that meeting the production requirements 
of the proposed rule would be overly burdensome for students.
    Many commenters also requested a revised definition for amateur-
built UAS that would account for changes to significant parts of a 
design of a UAS.
    Many commenters took issue with the ``major portion'' (fabricating 
and assembling at least 50 percent or more of the UAS) requirement of 
the proposed definition for amateur-built UAS. The Small UAV Coalition 
believed manufacturer performance requirements should not apply to 
unmanned aircraft built for recreational operations or personal use. 
They believed these unmanned aircraft should not be defined based on 
what they perceived as an arbitrary percentage threshold, for parts or 
ambiguous ``fabrication assessments.'' The Berks County Aero Modelers & 
Lehigh Valley Radio Control Society asserted the ``51 percent rule for 
amateur build models'' was not practical and agreed with the UAS 
Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee 
recommendations to exempt amateur-built, non-autonomous model aircraft 
from the remote identification requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these commenters and has 
eliminated the major portion requirement from the definition of home-
built unmanned aircraft.
    Comments: Some commenters encouraged the FAA to replace the 
amateur-built definition with terms commonly used in the recreational 
hobby industry such as ``bind and fly'' or ``ready to fly.'' Brands 
Hobby provided detailed descriptions of five levels of ``manufactured'' 
model aircraft in use today and noted concerns that the definition 
should include an ``almost ready to fly'' concept for amateur built 
aircraft. The Flite Test Community Association commented the definition 
would not accommodate the diverse types of products and kits in the 
model aviation community and suggested the FAA expand the definition of 
amateur-built UAS or allow the amateur-built community to comply with 
the rule through either an app-based solution or by installing a 
``compliant standalone device.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that given the unique characteristics 
of UAS, the definition of home-built unmanned aircraft should cover the 
wide range of ways hobbyists build UAS. The FAA also believes that 
home-builders should have a method for remotely identifying so they can 
operate outside of FAA-recognized identification areas. The FAA has 
revised this rule to allow home-built unmanned aircraft to equip with 
remote identification broadcast modules to identify remotely. Section 
VII.D of this preamble discusses the

[[Page 4401]]

remote identification broadcast modules in greater detail.
    Comments: A few commenters proposed to expand the definition of 
amateur-built UAS to all incomplete UAS, including ``scratch built from 
plans,'' models built from parts, or models built from kits of 
subassemblies and pieces that lack radio control receiver electronics. 
One commenter proposed focusing on intended use and asked the FAA to 
use the following definition: ``any UAS that requires some final 
assembly before flight that requires continual input from the operator 
throughout the entire flight from launch to recovery.'' The New 
Hampshire Department of Transportation mentioned that the definition of 
``amateur built'' UAS should be broadened to include UAS built entirely 
from pre-fabricated parts, including parts such as electronics that 
cannot be fabricated. They also warned of compliance issues when 
operators replace a part for a UAS that they originally assembled from 
a kit containing 100 percent of the parts necessary to assemble a 
complete and functional UAS. The Academy of Model Aeronautics 
recommended the definition of amateur-built UAS should include UAS with 
parts purchased and assembled by an individual. In their view, there is 
no verifiable increase in safety risk for aircraft with less than 50 
percent fabrication and construction by the builder and the rule should 
eliminate or greatly reduce the required percentage of self-
manufactured components.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that unmanned aircraft 
are not built by hobbyists with the same degrees of fabrication as 
amateur-built manned aircraft. This rule removes the major portion 
requirement; the definition now includes any unmanned aircraft that an 
individual built solely for education or recreation. This definition 
would include any level of assembly of the unmanned aircraft so long as 
that assembly was done solely for education or recreation of the 
individual building the UAS. The FAA considers that the individual 
constructing the home-built unmanned aircraft, even if through assembly 
alone, is not responsible for meeting the production requirements of 
the final rule. A hobbyist assembling an unmanned aircraft from a 
complete kit that contains all the parts and instructions to assemble 
an unmanned aircraft would not be responsible for meeting the 
production requirements of this rule. However, the company that 
produced that complete kit would be required to meet the production 
requirements. As discussed in section VII of this preamble, persons 
operating these unmanned aircraft continue to be subject to the 
operating rules of part 89, so a home-built unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification can only be operated in an FAA-recognized 
identification area, unless it can identify remotely in accordance with 
this rule (e.g., by equipping the home-built unmanned aircraft with a 
remote identification broadcast module).
    To distinguish this type of unmanned aircraft from its manned 
aircraft counterpart, this rule adopts the definition as home-built 
unmanned aircraft rather than as amateur-built unmanned aircraft 
system. As explained in section IV.A of this preamble, the remote 
identification requirements apply to the operation, and the design and 
production of unmanned aircraft. Therefore, this adopted definition is 
specific to unmanned aircraft, not the entire UAS.
ii. Education or Recreation
    Comments: Commenters generally supported the requirement that 
amateur-built UAS be produced for educational or recreational purposes 
only. One commenter felt the term ``amateur-built'' should be replaced 
with the term ``STEM built.'' This commenter felt the change in 
terminology would establish a better mindset for the extensive 
revisions needed in the proposed rule to address the needs of the 
remote-controlled aviation community. Some commenters suggested that 
amateur-built be defined as UAS restricted to non-commercial use or 
with no flights over people or with limited weight. Several commenters 
felt the FAA should define ``amateur-built UAS'' based upon restricted 
operation such as limiting to recreational or educational flights with 
``non-autonomous'' flight control, flights within line of sight, and 
flights restricted to uncontrolled airspace or requiring Low Altitude 
Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) approval for 
controlled airspace.
    FAA Response: The FAA adopts the requirement that the unmanned 
aircraft be built for the education or recreation of the builder, as 
proposed. The FAA declines to add operating restrictions on the use of 
home-built unmanned aircraft, finding that existing operating rules are 
sufficient to ensure safety. For example, when a home built aircraft is 
flown under part 107, it is restricted in being able to fly over 
people, its weight cannot exceed 55 pounds, and it cannot enter certain 
classes of airspace without authorization. Similarly, a home-built 
unmanned aircraft flown recreationally under 49 U.S.C. 44809 remains 
subject to the requirements of that section, such as remaining within 
visual line of sight and complying with the requirement to receive 
authorization for flights in certain classes of airspace. In addition, 
home-built unmanned aircraft remain subject to the remote 
identification operating requirements of this rule.
iii. Other Comments Received
    Comments: Some commenters suggested the definition of amateur-built 
UAS should include any UAS with limited capability or any model 
aircraft operated exclusively at an FAA-recognized identification area.
    FAA Response: The FAA finds that commenters' definition would 
create far too wide of an exception to the remote identification 
production requirements, undermining the effectiveness of remote 
identification.
    Comments: One commenter suggested changing the ``amateur-built'' 
definition to include any model aircraft produced without a radio 
receiver or flight control system.
    FAA Response: The FAA considers that such aircraft would be 
considered home-built unmanned aircraft if they were assembled for 
educational and recreational purposes but does not choose to limit 
home-built unmanned aircraft to only the model aircraft mentioned by 
the commenter.
    Comments: One commenter proposed the amateur-built definition 
should be based around the language used by the Academy of Model 
Aeronautics for radio-controlled aircraft.
    FAA Response: Though the FAA expects many home-built unmanned 
aircraft will be similar to the radio-controlled aircraft described by 
the commenter, the FAA finds that the definition of home-built unmanned 
aircraft as adopted can encompass those aircraft as well as a wider 
range of unmanned aircraft, as long as such unmanned aircraft are built 
solely for education or recreation.
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
definition of amateur-built unmanned aircraft would prohibit them from 
flying their existing model aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. Unmanned aircraft produced 
without remote identification (e.g., those produced prior to the 
production compliance date of this rule) may be flown in an FAA-
recognized identification area or may be upgraded or retrofitted to 
meet the remote identification requirements of this rule. FAA has also 
amended the final rule to allow for less costly compliance by allowing 
unmanned aircraft to be

[[Page 4402]]

equipped with a remote identification broadcast module.
    Comments: One commenter suggested the rule differentiate between 
three classes of producers: ``mass manufacturers,'' ``small 
commercial,'' and ``experimental/hobbyist.'' The proposed description 
of ``experimental/hobbyist'' included three characteristics: (1) ``may 
build or buy dozens of aircraft, many for purposes of education, 
experimentation, or recreation''; (2) ``life span of the unmanned 
aircraft may be as little as one flight or it may last decades''; (3) 
``components are regularly recycled.''
    Wing Aviation LLC commented that in their view, there is no need 
for an amateur-built definition if the limited UAS concept is 
implemented with the changes they proposed.
    FAA Response: Though the requirements for unmanned aircraft 
equipped with remote identification broadcast modules finalized in this 
rule are an option for people constructing home-built unmanned 
aircraft, the FAA considers that there may always be home-built 
unmanned aircraft that cannot be equipped with broadcast modules and 
may be used solely for flights within FAA-recognized identification 
areas, and therefore a definition for those unmanned aircraft built for 
educational or recreational purposes is still necessary.
    For the foregoing reasons, the FAA will adopt the definition of 
home-built unmanned aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that an individual 
built solely for education or recreation.

E. Definition of Declaration of Compliance

    The FAA did not propose to add a definition for declaration of 
compliance. However, to avoid potential confusion given the use of the 
term in both this final rule and in the part 107 rules for operations 
over people, the FAA determines that incorporating a new definition in 
Sec.  89.1 is necessary to ensure sufficient clarity for the term as it 
is used in part 89. A declaration of compliance means a record 
submitted to the FAA by the producer of a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module to attest that all the requirements of subpart F of this part 
have been met.

F. Requests for Other Definitions

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA received comments on other terms that were not defined in 
the NPRM, but did not include them in the final rule for the reasons 
explained below.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The Experimental Aircraft Association proposed adding the 
terms ``traditional model aircraft,'' ``control line,'' and ``free 
flight'' to this rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA declines to add these definitions in this 
rulemaking because these terms are not used in part 89 or any 
regulation modified by this rule.
    Comments: The International Association of Fire Fighters and the 
American Farm Bureau Federation requested the FAA define internet 
availability and ``sufficient signal strength,'' citing a lack of 
clarity when determining whether a UAS would be required to connect to 
the internet or when a UAS would be expected to lose connection to the 
internet.
    FAA Response: The FAA has decided not to include definitions for 
these terms because this rule does not adopt requirements related to 
internet connection.

VI. Applicability of Operating Requirements

A. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The NPRM proposed to apply the remote identification operating 
requirements to all persons operating unmanned aircraft registered or 
required to be registered under part 47 or 48. The NPRM also proposed 
that the remote identification operating rules apply to all persons 
operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United States. The 
proposed applicability did not include exceptions for specific types of 
operations (e.g., recreational operations, operations conducted by 
governmental entities) but the operating rules did include deviation 
authority through which the Administrator would be able to authorize 
persons to conduct certain operations without remote identification. In 
addition, the operating rules would allow certain unmanned aircraft 
without remote identification to be operated in FAA-recognized 
identification areas.
    The FAA received a significant number of comments recommending 
changes to the applicability of the operating requirements for remote 
identification. Commenters identified types of operations that they 
believed should be excepted from the requirement to identify remotely. 
After consideration of those comments, the FAA continues to support 
linking the remote identification rule with the registration rule. 
Because most unmanned aircraft are required by law to meet the aircraft 
registration requirements, the FAA determined that linking the remote 
identification and registration requirements is necessary to ensure 
that there is widespread coverage of the remote identification 
requirements of this rule. In Sec.  89.101 the FAA adopts the 
requirement that all unmanned aircraft registered or required to be 
registered under part 47 or 48 must comply with the operating 
requirements of part 89. Persons operating foreign civil unmanned 
aircraft in the United States must also comply with the operating 
requirements.
    In response to comments received, the FAA is clarifying in Sec.  
89.101 that the operating requirements do not apply to unmanned 
aircraft operations under part 91 that are transmitting ADS-B Out 
pursuant to Sec.  91.225.

B. Public Comments and FAA Response

    Comments: Many commenters supported the FAA's proposal to require 
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States to 
have remote identification.
    Many commenters requested revisions to the registration 
requirements so that unmanned aircraft of a particular size or weight 
do not have to be registered.
    A number of commenters requested the applicability of the operating 
requirements in part 89 be determined based on the type of operation 
conducted. Many commenters specifically sought ``blanket exceptions'' 
from the operating requirements for operations that meet certain 
criteria (e.g., safety record, weight, altitude, line of sight, 
airspace) and for operations conducted for specific purposes (e.g., 
governmental, recreational, aeronautical research, education, public 
safety, and emergency operations). Others suggested that all UAS, 
regardless of size, should comply with remote identification.
    Many commenters stated that any exception to the operating 
requirement should be based on the intended use, application, or 
capability of the unmanned aircraft rather than its size or weight. 
Some commenters recommended excepting UAS based on the terrain or areas 
of operation. Some commenters proposed requiring remote identification 
only within a specific distance of airports, large cities, and critical 
infrastructure, or where certain population density exists.
    Some commenters requested the FAA except UAS used in agricultural 
operations from the requirements of the rule, and others asked for 
flexibility for UAS used in farming, ranching, and other business 
related operations.
    Some commenters supported excepting Federal, State, or local 
government operations from the applicability of the operating

[[Page 4403]]

requirements, while others opposed excepting any government UAS. The 
FAA received many comments supporting and opposing broad exemptions for 
public safety and critical infrastructure operations. Many commenters 
indicated that a government exception is necessary because the 
transmission and broadcast of message elements could compromise the 
safety or security of public safety and emergency operations. Others 
believed that only sensitive governmental operations should be excepted 
from the remote identification requirements. The National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council, AiRXOS, the Civil Air Patrol/United States 
Air Force Auxiliary, the International Association of Fire Fighters, 
and DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety Alliance, asked for a remote 
identification solution for ``trusted users'' such as State and local 
public safety agencies instead of excepting certain parties (e.g., DOD) 
from having to comply with the operating requirements.
    Multiple commenters requested the FAA except certain commercial 
operations from the operating requirements in subpart B. For example, 
several small businesses asked for an exception for operations limited 
to a certain altitude or conducted for a specific scope or purpose. 
Commenters also requested the FAA except operations conducted by 
persons with remote pilot certificates issued under part 107 because 
they are trained to follow aviation regulations and are certificated.
    A significant number of commenters expressed opposition to 
requiring recreational unmanned aircraft to identify remotely.
    A number of commenters requested an operational exception for UAS 
used for educational purposes, aeronautical research activities, and 
non-aviation related research done with a UAS for testing and 
filmmaking.
    Many private UAS operators, small business, and governmental 
entities asked the FAA to except UAS operations in class G airspace 
from having to identify remotely. A number of commenters asked the FAA 
to consider the distance above ground level where the UAS are operating 
when determining the applicability of the rule.
    Some commenters mentioned that UAS operations receiving air traffic 
services should be required to use ADS-B Out. Other commenters such as 
the Aerospace Industries Association, Airbus UTM, the Association for 
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), General Atomics 
Aeronautical Systems, and Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research 
mentioned that the proposed rule did not clearly state that UAS 
authorized by the FAA to use ADS-B Out or transponders are excepted 
from meeting the operating rules in part 89.
    A number of commenters asked the FAA to clarify whether the remote 
identification requirements apply to operations occurring indoors, 
underground, or within a contained space, such as a netted outdoor 
enclosure.
    FAA Response: The FAA's rationale for linking the applicability of 
the operating requirements to the registration requirements is the need 
to identify aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States, 
regardless of the type or purpose of the operation. Parts 47 and 48 
implement the registration requirements codified in 49 U.S.C. 44101-
44103. According to these statutory and regulatory requirements, no 
person may operate an unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United 
States unless it has been registered by its owner, or unless the 
aircraft is excepted from registration (e.g., aircraft of the national 
defense forces of the United States or unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 
pounds or less). Congress also clarified in 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(8) that 
UAS used in limited recreational operations must be registered and 
marked in accordance with chapter 441 of Title 49 of the United States 
Code. Because most unmanned aircraft that will be operated in the 
airspace of the United States are required to meet the aircraft 
registration requirements, by law, the FAA determined linking remote 
identification to the registration requirements is in the interest of 
the safety and security of the United States airspace. In light of the 
above, as of September 16, 2023, all persons operating unmanned 
aircraft registered or required to be registered under part 47 or 48 
must follow the remote identification operating requirements unless the 
operation meets one of the following: (1) The operation is not subject 
to the operating requirement in accordance with Sec.  89.101(b); (2) 
the Administrator authorizes a deviation for aeronautical research or 
to show compliance with regulations, in accordance with Sec.  89.120; 
or (3) the Administrator authorizes the operator to deviate from the 
operating requirements, in accordance with Sec.  89.105. To ensure that 
there is appropriate identification of civil unmanned aircraft operated 
in United States airspace, these requirements also extend to all 
persons operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United States.
    Exception for Recreational Unmanned Aircraft. The FAA considered 
public comments requesting the Agency to except recreational unmanned 
aircraft operations from the remote identification operating 
requirements. The FAA does not agree with such a request. The FAA 
believes that successfully integrating unmanned aircraft into the 
airspace of the United States requires the identification of unmanned 
aircraft. Recreational unmanned aircraft represent a significant 
portion of unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United 
States and, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44809(f), the FAA is not 
prohibited from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned 
aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception 
for limited recreational operations of UAS. Among other things, the 
authority extends to rules relating to the standards for the remote 
identification of owners and operators of UAS and associated unmanned 
aircraft. Broad applicability of remote identification is necessary to 
ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of 
the United States. The remote identification framework provides UAS-
specific data, which allows the FAA, national security agencies, and 
law enforcement entities to identify the pilots of UAS that are posing 
safety or security risks.
    While the FAA is not excepting recreational unmanned aircraft from 
the remote identification requirements, this final rule allows persons 
to retrofit unmanned aircraft by equipping them with remote 
identification broadcast modules to allow them to identify remotely. 
This concept will facilitate compliance with the remote identification 
requirements for recreational and other operators. In addition, this 
rule also finalizes the FAA-recognized identification areas concept 
where unmanned aircraft without remote identification can be operated.
    Other types of exceptions requested. The FAA carefully considered 
the requests to include exceptions for other types of operations (e.g., 
operations below a specific altitude or in certain airspace, UAS 
without advanced capabilities, agricultural operations) and determined 
that granting such ``blanket exceptions'' is not appropriate The FAA 
has determined that the remote identification requirements should apply 
to unmanned aircraft to address safety, national security, and law 
enforcement concerns regarding expanded unmanned aircraft operations

[[Page 4404]]

at night and over people. A broad applicability of the remote 
identification requirements enhances the FAA's ability to monitor 
compliance with applicable regulations, assists the FAA in undertaking 
compliance, enforcement, and educational actions required to mitigate 
safety risk, and advances the safe and secure integration of UAS into 
the airspace of the United States. Though the FAA is not including 
additional ``blanket exceptions'' to the applicability of subpart B, 
the Agency has revised the rule to add flexibility and to provide 
various options to make it simpler for operators to comply with the 
remote identification requirements. For example, based on comments 
received, the FAA eliminated the limited remote identification concept 
and replaced it with the ability for unmanned aircraft to equip with 
remote identification broadcast modules. In Sec.  89.105, the rule 
allows the Administrator to authorize deviations from the operating 
requirements. The Administrator could issue such deviations when he or 
she determines that there is a need, and that the deviation would not 
adversely affect safety or that appropriate mitigations are in place to 
provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this rule.
    Weight-based applicability. While some of the registration 
requirements are driven by the weight of an aircraft, the FAA does not 
believe it is appropriate to use the unmanned aircraft size or weight, 
apart from the weight standards already incorporated into the 
registration requirements, as a basis for applicability of the remote 
identification requirements. As discussed earlier, tying remote 
identification to registration requirements ensures the broad coverage 
necessary to address the safety and security concerns associated with 
unmanned aircraft operations being performed at this time.
    Unmanned aircraft operated by government entities. The operating 
requirements of subpart B of part 89 do not apply to aircraft of the 
Armed Forces of the United States because these aircraft are not 
required to be registered under part 47 or 48. Aircraft operated by 
other government entities (e.g., Federal, State, the District of 
Columbia, territories, possessions, or Indian Tribal governments) are 
subject to the registration requirements in part 47 or 48 regardless of 
whether the aircraft is used in civil aircraft operations or public 
aircraft operations. Therefore, unmanned aircraft operations conducted 
by such government entities must comply with the operating requirements 
of this rule. Nevertheless, any covered government entity that wishes 
to use an unmanned aircraft without remote identification at a location 
other than FAA-recognized identification areas may request 
authorization from the Administrator under Sec.  89.105 to deviate from 
the operating requirements or under Sec.  89.120 to conduct 
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
    Educational activities. The FAA does not agree with commenters that 
supported an operational exception for unmanned aircraft used for 
educational purposes. As previously mentioned, the applicability of the 
operating requirements is not based on the type or purpose of 
operation. Remote identification is necessary regardless of the 
operation or intended use of the unmanned aircraft. However, the FAA 
recognizes the need for educational institutions to be able to conduct 
unmanned aircraft activities, and has expanded the list of persons 
eligible to request establishment of an FAA-recognized identification 
area to include educational institutions. The FAA believes this change 
appropriately addresses the concerns expressed by educators regarding 
unmanned aircraft activities. In addition, the Agency is now allowing 
persons to equip unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast 
modules, which will facilitate compliance with the operating 
requirements.
    Aeronautical research. The FAA considered comments requesting that 
aeronautical research activities be excluded from the operating 
requirements of part 89 and agrees with commenters because the 
deviation would contribute to the further development and improvement 
of UAS equipment and technologies. Therefore, as finalized, Sec.  
89.120 allows the Administrator to authorize operations without remote 
identification where the operation is solely for the purpose of 
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
    Unmanned aircraft operated indoors, underground, or in enclosed 
spaces. The FAA regulates the navigable airspace of the United States. 
Therefore, this rule does not apply to unmanned aircraft operations 
conducted entirely indoors, underground, or inside an enclosed space 
such as a netted enclosure. The remote identification requirements 
apply when the unmanned aircraft exits the interior of a building or 
structure and is operated outside. While the remote identification 
operating requirements do not apply to unmanned aircraft operating 
indoors, certain design requirements for unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification, especially standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft, may create operational challenges in these environments. For 
example, standard remote identification unmanned aircraft will not take 
off unless broadcasting the remote identification message elements. 
Depending on the particular design, some unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification may not be able to operate if they cannot broadcast the 
unmanned aircraft position because GPS is not available. Operators of 
unmanned aircraft intended to be used both indoors and outdoors should 
understand how their unmanned aircraft will perform when services like 
GPS may be unavailable.
    Unmanned aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out. The FAA agrees with the 
commenters who stated that certain UAS operating under air traffic 
control and equipped with ADS-B Out and ATC transponders are already 
meeting the intent of the remote identification rule, and that remote 
identification may be redundant for such operations. The FAA adopts an 
exception to the remote identification operating requirements in Sec.  
89.101(b) for persons conducting unmanned aircraft operations under 
part 91 that are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant to Sec.  91.225. 
Operators of unmanned aircraft that meet the criteria are not required 
to comply with the operating requirements of part 89. The operation may 
be conducted under any type of flight plan that is acceptable for the 
intended operation. The FAA has provided a similar exception from the 
remote identification production requirements for unmanned aircraft 
certified under a part 21 design or production approval that are 
equipped with ADS-B Out. Notwithstanding the exception in Sec.  
89.101(b), nothing in this rule precludes unmanned aircraft from being 
equipped with both ADS-B Out and remote identification equipment. 
However, to ensure that unmanned aircraft do not place a strain on the 
ADS-B system, ADS-B Out may not be used to meet remote identification 
requirements outside of those unmanned aircraft operations for which it 
is required. The use of ADS-B Out in transmit mode is restricted to 
those unmanned aircraft operations for which it is required.

VII. Operating Requirements for Remote Identification

    This rule establishes requirements for the remote identification of 
unmanned aircraft operated in the airspace of the United States. Remote 
identification is the capability of an unmanned aircraft, in flight, to 
provide certain

[[Page 4405]]

identification, location, and performance information that people on 
the ground and other airspace users can receive. An operator of an 
unmanned aircraft can comply with the operating requirements for remote 
identification in one of three ways:
    (1) Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. The first way 
to comply is referred to as ``standard remote identification'' and 
requires the operator to use an unmanned aircraft that broadcasts 
identification, location, and performance information for both the 
unmanned aircraft and the control station. See Sec.  89.110 of this 
rule.
    (2) Remote identification broadcast module. The second way to 
comply is for the operator to equip an unmanned aircraft with a 
``remote identification broadcast module'' that broadcasts 
identification, location, and performance information about the 
unmanned aircraft, and the unmanned aircraft's takeoff location. See 
Sec.  89.115(a) of this rule.
    (3) FAA-recognized identification area. The third way to comply, 
and the only option available for most unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification capabilities (e.g., an unmanned aircraft manufactured 
without remote identification equipment or an unmanned aircraft whose 
remote identification equipment or remote identification broadcast 
module is not working) is for the operator to fly his or her unmanned 
aircraft in certain specific geographic areas called ``FAA-recognized 
identification areas.'' These areas are established under this rule 
specifically to accommodate UAS that do not identify remotely. See 
Sec.  89.115(b) of this rule.
    The NPRM proposed various ways for an operator of UAS to identify 
remotely: (1) Operating a limited remote identification UAS; (2) 
operating a standard remote identification UAS; or (3) operating 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification at an FAA-recognized 
identification area. After reviewing public comments and giving further 
consideration, the FAA decided to eliminate the concept of a limited 
remote identification UAS and incorporate the ability to retrofit 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules that 
broadcast the remote identification information required by this rule. 
The FAA also decided to revise some of the parameters and requirements 
for operations of standard remote identification UAS and operations at 
FAA-recognized identification areas, as discussed below.
    A significant change from the proposal is that the FAA decided to 
eliminate the requirement for UAS with remote identification to connect 
to the internet and to transmit the remote identification message 
elements through the internet connection to a Remote ID USS. While the 
FAA recognizes that there are potential benefits associated with 
establishing a network of Remote ID USS, the FAA believes that, for the 
time being and given the types of unmanned aircraft operations that are 
currently allowed, the broadcast remote identification solution 
fulfills agency and law enforcement needs to maintain the safety and 
security of the airspace of the United States. Accordingly, this rule 
now generally requires unmanned aircraft operators outside of an FAA-
recognized identification area to use either standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification broadcast modules to broadcast remote identification 
message elements.

A. Elimination of Network-Based Remote Identification Requirement

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA initially proposed requiring both standard remote 
identification UAS and limited remote identification UAS to transmit 
the remote identification message elements through an internet 
connection to a Remote ID USS. After careful consideration of public 
comments and the implementation challenges associated with requiring 
UAS to transmit to Remote ID USS, the FAA decided to eliminate this 
proposed requirement in this rule. Without the requirement to transmit 
remote identification through the internet, limited remote 
identification UAS as proposed is no longer a viable concept. In its 
place, the FAA is incorporating a regulatory framework under which 
persons can retrofit an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification 
broadcast module to satisfy the remote identification requirements of 
this rule. The requirements for remote identification broadcast modules 
are described in section VII.D of this preamble. The effects of this 
change on standard remote identification unmanned aircraft are 
discussed in section VII.A of this preamble.
    Though the FAA recognizes that there are potential benefits 
associated with establishing a network of Remote ID USS, the FAA 
believes that, for the time being and given the types of unmanned 
aircraft operations that are currently allowed, the broadcast remote 
identification solution fulfills agency and law enforcement needs to 
maintain the safety and security of the airspace of the United States.
    Original Concept for internet-Based Network. During the UAS-ID ARC, 
industry representatives proposed a concept for an internet-based 
network to complement the core functionality of a digital ``license 
plate'' broadcast-based solution. Under this concept, the aircraft's 
control station (often a mobile phone) would connect to the internet 
and transmit remote identification information to a third-party service 
provider. The network concept was attractive for several reasons, but 
primarily because of the ability to receive remote identification 
information through existing mobile telephony infrastructure without 
having to deploy equipment to ``listen'' for a radio frequency 
broadcast. The primary challenge with this concept is its reliance on 
Wi-Fi or cellular network service being available where an aircraft is 
flying; the concept would not work in areas lacking cellular telephone 
coverage. The ARC did not reach consensus on a single remote 
identification concept--broadcast or network.
    Ultimately, the FAA proposed both broadcast and network 
requirements in the NPRM, in an attempt to balance the interests of all 
stakeholders. As part of the proposed network requirement, UAS would 
have had to transmit the remote identification message elements through 
the internet to a third-party service provider, referred to as a 
``Remote ID USS.'' Remote ID USS would have collected and, as 
appropriate, disseminated the remote identification information through 
the internet.
    The Remote ID USS concept was a critical component to the 
successful implementation of the network requirement, as a commercial 
endeavor at no cost to the United States Government. Prospective Remote 
ID USS would have been required to meet technical requirements and 
contractually agree to abide by certain performance standards and other 
requirements on matters including, but not limited to, privacy 
protections of data collected pursuant to part 89, disclosure or 
dissemination of data, and data retention. The successful 
implementation of the network concept relied on prospective USS' 
willingness to enter into no-cost contracts with the FAA to provide 
these services. The FAA has successfully used a similar construct to 
authorize small UAS operations around airports through its Low Altitude 
Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) program. Through this 
public-private

[[Page 4406]]

partnership arrangement, the government benefits from the speed and 
quality of industry innovation while industry benefits from profits 
derived from marketing other services or products.
    Emerging Problems with the Concept for internet-Based Network. The 
FAA received significant feedback about the network requirements in 
response to the NPRM. Commenters expressed concerns that the network 
component could enable nefarious actors to perform a coordinated 
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on Remote ID USS. Industry 
commenters also highlighted concerns about implementing the network 
requirement in the absence of a standardized interface for network 
connection and raised concerns about giving potential business 
intelligence to competitors or third parties with access to network 
information. Many commenters also expressed valid concerns about 
privacy, cybersecurity, and other security-related issues. Others 
expressed concerns about access and protection of data transmitted to, 
and stored by, a Remote ID USS. Some law enforcement agencies mentioned 
they would or could rely, for the time being, on a broadcast solution, 
rather than a network solution, for threat discrimination.
    It has become apparent to the FAA that Remote ID USS may struggle 
in facing significant technical and regulatory requirements that go 
beyond existing industry consensus standards. Early in 2020, the FAA 
convened a Remote ID USS cohort to explore developing the network 
solution that is necessary to implement the proposed network 
requirements. The cohort identified several challenges with 
implementing the network requirements, which the FAA acknowledges it 
had not foreseen or accounted for when it proposed the network solution 
and Remote ID USS framework. For example, the cohort raised the 
challenge of developing and issuing technical specifications to govern 
remote identification interoperability when producers of UAS have not 
yet designed UAS with remote identification.
    Based on the above, the FAA decided to take a simplified approach 
at this time to remote identification by only adopting the broadcast 
requirements in this rule. As adopted, this broadcast-only rule 
provides an initial remote identification framework and sets the 
foundation for future regulatory actions. As the FAA builds the 
regulatory constructs that support increasingly advanced concepts, such 
as BVLOS and UTM, the United States Government will be prepared to 
solve safety and security issues related to those concepts based on 
more mature understandings. At this stage, however, the unknowns 
regarding UAS integration make it impractical to expand this rule 
beyond a broadcast-only solution.
    For these reasons, the Agency is revising all of part 89, including 
but not limited to the operating requirements and minimum performance 
requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, to 
eliminate all references to the network capability.
2. Public Comments and FAA Responses
    Comments: Many commenters, including individuals, associations, and 
government organizations, expressed concerns with requiring UAS to 
connect to the internet and transmit to a Remote ID USS without a 
suitable alternative to continue operations when the internet is 
unavailable. Commenters noted that there are many areas in the United 
States, particularly remote and rural areas that do not have reliable 
internet access. Commenters mentioned that these are often some of the 
safest places to fly UAS due to low population density on the ground 
and less manned aircraft traffic.
    Many commenters asked the FAA to provide a better explanation for 
why an internet connection would be required at all, particularly 
because under certain circumstances, the proposal allowed for a UAS to 
fly when not connected to the internet.
    Depth from Above and others noted that network-based solutions 
provide an incomplete picture for the safety and security of standard 
remote identification UAS operations because standard remote 
identification UAS could operate, in certain scenarios, without 
internet access using only broadcast remote identification. The 
commenters suggested removing the network requirement to reduce cost 
and improve compliance.
    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency noted that unmanned 
aircraft designed and manufactured to be compliant with the EU 
regulations may not be able to comply with this proposed rule because 
under the EU's regulations, broadcast remote identification is 
mandatory, whereas the network remote identification is optional.
    Many commenters had questions about the meaning of internet 
availability. Commenters noted that many geographic areas might have 
internet connectivity but that the signal in some of those areas may 
not have enough strength to adequately support internet connected 
applications. Many commenters expressed concerns that rural UAS 
operators who have limited broadband or cellular access could be 
required to purchase increasingly expensive data plans or multiple data 
plans to ensure adequate coverage, which may increase costs and lead to 
compliance issues.
    The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 
mentioned the FAA was assuming there would be a network of Remote ID 
USS able to provide services in rural areas and indicated that 
deficiencies exist when market forces are left to provide services to 
rural areas. NRECA recommended the FAA consider an FAA-provided service 
for at least some parts of the country and a longer implementation 
timetable or pilot program.
    Many commenters, including the American Civil Liberties Union, 
opposed the requirement to transmit to a Remote ID USS and expressed 
concerns with the security of UAS operations using network remote 
identification. The commenters listed a number of privacy and security 
concerns, including: Hacking into the controls of one or multiple UAS; 
deliberate interference with remote identification or Command and 
Control (C2) frequencies utilizing unlicensed spectrum; interference 
amongst the remote identification and C2 equipment; and cellular high 
speed packet access (HSPA) and long term evolution (LTE) interference 
with frequencies used for C2 or to downlink video from the unmanned 
aircraft to the control station. The American Civil Liberties Union 
suggested that requiring UAS to connect to the internet as a condition 
of takeoff is not justified because there is insufficient benefit 
relative to the related costs and privacy issues. Several commenters 
suggested ensuring that network remote identification is isolated from 
C2 frequencies to prevent the hijacking of UAS.
    Many commenters, including the Medina County Office of Emergency 
Management and Homeland Security, expressed concerns about the 
potential to ground hundreds or thousands of UAS nationwide, including 
UAS performing public safety operations, if there is a dedicated denial 
of service or similar cyberattack which causes an outage of Remote ID 
USS. Other commenters expressed concerns about someone hacking a Remote 
ID USS or spoofing broadcast remote identification to make it appear 
erroneously as if there are UAS in flight. Several commenters stated 
that some government agencies

[[Page 4407]]

have discontinued their use of some foreign-made UAS due to security 
concerns and mentioned that it is not in the best interests of national 
security to require private users to transmit similar surveillance 
information through the internet. In some cases, operators are 
operating the types of UAS that the government has stopped using for 
security reasons.
    Commenters expressed concerns about non-State actors as well as 
adversarial nations. Various commenters highlighted the national 
security implications of certain remote identification data becoming 
available to the public. Unmanned Systems Canada asked for the network 
requirement to be optional until each Remote ID USS can demonstrate 
sufficient security and reliability and stated that a properly licensed 
and registered UAS operation should not be grounded if a connection to 
a Remote ID USS is not available.
    Commenters such as Juniper Unmanned mentioned that some commercial 
operations supporting critical infrastructure involve strict 
cybersecurity rules and prohibit internet connectivity during flight 
operations.
    Many commenters involved in emergency response expressed concerns 
with relying on the internet to comply with the requirement to 
transmit. Similarly, several state government agencies and universities 
noted that their UAS enforcement and research activities would be 
greatly restricted if the FAA were to adopt the requirement for the UAS 
to connect to the internet and transmit to a Remote ID USS without a 
suitable alternative means of compliance that would permit the UAS to 
take off and operate when internet access is not available.
    Zipline and the Alabama Department of Transportation noted that the 
requirement to connect to a Remote ID USS if the internet is available 
would prevent a person from using a UAS to support emergency response 
operations if the internet is available but the UAS cannot reliably 
interface with a Remote ID USS.
    Many commenters expressed concerns with the requirement that Remote 
ID USS retain the remote identification message elements for 6 months 
from the date the remote identification message elements are received. 
Some commenters cited shorter FAA record retention periods for other 
information while others contended the 6-month term was not long 
enough. Various commenters expressed support for the record retention 
requirements, noting that access to the data is useful for law 
enforcement, regulatory compliance, and legitimate safety, security, 
compliance, accident, and incident investigation purposes.
    The Consumer Technology Association and Wing Aviation, LLC stated 
that the final rule should restrict access to historical data by 
government, limit the collection and aggregation of remote 
identification data by third parties, and ensure privacy. The Small UAV 
Coalition urged the FAA to prohibit Remote ID USS from sharing 
information with Federal, State, or local governments absent a law 
enforcement or national security interest or consent of the UAS 
operator.
    Many commenters noted the potential costs, complexity, and 
operational restrictions associated with network remote identification 
requirements and expressed concerns that they may foster a culture of 
non-compliance. Many commenters observed that the use of a 
subscription-based service would prove costly for some UAS operators. 
Many commenters stated that monthly subscription fees would be unfair 
to those who do not fly that regularly for a variety of reasons.
    Many commenters expressed concerns about the cost of depending on 
internet service via cellular phones or other enabled devices that 
would be required to support network remote identification. They also 
expressed concerns about the costs of subscribing to a Remote ID USS. 
Both recreational and commercial operators expressed concerns about the 
cost of the data plans that would be required to serve multiple UAS. 
One UAS services company estimated increased monthly costs of $360 to 
$500 a month for cellular services. Several commenters noted that 
adding an additional device, such as an unmanned aircraft, to a 
cellular data plan to support direct transmission to the internet 
generally costs $30 to $70 a month, and one commenter noted this is 
likely to be the largest part of many users' overall operating costs.
    The Alliance for Drone Innovation opposed a network requirement for 
remote identification, noting that many UAS in use today, including 
model aircraft, model helicopters, and racing aircraft, would be 
burdened with increased costs for equipment, data plans, and USS 
subscriptions because they do not currently have a way to connect to 
the internet. SenseFly expressed concerns about the cost that designers 
and producers of remote identification UAS will incur if they are 
required to make UAS compatible with different internet providers.
    A significant number of commenters expressed privacy concerns with 
the proposed requirement to have UAS transmit remote identification 
data to Remote ID USS. Many individuals opposed having third parties 
collect information including, but not limited to, their name, address, 
and location. Some commenters also mentioned that the requirement to 
transmit their location could cause business and tactical issues, 
particularly for businesses or persons that want or need to ensure 
their flight data remains confidential or out of reach of most parties. 
Many commenters indicated that the pilot and flight data should only be 
made available to law enforcement and Federal entities.
    Many commenters contended that the best way to ensure privacy is to 
encrypt certain remote identification data (e.g., control station or 
unmanned aircraft location) and to make it available only to the FAA 
and law enforcement. Amazon Prime Air commented that the FAA could 
mitigate the potential loss of user privacy by requiring position and 
velocity data to be encrypted or by requiring security protocols that 
can provide law enforcement with real time access while enhancing 
privacy. A significant number of commenters opposed making the data 
transmitted to a Remote ID USS available to the general public.
    Commenters expressed concerns that a UAS operator's data could be 
sold or provided to third parties. Other commenters were concerned 
about requiring companies to provide sensitive information to a Remote 
ID USS. Many expressed concerns that the information could be hacked. 
Other commenters expressed concern over where the privacy data would 
reside and what regulations would be in place to prohibit United States 
citizens' data from being sent and sold overseas.
    Multiple commenters expressed the view that unfettered access by 
law enforcement to remote identification data could lead to specific 
monitoring of the media by law enforcement agencies and impact the 
freedom of the press.
    Several commenters noted that cellular networks are optimized to 
work with ground-based equipment rather than airborne equipment and 
suggested that it is not practical to provide an internet connection to 
a UAS using terrestrial cellular networks due to reliability that is 
much lower than typical aviation requirements; the potential for 
numerous UAS to interfere with ground-based users; and the downward 
tilt and narrow vertical beam width of the cellular base transceiver 
station used to optimize battery life for ground-based user equipment.

[[Page 4408]]

    Several commenters noted that their control stations connect to 
their unmanned aircraft only through Wi-Fi which makes an internet 
connection impossible when away from Wi-Fi access and others noted that 
they fly using tablets or unique monitors which do not include cellular 
access.
    A number of commenters generally supported the broadcast 
requirement for remote identification. The commenters noted that many 
UAS are already capable of broadcasting UAS information or could be 
upgraded with equipment or software to meet the remote identification 
requirements, for a one-time cost. Commenters noted the various 
benefits of broadcast remote identification, such as independence; ease 
of compliance due to the capabilities of existing systems; tamper 
resistance; and simplicity regarding account management, data plans 
needed for large fleets, and cost. Commenters noted that broadcast 
remote identification is sufficient for law enforcement to determine 
the identity and location of the operator in VLOS operations.
    Many commenters suggested the FAA should view broadcast-only remote 
identification as sufficiently safe and secure for achieving remote 
identification. The commenters stated that broadcast-only should be 
sufficient because standard remote identification UAS operations are 
permitted when the internet is not available, or when the UAS loses its 
connection to the Remote ID USS, as long as the unmanned aircraft is 
broadcasting. Many commenters also noted that broadcast remote 
identification may provide an affordable and effective path to 
compliance for many existing UAS that currently have the ability to 
broadcast telemetry data in the proposed radio frequency spectrum via 
the command-and-control link.
    Various commenters noted that a broadcast solution is less 
expensive, simpler, and provides increased privacy when compared to 
network solutions; and that other UAS or manned aircraft without an 
internet connection will not be able to detect a limited remote 
identification UAS using only network remote identification.
    Many commenters noted that European Union requirements permit 
operations with only broadcast remote identification. The EU Aviation 
Safety Agency noted that under EU regulations, ``broadcast'' is 
mandatory, while the ``network'' or ``limited'' remote identification 
is optional.
    Discover Flying Club and Phirst Technologies suggested permitting a 
broadcast-only option for remote identification UAS, with governments 
or third party companies responsible for receiving and collecting 
remote identification data, as needed, in specific locations. The 
American Civil Liberties Union mentioned that broadcast remote 
identification is sufficient to meet security needs to identify hostile 
UAS and for public awareness.
    In further support of a broadcast-only option, many commenters, 
such as Motorola Solutions, Inc., stated that natural disasters and 
search and rescue operations often take place in areas of limited 
internet coverage. They mentioned that instead of requiring ``trusted 
users'' to comply with remote identification, the FAA should allow them 
to operate broadcast-only. The Edison Electric Institute and other 
electric and power associations stressed the importance of broadcast 
remote identification to ensure the UAS continues to send out the 
message elements in the event of lost internet connectivity. The 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the Northwest 
Electric Power Cooperative recommended creating a broadcast-only option 
for limited remote identification UAS to permit safe operation in 
remote areas.
    Other commenters opposed a broadcast-only remote identification 
solution, stating that it could introduce unnecessary risks to law 
enforcement due to the potential for frequency congestion on unlicensed 
spectrum. Amazon Prime Air, Verizon, Skyward, and others noted 
weaknesses of the broadcast solution, such as broadcast coverage 
limitations due to altitude, terrain, interference, and power. Most of 
these commenters also recognized that broadcast may still be required 
for specific operations, such as in areas with no internet access or 
areas where a local, independent source of remote identification 
information is required for safety or security purposes. Many industry 
commenters were concerned with the requirement to broadcast their data, 
because it could impact their ability to keep their customers' flight 
information private and could potentially be used by their competitors.
    Some commenters expressed support for a network-only remote 
identification solution, noting the advantages of network remote 
identification such as the capability for stronger authentication, 
availability regardless of proximity to the UAS, ability to share 
additional message elements, availability of internet access, and 
importance to further development of UTM and traffic deconfliction. 
AirMap agreed that network remote identification is appropriate when 
the internet is available, to support UTM, and to enable a greater 
volume of flights. AirMap indicated that operations with only network 
remote identification would permit tighter control of personally 
identifiable information (PII), eliminate the possibility of data 
scraping from aircraft broadcasts, help with operator location 
security, maintain the privacy of UAS delivery service customers, and 
offer tiered data access so that law enforcement has access to 
different data than the general public.
    AT&T Services, CTIA--The Wireless Association, GSMA, and Qualcomm 
supported network remote identification, noting benefits such as 
greater security than broadcast on unlicensed frequencies, encryption, 
available cellular infrastructure already driven by external demand for 
increased data service, device authentication to support positive 
identification, and support for the development of UTM.
    Some commenters supported the role of Remote ID USS to receive the 
required message elements, the framework of using a contractual MOA to 
govern the Remote ID USS, and the idea that LAANC served as a model for 
the concept.
    FAA Response: The FAA has carefully considered the wide variety of 
perspectives received in public comments as well as the need for remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft. Throughout the process of 
integrating unmanned aircraft into the airspace of the United States, 
the FAA has taken a phased, incremental approach that fosters industry 
innovation while meeting the corresponding safety and security needs 
that are presented. The FAA believes this should be the case with 
remote identification of unmanned aircraft as well.
    The FAA continues to work toward full integration of UAS into the 
airspace of the United States by partnering with industry to develop 
UTM and facilitate advanced unmanned aircraft operations, like BVLOS. 
However, the FAA has determined that a broadcast-based remote 
identification system that provides for immediate awareness of unmanned 
aircraft in the widest variety of settings will be adequate to support 
the phased, incremental approach, while allowing the UAS industry 
additional time to continue developing the network-based UTM ecosystem.
    The FAA recognizes concerns related to an internet connectivity 
requirement, such as internet availability or connectivity issues; 
increased costs for UAS upgrades; internet data plans; Remote ID USS 
subscriptions; and

[[Page 4409]]

reduced air and ground risk when operating in remote areas with less 
air traffic and lower population density. The FAA acknowledges the 
ability to connect to the internet is dependent on a variety of factors 
including geographic coverage of cellular internet networks, wide-scale 
network disruptions, or natural disasters. The FAA agrees with 
commenters that unmanned aircraft operations should not be 
unnecessarily restricted when the internet is not available or not 
sufficient to establish and maintain a connection to a Remote ID USS 
provided the unmanned aircraft is broadcasting the required message 
elements.
    There are some remote areas where an operator cannot connect to the 
internet, such as locations where cellular or other internet signals 
are not available or sufficient to establish and maintain a connection 
to a Remote ID USS. While loss of the broadcast capability is an 
indication of a remote identification equipment failure, loss of 
connectivity to the internet or a Remote ID USS could be attributed to 
a lack of internet availability that is outside the control of the 
unmanned aircraft operator. A functioning broadcast capability is 
necessary for remote identification information to be available in 
areas that do not have internet availability.
    The FAA is not adopting the requirement to transmit message 
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS in this rule at this 
time. While the FAA recognizes the potential benefits of network remote 
identification as stated by several commenters, the FAA believes a 
broadcast-only solution is sufficient, for the time being and given the 
types of unmanned aircraft operations that are currently allowed, to 
maintain the safety and security of the airspace of the United States 
given the types of operations that are authorized in the operating and 
airspace regulations.
    Certain commenters suggested allowing unmanned aircraft operators 
to choose between either broadcast or network remote identification. 
These commenters suggested that while a Remote ID USS-dependent 
solution might be overly burdensome to certain types of recreational or 
small-scale commercial operators, some operators may prefer network 
remote identification. These commenters noted that network remote 
identification allows operators to better protect the privacy of their 
operations from the general public, which may have benefits for 
consumers receiving sensitive deliveries or to protect a company's 
confidential business information regarding where they operate. 
According to these commenters, allowing either broadcast or network 
remote identification would permit operators to transmit remote 
identification information via the mechanism most appropriate for their 
use, while ensuring that the public still had the capability of rapidly 
identifying nearby unmanned aircraft.
    The FAA notes that this rule does not preclude industry from 
establishing Remote ID USS-like networks where entities can exchange 
remote identification information to facilitate a safer and more 
efficient airspace of the United States. The FAA encourages further 
development and maturation of UTM concepts, especially those that 
consider aviation safety national security, and law enforcement needs. 
However, as indicated in the NPRM, broadcasting the message elements 
has always been considered a critical aspect of remote identification, 
even in situations when the NPRM also allowed for network transmission. 
The FAA believes that broadcasting the message elements is fundamental 
to ensuring that remote identification information is always accessible 
to members of the public, and as such, the FAA does not agree with 
commenters' suggestions to allow unmanned aircraft operators to choose 
between broadcast and network remote identification.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters who proposed that broadcast 
remote identification is sufficient to provide the required remote 
identification message elements to support typical unmanned aircraft 
operations and satisfy security requirements. Broadcast remote 
identification does not rely on internet availability, and is a secure 
method that is less susceptible to widespread failure caused by 
malicious actors or systems outages. Broadcast remote identification is 
also an independent, less expensive, and less complex method of 
providing the required remote identification message elements. The FAA 
has determined that a requirement for unmanned aircraft to broadcast 
remote identification information will provide the FAA, law 
enforcement, the general public, and other parts of the aviation 
community with real-time information about unmanned aircraft operations 
in any area in which broadcast signals can be received. The broadcast 
will permit detection of unmanned aircraft and will permit law 
enforcement and the general public that receives the broadcasted 
message elements to have information about the unmanned aircraft 
location as well as information about the control station or takeoff 
location. Personal wireless devices that are capable of receiving 47 
CFR part 15 frequencies, such as smart phones, tablets, or other 
similar commercially available devices, will be able to receive 
broadcast remote identification information directly without reliance 
on an internet connection.
    After reviewing the comments and further consideration, the FAA 
decided to modify the proposal and, as finalized, this rule only 
requires unmanned aircraft to broadcast the message elements. 
Accordingly, the FAA has eliminated all requirements for unmanned 
aircraft to connect to the internet to transmit to a Remote ID USS.

B. Limited Remote Identification UAS

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The NPRM proposed that limited remote identification UAS would only 
have to transmit the remote identification message elements through an 
internet connection to a Remote ID USS. As discussed in section VII.A 
of this preamble, limited remote identification UAS are no longer a 
viable concept for this rule. Accordingly, this final rule has 
eliminated all proposed requirements related to limited remote 
identification UAS.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Only a few commenters supported the proposed limited 
remote identification UAS. Commenters who supported the proposed 
requirements wanted the FAA to move forward with implementing its 
proposed policies.
    Many commenters were opposed to the concept and requirements for 
limited remote identification UAS and believed the FAA should not adopt 
those requirements. Commenters noted that many areas in the United 
States, particularly remote and rural areas, do not have reliable 
internet access due to cellular coverage limitations, signal 
obstructions caused by terrain and obstacles, poor connection quality, 
or temporary outages. Many commenters noted that the costs, complexity, 
and operational restrictions associated with network remote 
identification requirements may foster a culture of non-compliance. As 
a result, many commenters suggested eliminating or substantially 
altering limited remote identification UAS.
    Several commenters suggested there was no need for the limited 
remote identification concept. DJI Technology appreciated the attempt 
to create a concept intended to impose a lower burden and ease for 
compliance for less capable UAS that pose less risk but suggested the 
limited remote identification UAS concept is virtually

[[Page 4410]]

useless as proposed. Degenkolb Engineers noted that any controller 
designed to meet limited remote identification UAS requirements could 
be upgraded to meet the standard remote identification UAS requirements 
at trivial cost.
    Other commenters suggested the limited remote identification UAS 
concept would create unnecessary complexity and would not contribute to 
flight safety. They recommended permitting broadcast options for 
limited remote identification UAS, which could provide the unmanned 
aircraft location information to suitably equipped manned aircraft at 
any altitude without dependency on network solutions or command and 
control links.
    Many commenters weighed in on specific aspects of limited remote 
identification UAS, including the proposed 400-foot range limitation, 
the requirement to fly within visual line of sight, and the requirement 
to land the aircraft in the event the connection with the Remote ID USS 
was lost.
    FAA Response: A common theme in the public comments received 
regarding the limited remote identification UAS concept was a general 
dissatisfaction and disagreement with the operating and design 
requirements of the proposed concept. The FAA attempted to provide a 
regulatory framework to accommodate existing unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification so they could be modified or retrofitted in a 
manner to provide remote identification capabilities. The FAA agrees 
with the commenters who argued that limiting unmanned aircraft to 
operating only where internet connectivity is available limits the 
utility and marketability of such unmanned aircraft. However, the FAA 
does not agree with commenters who supported only a single concept for 
remote identification. The FAA believes that a remote identification 
option is necessary for owners of existing unmanned aircraft without 
built-in remote identification capability who do not wish to operate 
solely at FAA-recognized identification areas. For that reason, the FAA 
is incorporating into this rule a concept known as ``remote 
identification broadcast module'' to allow persons to retrofit an 
unmanned aircraft by equipping it with a broadcast module that enables 
compliance with the operating requirements of this rule. The remote 
identification broadcast module concept is discussed in section VII.D 
of this preamble.
    The FAA acknowledges all of the comments related to limited remote 
identification UAS and took them into consideration as a part of its 
decision to eliminate the concept.

C. Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA is adopting the requirements for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft in Sec.  89.110, as discussed below. A 
key difference from the NPRM is that the Agency has decided to 
eliminate the requirement for the standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft to transmit the remote identification message 
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. This rule only 
requires the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft to 
broadcast the remote identification message elements directly from the 
unmanned aircraft from takeoff to shutdown. The FAA is also updating 
the term to ``standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, as 
opposed to ``standard remote identification UAS'' for clarity purposes. 
See section IV.A for an in-depth discussion regarding the use of 
unmanned aircraft instead of UAS. The modifications in Sec.  89.110 
mainly reflect the change to the broadcast-only solution, or changes 
made for clarity purposes.
    The FAA clarifies that unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification may be upgraded to standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft if the upgrade enables the unmanned aircraft to meet 
all of the remote identification requirements of this rule.
i. Use of Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
    A person operating a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft that complies with Sec.  89.110 can operate the unmanned 
aircraft outside of FAA-recognized identification areas. Standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft can be used irrespective of the 
operating rules that apply to the specific flight. For example, a 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft could be used in 
limited recreational operations conducted under 49 U.S.C. 44809, or 
operations conducted under part 91, part 107, part 135, or any other 
operating part.
ii. Elimination of Network Transmission Requirement
    As previously stated, the FAA proposed to require standard remote 
identification UAS to transmit the remote identification message 
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS and to broadcast the 
same message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft using radio 
frequency spectrum. After reviewing public comments and further 
consideration of a significant amount of comments, the FAA decided to 
amend the regulatory framework for standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft by eliminating the requirement to transmit the 
message elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. As adopted, 
Sec.  89.110 is now a broadcast-only solution where standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft are required to broadcast the message 
elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. The FAA determined that 
the requirement, as adopted, facilitates compliance with this rule and, 
at this time, meets the safety and security needs of the FAA, national 
security agencies, and law enforcement.
iii. Remote Identification Equipment and Message Elements
    The person operating a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft must ensure the unmanned aircraft is broadcasting the standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft message elements. This 
broadcast equipment must be functional from takeoff to shutdown of the 
unmanned aircraft and must not be disabled.
    The operator of a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
must ensure the unmanned aircraft is broadcasting the message elements 
listed in Sec.  89.305. The message elements broadcast by standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft include a unique identifier; an 
indication of the control station's latitude, longitude, and geometric 
altitude; an indication of the unmanned aircraft's latitude, longitude, 
and geometric altitude; an indication of the velocity of the unmanned 
aircraft; a time mark; and an indication of the emergency status of the 
unmanned aircraft. The requirement to broadcast the remote 
identification message elements applies from takeoff to shutdown of the 
unmanned aircraft. The message elements for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft are discussed in more detail in 
section VIII.A of this preamble. The minimum performance requirements 
for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft are discussed in 
more detail in section VIII.B of this preamble.
    The FAA adopts design and production requirements for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft in subpart F of part 89. The 
production requirements are meant to help a person comply with the 
operational requirements that apply to standard

[[Page 4411]]

remote identification unmanned aircraft. The Agency intends for 
compliance with the remote identification requirements to be simple and 
straightforward for individuals operating standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft produced in accordance with an FAA-
accepted means of compliance. For example, a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft must automatically broadcast the 
remote identification message elements, and its design must prohibit it 
from taking off if the broadcast equipment is not functional.
iv. Serial Number Requirements
    A person may operate a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft if its serial number is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration 
of compliance, or the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
is covered by a design approval or production approval issued under 
part 21.
    The serial number issued to the standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft must be included in the application for registration 
of the unmanned aircraft under part 47 or 48 and may not be duplicative 
of a serial number associated with a different certificate of aircraft 
registration. For owners registering small unmanned aircraft 
exclusively for limited recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809, 
more than one serial number may be included on a single Certificate of 
Aircraft Registration. The registration requirements that apply to 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft are discussed in more 
detail in section XV of this preamble. Alternatively, the serial number 
of the unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a notice of 
identification pursuant to Sec.  89.130 prior to the operation. The 
requirements that apply to foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft 
operating in the airspace of the United States are discussed in section 
XVI of this preamble.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The Air Line Pilots Association, International mentioned 
that only standard remote identification UAS should be permitted to 
access LAANC airspace.
    FAA Response: Considering the requirement for all unmanned aircraft 
to broadcast remote identification information, the FAA finds that 
access to controlled airspace via the LAANC process does not require 
additional restrictions.
    Comments: Some commenters strongly supported the requirement for 
standard remote identification UAS to transmit via a network and 
broadcast, noting that each system has strengths that address the other 
system's weaknesses to support safety, security, and future operational 
capabilities. Others supported the standard remote identification UAS 
requirements provided the rule maintains the option to continue to 
operate when there is no connection to the internet or transmission to 
a Remote ID USS.
    FAA Response: For the reasons explained in section VII.A of the 
preamble, the FAA has decided to eliminate the network-based 
requirements from this rule at this time. Accordingly, in accordance 
with Sec.  89.110(a), standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
must broadcast the remote identification message elements directly from 
the unmanned aircraft.
    Comments: Some commenters suggested the FAA consider requiring 
operators to comply with either a broadcast or a network requirement, 
but not both, unless requiring both is necessary for specific 
operations such as BVLOS. Commenters suggested the requirement to 
simultaneously broadcast remote identification data that is transmitted 
to the network does not add any substantial public safety or security 
benefit.
    FAA Response: The FAA is not adopting the requirement to transmit 
message elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS in this rule. 
While the FAA recognizes the potential benefits of network remote 
identification, as stated by several commenters, the FAA believes a 
broadcast-only solution is sufficient, at this time, to maintain the 
safety and security of the airspace of the United States. The FAA 
agrees with the commenters who proposed that a broadcast-only solution 
is sufficient at this time to provide the required remote 
identification message elements to support typical unmanned aircraft 
operations and satisfy security concerns.

D. Remote Identification Broadcast Modules

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    This rule finalizes the regulatory framework that allows persons to 
equip unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to 
enable them to identify remotely. See Sec.  89.115(a) of this rule. As 
previously mentioned in section VII.D of this preamble, the remote 
identification broadcast module concept is a retrofit option that 
replaces the limited remote identification UAS regulatory framework of 
the proposed rule and provides flexibility to operators of unmanned 
aircraft that do not meet the requirements for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft. The concept allows unmanned aircraft 
built without remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned aircraft 
fleet, home-built unmanned aircraft) to be operated outside of FAA-
recognized identification areas because the broadcast modules enable 
the unmanned aircraft to broadcast the remote identification message 
elements required by this rule. Through this regulatory framework, the 
FAA is also allowing a pathway for existing unmanned aircraft that have 
certain broadcast capabilities and equipment already integrated to be 
upgraded to meet the requirements of a remote identification broadcast 
module.
    The FAA decided to incorporate this concept into this rule after 
reviewing public comments and considering the significant concerns 
raised with respect to the limited remote identification UAS framework. 
The FAA determined a remote identification broadcast module facilitates 
compliance with this rule and, at this time, meets the safety and 
security needs of the FAA, national security agencies, and law 
enforcement. The concept is broadcast-based and does not require a 
person to connect to the internet to identify remotely, as the limited 
remote identification UAS proposal did. This shift allows unmanned 
aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to operate in 
areas where the internet is unavailable. In addition, by making this a 
broadcast solution, the FAA has determined that the 400-foot range 
limitation included in the proposed requirements for limited remote 
identification UAS is no longer warranted and has removed the design 
constraint. However, the FAA has determined that persons manipulating 
the flight controls of UAS where the unmanned aircraft is equipped with 
remote identification broadcast modules must be able to see the 
unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation. Commenters 
generally supported a visual line of sight requirement for unmanned 
aircraft operations that do not meet the requirements for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft and therefore FAA is 
incorporating the restriction into the operating requirements for 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The FAA emphasizes that this rule does not relieve any 
existing visual-line-of-sight requirements. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 
44809(a)(3); 14 CFR 107.31 and 107.33. The purpose of the visual-
line-of-sight provision of this rule is to impose a separate visual-
line-of-sight requirement on unmanned aircraft operated with remote 
broadcast modules to ensure that these aircraft are operated within 
visual line of sight even if the existing operating requirements are 
changed through future integration efforts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4412]]

    The requirements for unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules are discussed below.
i. Use of Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
    The FAA adopts the requirements in Sec.  89.115(a) for the 
operation of unmanned aircraft equipped with remote identification 
broadcast modules. A person may equip an unmanned aircraft with a 
remote identification broadcast module by securing or integrating a 
remote identification broadcast module to the unmanned aircraft or by 
other means (e.g., software upgrade). The operating requirements for 
unmanned aircraft equipped with remote identification broadcast modules 
are the same irrespective of how the broadcast module is secured to the 
unmanned aircraft or integrated into the unmanned aircraft.
    Remote identification broadcast modules allow operators of unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned 
aircraft and unmanned aircraft excepted under Sec.  89.501(c) from the 
design and production requirements of this rule) to operate outside of 
an FAA-recognized identification area. For example, a home-built 
unmanned aircraft can be produced without remote identification and can 
be operated without remote identification in an FAA-recognized 
identification area. However, if an operator wishes to operate a home-
built unmanned aircraft outside of an FAA-recognized identification 
area, he or she can do so by equipping the unmanned aircraft with a 
remote identification broadcast module.
    A person may use an unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote 
identification broadcast module in operations conducted under any 
operating rule (e.g., limited recreational operations conducted under 
49 U.S.C. 44809, or operations conducted under part 91, part 107, part 
135, or any other operating part). However, as discussed below, 
operations of unmanned aircraft equipped with remote identification 
broadcast modules are limited to visual line of sight of the person 
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS.
ii. Remote Identification Equipment and Message Elements
    The operator of an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification 
broadcast module must ensure that the remote identification broadcast 
module is broadcasting the message elements listed in Sec.  89.315 of 
this rule and that the remote identification broadcast module is listed 
on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance. The message elements 
broadcast by remote identification broadcast modules include a unique 
identifier; an indication of the unmanned aircraft latitude, longitude, 
and geometric altitude; an indication of the unmanned aircraft take-off 
location latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude; an indication of 
the unmanned aircraft velocity; and a time mark. The requirement to 
broadcast the remote identification message elements applies from 
takeoff until shutdown of the unmanned aircraft.
    The remote identification broadcast module message elements are 
identical to those for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft, with the exception of the unmanned aircraft take-off location 
and altitude, which replaces the control station location and altitude, 
and the emergency status which is only a required message element for 
the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. The take-off 
location and altitude indications are intended to provide an 
approximate location of the UAS operator, based on an expectation that 
the UAS operator is located in close proximity to the unmanned aircraft 
take-off location and altitude. The FAA believes this is an appropriate 
assumption for VLOS operations. The requirement to indicate the take-
off location and altitude enables the retrofit installation of remote 
identification broadcast modules on unmanned aircraft because the take-
off location and altitude can be measured by a stand-alone broadcast 
module without any dependency on external systems or equipment.
    Further, the FAA is not requiring that an unmanned aircraft with a 
remote identification broadcast module broadcast an indication of the 
emergency status of the unmanned aircraft. To indicate an emergency 
status, the remote identification equipment would likely need to be 
integrated into the unmanned aircraft and designed to recognize 
specific aircraft failure modes or off-nominal situations. Because 
remote identification broadcast modules can be installed on existing 
unmanned aircraft with different characteristics, the FAA finds that an 
emergency status indication for remote identification broadcast modules 
presents too many technological challenges to require at this time.
    The message elements and minimum performance requirements for 
remote identification broadcast modules are discussed in more detail in 
section IX of this preamble.
iii. Broadcast Module Installation and Instructions
    As previously mentioned, this rule allows a person to use an 
unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast 
module. The person installing the remote identification broadcast 
module must perform the retrofit in accordance with the instructions 
provided by the producer of the remote identification broadcast module 
to ensure that the broadcast module is compatible with the unmanned 
aircraft, that the installation is completed successfully, and that the 
remote identification functionality is compliant with all the 
requirements of this rule.
iv. Serial Number Requirements
    The producer of remote identification broadcast modules must issue 
each module a serial number that complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A in 
accordance with Sec.  89.505. The serial number must be listed on an 
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance.
    The serial number must be included in the application for 
registration of the unmanned aircraft under part 47 or 48 and may not 
be duplicative of a serial number associated with a different 
certificate of aircraft registration. For owners registering small 
unmanned aircraft exclusively for limited recreational operations under 
49 U.S.C. 44809, more than one serial number may be included on a 
single Certificate of Aircraft Registration. The registration 
requirements that apply to unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules are discussed in more detail in section XV.A of this 
preamble. Foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft must provide the 
serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module to the FAA in a notice of identification pursuant to 
Sec.  89.130 prior to the operation in the airspace of the United 
States. The requirements that apply to foreign registered civil 
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States are 
discussed in section XVI of this preamble.

[[Page 4413]]

v. Operations Restricted to Visual Line of Sight
    Operations of unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules must be conducted so that the person manipulating the 
flight controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned aircraft at all 
times throughout the operation. Commenters generally supported a visual 
line of sight requirement for unmanned aircraft operations that do not 
meet the requirements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft and therefore the FAA is incorporating the restriction into 
the operating requirements for unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification broadcast modules.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters recommended that the FAA permit an add-on 
component or module that comes from an FAA-approved manufacturer. These 
commenters recommended permitting stand-alone broadcast modules that 
could be serialized to enable off the shelf solutions and lower the 
cost for existing UAS and amateur-built UAS to meet the remote 
identification requirements via broadcast, network, or both. Some 
suggested a beacon or broadcast remote identification requirement with 
no network requirement.
    Many commenters suggested the FAA allow remote identification add-
on equipment that can be mounted on UAS that were originally 
manufactured without remote identification. Many commenters also 
recommended permitting modules that could be registered to a specific 
user and swapped between multiple UAS so existing UAS and amateur-built 
UAS can meet remote identification requirements. One commenter 
suggested the FAA move forward with a simple and minimally burdensome 
solution such as an add-on broadcast module for limited remote 
identification UAS instead of the proposed requirements. Another 
commenter suggested allowing the use of an external broadcast module 
that could be changed as technology changes or additional airspace is 
available and noted that the European Union and France permit external 
modules.
    Many commenters supported a broadcast remote identification option 
that would permit operations in areas with no internet access or in the 
event of Remote ID USS outages.
    The National Transportation Safety Board noted that broadcast 
remote identification may support aircraft-to-aircraft collision 
avoidance capability, but it was unclear whether a network remote 
identification could as well.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with public comments and has revised 
this rule to include the remote identification broadcast module 
concept. An unmanned aircraft produced, built, or assembled without 
remote identification can now be equipped with a remote identification 
broadcast module that broadcasts the message elements required by this 
rule. Since an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast 
module is able to identify remotely, the unmanned aircraft can be 
operated outside of an FAA-recognized identification area.

E. Other Broadcast Requirements Applicable to Standard Remote 
Identification Unmanned Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft With Remote 
Identification Broadcast Modules

1. Broadcast Directly From the Unmanned Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    This rule requires standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
and unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to 
broadcast the remote identification message elements directly from the 
unmanned aircraft.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Several commenters suggested permitting the control 
station to broadcast the required message elements.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters because of the 
likelihood of decreased reception range caused by terrain or ground 
obstacles. In addition, if the unmanned aircraft were to go outside the 
range of the remote identification broadcast from the control station, 
persons near the unmanned aircraft may not be able to identify it. 
Therefore, the FAA maintains the requirement that the remote 
identification message elements must be broadcast directly from the 
unmanned aircraft.
2. Broadcast From Takeoff to Shutdown
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that a person would be able to operate a UAS with 
remote identification only if the UAS sends the remote identification 
message elements from takeoff to shutdown. The FAA requested comments 
regarding when automatic Remote ID USS connections should be required. 
Though the Remote ID USS connection is no longer required in this rule, 
the responses were instructive and helped inform the Agency's decision 
to modify the requirement, as it applies to the broadcast of message 
elements by standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules.
    The FAA is finalizing this rule to require the broadcast of message 
elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to shutdown.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Commenters stated the remote identification requirements 
should only apply for the duration of the flight and should not apply 
to unmanned aircraft that are active but not flying. Many of these 
commenters cited difficulties in performing maintenance on unmanned 
aircraft if the connection was required at power up when the UAS is not 
intended to be flown. One individual suggested the connection 
requirement should apply when the unmanned aircraft is in motion.
    Many commenters offered options to the proposed requirement. They 
proposed requiring UAS to broadcast from takeoff to landing, from start 
up to shutdown, and start up to landing. The responses were generally 
divided into two main considerations: When the UAS should start to 
broadcast and when it should cease to broadcast.
    Commenters who believed the UAS should transmit the message 
elements from the time the UAS is started up mentioned that a certain 
amount of time is needed to establish connectivity to the network. Some 
suggested there is a need or value for law enforcement to gain 
awareness of the operation prior to flight. Others mentioned a UAS 
should not be required to broadcast any message elements while powered 
on, as long as actual flight is not intended or commenced (e.g., when a 
person powers on the UAS to conduct maintenance or download data).
    Some commenters believed the UAS should continue to broadcast until 
the UAS lands while others believed it should broadcast until the UAS 
is shutdown. Those supporting the landing cutoff noted the unmanned 
aircraft is no longer in the airspace of the United States upon landing 
and there is no longer a safety risk because the unmanned aircraft is 
no longer in the air. They also mentioned a person may want to keep the 
power on (e.g., to conduct maintenance or download data) for some time 
prior to shutdown. Other commenters mentioned the broadcast should end 
upon shutdown because it would grant additional time for law 
enforcement and other security partners to locate the unmanned 
aircraft, after it

[[Page 4414]]

lands, which could help identify an operator.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with comments supporting a broadcast 
requirement that begins at takeoff rather than start up because 
different unmanned aircraft have different startup sequences and may 
not all be capable of broadcasting remote identification elements at 
the same point in their startup process. Takeoff is the first part of 
an unmanned aircraft operation that is common to all unmanned aircraft, 
which is why FAA has decided to tie the requirement to begin 
broadcasting to takeoff. In addition, unmanned aircraft are often 
powered on for purposes other than flight, such as conducting 
maintenance or configuring the unmanned aircraft hardware and software. 
Finally, unmanned aircraft that are powered on indoors, where 
maintenance typically occurs, would likely not be able to generate some 
of the remote identification message elements, making such a 
requirement ineffective.
    The FAA also agrees with comments supporting the extension of the 
broadcast requirement until the unmanned aircraft is shutdown because 
the additional data can assist the Agency and law enforcement to 
identify unmanned aircraft or operators engaged in unsafe or illegal 
operation. The FAA does not agree with commenters that believe once an 
unmanned aircraft lands there is no longer the potential for safety 
risk because in many cases, the safety risk is the result of careless 
or clueless operators that will continue the potentially unsafe 
behavior without FAA or law enforcement intervention. Requiring 
unmanned aircraft to broadcast the message elements until the unmanned 
aircraft is shutdown provides additional time for the FAA or law 
enforcement to locate an unmanned aircraft operator, even after the 
unmanned aircraft has landed. Therefore, after reviewing public 
comments and giving further consideration, the FAA decided to modify 
the proposal and adopts the requirement so unmanned aircraft must 
broadcast the required message elements from takeoff to shutdown.
3. In-Flight Loss of Remote Identification Broadcast
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must perform a 
self-test and provide a notification to the person manipulating the 
flight controls of the UAS if the remote identification equipment is 
not functioning properly. In addition, a standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft must be designed to not take off if it fails the 
self-test.
    A remote identification broadcast module must also perform a self-
test and provide a notification to the person manipulating the flight 
controls of the UAS if the remote identification equipment is not 
functioning properly. Unmanned aircraft operators may only use remote 
identification broadcast modules that pass the self-test.
    Both standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules must continuously monitor their 
performance while in use and provide an indication if the remote 
identification equipment is not functioning properly. If the remote 
identification equipment provides an indication of failure or 
malfunction during flight, the unmanned aircraft operator must land the 
unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable. The FAA notes that it does 
not expect unavailability of GPS or other types of location services 
(as the rule does not require GPS specifically) to result in a 
notification to the unmanned aircraft operator nor require the operator 
to land the unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable. The FAA expects 
that means of compliance will stipulate that only equipment failures or 
malfunctions would trigger a notification to the operator that the 
unmanned aircraft was no longer broadcasting the message elements.
    When determining how and when to land the unmanned aircraft as soon 
as practicable, the FAA expects the person manipulating the flight 
controls of the UAS to operate in a manner that minimizes risk to other 
users of the airspace and people and property on the ground, while 
using aeronautical decision making to quickly and safely land the 
unmanned aircraft at a suitable landing area. The FAA recommends 
including UAS remote identification contingency planning, including 
plans for landing as soon as practicable, as part of a pre-flight 
assessment.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters recommended clarification of the proposed 
requirement to ``land as soon as practicable'' in the event that remote 
identification information does not transmit or broadcast. Many other 
commenters noted it is more appropriate to notify the operator that 
remote identification equipment is not working properly than to 
forcibly ground a UAS by design.
    To reduce the need for case-by-case authorizations, the Association 
of American Railroads and the United States Rail Subsidiaries of the 
Canadian National Railway Company requested amending proposed Sec.  
89.110(b) to state that ``land as soon as practicable'' does not apply 
when remote identification cannot be transmitted because there is a 
potential to interfere with critical communication systems, when law 
enforcement is responding to an emergency situation, disaster response, 
critical infrastructure protection, or in other situations with the 
potential to jeopardize public safety. Commenters suggested permitting 
emergency operations with specific stipulations, such as operating 
within VLOS, determining there is no undue risk to persons or property 
on the ground or risk to UAS or manned aircraft in flight, and 
notifying local law enforcement. A few commenters were concerned that 
improper application of these requirements would result in automatic 
power shut down in flight.
    FAA Response: The requirement to ``land as soon as practicable'' 
does not require an immediate landing upon notification of a failure of 
the broadcast equipment, but instead requires remote pilots to use 
aeronautical decision making to quickly and safely land the unmanned 
aircraft while considering the suitability of the landing area and the 
safety of other aircraft, as well as persons and property on the 
ground.
    While there may be some operations, such as emergency or disaster 
response, where continued unmanned aircraft operations, even in the 
presence of a broadcast equipment failure, may provide significant 
societal benefit, the FAA does not find that any particular activity 
warrants a specifically stated exception in the regulation from the 
requirement to land as soon as practicable. Instead, authorizations may 
be granted on a case-by-case basis if there is sufficient justification 
and an acceptable level of safety.

F. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote Identification

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to allow unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification capabilities to operate in specific areas, referred to 
as FAA-recognized identification areas, or under a deviation authority 
granted by the Administrator. The FAA adopts the substance of this 
requirement with minor adjustments. Accordingly, the vast majority of 
unmanned aircraft operated in the airspace of the United States must 
identify remotely; however, unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification may operate if they meet certain requirements. Mainly, 
the

[[Page 4415]]

operation of unmanned aircraft without remote identification is 
allowed: (1) Under Sec.  89.115(b) if the person manipulating the 
flight controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned aircraft at all 
times throughout the operation, and within the boundaries of an FAA-
recognized identification area; or (2) under Sec.  89.120 when the 
Administrator authorizes operations without remote identification where 
the operation is solely for the purpose of aeronautical research or to 
show compliance with regulations.
2. Operations at FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
    A person may operate an unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification if that operation is within the boundaries of an FAA-
recognized identification area and the person manipulating the flight 
controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times 
throughout the operation. As the FAA explained in the NPRM, the phrase 
``operated within an FAA-recognized identification area'' means that 
both the unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight 
controls of the UAS must be located within the boundaries of the FAA-
recognized identification area from takeoff to landing. However, this 
rule does not allow for the remote identification capability to be 
disabled, unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator. Therefore, 
a person operating a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
or an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module 
must continue to identify remotely when operating in an FAA-recognized 
identification area.
i. Public Comments Regarding Operations at FAA-Recognized 
Identification Areas
    Many commenters agreed with the concept of FAA-recognized 
identification areas. Others expressed concerns, however, that the FAA-
recognized identification areas would be too limited to address 
adequately the needs of hobbyists who primarily fly amateur-built or 
home-built UAS. The commenters noted that these operators tend to have 
dozens of UAS, many of which do not have navigation equipment to 
determine location. Commenters also expressed concerns about increased 
cost of travel and membership in national and local community-based 
organizations. Many commenters, including commercial operators, 
modelers, UAS racers, and educational groups, believed the FAA-
recognized identification areas would be the only option for certain 
persons to continue to fly UAS and stated the cost of upgrading a UAS 
to one with built-in remote identification could be cost prohibitive.
    Many commenters expressed concerns that they will be confined to 
operating their existing UAS at an FAA-recognized identification area 
due to prohibitions or complexities of adding remote identification 
equipment to their existing UAS. Commenters expressed concerns about 
continued operations of existing UAS, particularly for recreational 
users operating under current rules, and asked the FAA to consider how 
to provide a cost-effective path to compliance, or otherwise 
``grandfather'' those UAS, including amateur-built UAS and model 
aircraft, to support operations outside of FAA-recognized 
identification areas and otherwise prevent obsolescence.
    Commenters also noted specific types of UAS are not permitted to 
operate at many existing flying fields that are likely to be FAA-
recognized identification areas. These UAS include quad copters, racing 
UAS, and UAS conducting first person view (FPV) operations. Many 
commenters noted that crowding a large number of existing unmanned 
aircraft operators into a limited number of FAA-recognized 
identification areas could make it difficult to have sufficient space 
to fly or could increase collision and crash risk due to radio 
interference and proximity of aircraft when numerous unmanned aircraft 
are flown at once. The commenters noted the likely number of FAA-
recognized identification areas would not provide sufficient capacity 
to accommodate operations of hundreds of thousands of current UAS that 
would not be permitted to fly elsewhere. In addition, several 
commenters noted increased UAS activity and noise at flying fields is 
likely to increase tension with neighboring communities. Some 
commenters also noted many existing flying fields have limited hours.
    Dragonfly UAS and many other commenters noted many flying fields 
are consumed by surrounding development and recommended permitting a 
greater number of FAA-recognized identification areas to be approved 
over time and at private property sites.
    Some commenters expressed concerns that existing recreational 
flying fields might not be eligible to become FAA-recognized 
identification areas and that this would negatively affect recreational 
flyers.
    The government of the District of Columbia objected to permitting 
operations in an FAA-recognized identification area because there would 
be no mechanism to ensure those UAS without remote identification 
cannot be operated illegally in other locations. The National Business 
Aviation Association contended that limiting operations to FAA-
recognized identification areas seems unrealistic and unmanageable.
    A few commenters objected to relying on FAA-recognized 
identification areas and questioned whether this requirement would 
conflict with 49 U.S.C. 44809. Many individual, industry, and 
organizational commenters recommended eliminating the FAA-recognized 
identification area concept altogether. Others suggested that the FAA 
provide alternative paths for existing UAS without remote 
identification, including recreational UAS and traditional model 
aircraft, to comply with the remote identification requirements.
    Many commenters believed the FAA-recognized identification area 
concept does not adequately address model aircraft events and other UAS 
competitions, including those that raise money for charity and 
impromptu flight events. These commenters noted many events take place 
in locations that are unlikely to request a designation or that are 
unlikely to be approved as an FAA-recognized identification area, such 
as airports serving manned aircraft or other public locations that are 
likely to be ineligible. Many commenters suggested the FAA implement a 
simple authorization process for UAS events, with some commenters 
recommending an application-based request and approval system similar 
to LAANC. The Drone Racing League noted they would be unable to provide 
any first-person view racing events in the United States due to the 
VLOS and FAA-recognized identification area requirements. They also 
requested the final rule permit commercial UAS events with input and 
specific authorization by the FAA, similar to other aviation events 
such as air shows.
    Instead of being limited to operating in FAA-recognized 
identification areas, UAS Colorado recommended allowing community-based 
organizations to self-verify their fields and permit letters of 
agreement to operate on airports, and recommended developing a LAANC-
style system to allow self-reporting of location for non-compliant UAS 
as well as organized events that are not in FAA-recognized 
identification areas.
ii. FAA Response
    The FAA does not agree with the feedback from commenters who 
believe FAA-recognized identification areas are

[[Page 4416]]

unnecessary to accommodate operations of unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification or believe there are better pathways for 
accommodating the operation of UAS without remote identification. Other 
proposals for enabling operations without remote identification do not 
enable an observer to determine readily which unmanned aircraft are 
expected to be broadcasting, and which are not. The Agency determined 
there is a need for a space for unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification to continue to operate and therefore adopts a policy to 
allow operations of unmanned aircraft without remote identification 
when operated within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification 
area and within visual line of sight.
    To address the commenters who expressed concerns with the policy 
that limited the types of entities that could request to establish an 
FAA-recognized identification area and the available time for making 
such requests, this rule expands the types of entities that can apply 
for the establishment of FAA-recognized identification area and removes 
the deadline for applications. These changes are discussed in sections 
XII.B and XII.C of the preamble. The FAA is effecting these changes in 
response to concerns regarding the availability and utility of FAA-
recognized identification areas that allow continued operations of 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification. In addition, the FAA 
believes the concept incorporated into this rule allowing unmanned 
aircraft to equip with remote identification broadcast modules provides 
a practical way for unmanned aircraft without remote identification to 
be upgraded or modified to meet the remote identification requirements, 
which reduces the need to operate at FAA-recognized identification 
areas.
    FAA-recognized identification areas are locations where unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification can operate, but these areas are 
not limited to only unmanned aircraft without remote identification; 
other unmanned aircraft may also be operated in these areas to the 
extent otherwise permitted in accordance with all applicable 
regulations. Therefore, unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
can also be operated within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized 
identification area.
    Though FAA-recognized identification areas would not be authorized 
for temporary use, the FAA expects that instances such as air shows or 
temporary drone racing events would be handled, where warranted, 
through authorization from the Administrator to deviate from the remote 
identification operating rules.
3. Operations for Aeronautical Research
    The second way a person can operate an unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification is pursuant to an authorization from the FAA 
Administrator for the purpose of aeronautical research or to show 
compliance with regulations. As explained in the NPRM, the FAA 
considers aeronautical research to be limited to the research and 
testing of the unmanned aircraft, the control systems, equipment that 
is part of the unmanned aircraft (such as sensors), and flight 
profiles, or development of specific functions and capabilities for the 
UAS. Producers and other persons authorized by the Administrator have 
the ability to operate unmanned aircraft prototypes without remote 
identification exclusively for researching and testing the unmanned 
aircraft design, equipment, or capabilities; or to conduct research, 
development, and testing necessary for UAS infrastructure, systems, and 
technologies, including but not limited future UTM and United States 
Government counter-UAS capabilities. A person may also be authorized by 
the Administrator to conduct flight tests and other operations with 
non-compliant remote identification equipment to show compliance with 
an FAA-accepted means of compliance for remote identification or 
airworthiness regulations. These types of unmanned aircraft operations 
could include flights to show compliance for issuance of type 
certificates and supplemental type certificates, flights to 
substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with 
the function and reliability requirements of the regulations. This 
deviation authority does not extend to any other type of research using 
an unmanned aircraft.
    As discussed in section XIV.B.5, UAS designed or produced 
exclusively for the purpose of aeronautical research are excepted from 
the production requirements of subpart F of this rule. The production 
exceptions are discussed in section XIV.B of this preamble.
i. Public Comments Regarding Operations for Aeronautical Research
    Though some commenters objected to allowing UAS without remote 
identification to operate outside of FAA-recognized identification 
areas for only aeronautical research purposes, many organizations, 
companies, and individual commenters generally supported the concept, 
with numerous suggestions to ensure research, development, and 
innovation are not unnecessarily restricted. Other commenters noted 
that only permitting aeronautical research was unnecessarily stifling 
for UAS research initiatives that are ongoing in multiple fields, such 
as forestry, wildlife biology, geology, agriculture, hydrology, and 
other fields utilizing geographic information systems.
    Some commenters suggested adding exceptions to accommodate 
education, such as training students, model airshows, and other 
educational events. Ax Enterprize mentioned that work testing UAS 
situation awareness systems should be permitted. Wing Aviation 
recommended the FAA to outline factors that weigh in favor of this 
authorization, such as a controlled access location with effective 
mitigations to ensure operation containment. SRP Aero asked how long it 
will take to grant an authorization to permit test flights of prototype 
UAS. A commenter from Evergreen State College asked the FAA to consider 
permitting research and emergency operations in remote areas.
    The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the 
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the University of Maryland 
UAS Test Site, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville requested 
that the FAA specifically clarify what kinds of operations qualify 
under the ``aeronautical research'' exception to ensure it is not too 
restrictive, such as development activities, non-production and 
experimental prototypes, avionics interfaces, and concept of operations 
development. AiRXOS, the Commercial Drone Alliance, FlyGuys Inc., and 
others requested that commercial research be expressly listed as 
permitted under ``aeronautical research,'' and requested the FAA to 
clarify that research conducted in an FAA-recognized identification 
area does not require FAA approval. To prevent the restriction of 
research activities, the University of Texas--Austin recommended 
expanding the aeronautical research exception to cover other 
educational uses, and the Small UAV Coalition recommended expanding 
this exception to include commercial and academic research and 
development activities. Verizon and Skyward suggested FAA approval 
should not be required for research activities and suggested permitting 
FAA-recognized identification area applications for the purpose of 
research, development, testing, and product evaluation.

[[Page 4417]]

ii. FAA Response
    In this rule, the FAA adopts the deviation authority to allow 
persons authorized by the Administrator to conduct operations without 
remote identification where the operation is solely for the purpose of 
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations. At this 
time, the FAA has decided that there is no need to expand the types of 
operations that qualify for a deviation from the operating rules and 
notes that the examples provided by commenters (e.g., non-aeronautical 
research, data collection, or educational activities) can be conducted 
using unmanned aircraft with remote identification, or using unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification at an FAA-recognized 
identification area.
    The FAA envisions that UAS operated for aeronautical research would 
typically be experimental, prototype, or testbed systems operated for 
specific purposes under special operating conditions and limited 
durations. These types of unmanned aircraft are not typically available 
to the general public for purchase or use.
    The FAA does not believe it is necessary to provide additional 
information regarding what types of operations constitute 
``aeronautical research'' beyond what was provided in the NPRM and this 
rule. FAA notes that intending to conduct aeronautical research simply 
authorizes the operator to apply for a deviation; if requests for a 
deviation show confusion as to the meaning of this term in spite of the 
guidance in this rule, FAA may issue additional guidance at that time.

VIII. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements: Standard 
Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft

    The FAA proposed certain requirements for remote identification 
message elements and minimum performance requirements for standard 
remote identification UAS. The FAA adopts those requirements with the 
changes and adjustments described below.

A. Message Elements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned 
Aircraft

    The FAA proposed requiring certain minimum message elements 
necessary to meet the objectives of this rule. The proposed message 
elements were: (1) The UAS Identification; (2) an indication of the 
control station's latitude and longitude; (3) an indication of the 
control station's barometric pressure altitude; (4) an indication of 
the unmanned aircraft's latitude and longitude; (5) an indication of 
the unmanned aircraft's barometric pressure altitude; (6) a time mark; 
and (7) an indication of the emergency status of the UAS.
    After reviewing public comments and further consideration, the FAA 
adopts the seven message elements proposed with some modifications and 
adds an eighth message element: Velocity. The FAA explains these 
requirements, including changes from the NPRM, in the following 
subsections.
1. Unmanned Aircraft Unique Identifier
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The NPRM discussed that the UAS Identification message element 
establishes the unique identity of UAS operating in the airspace of the 
United States. The FAA proposed that this message element would consist 
of one of the following: (1) A serial number assigned to the unmanned 
aircraft by the person responsible for the production of the standard 
remote identification UAS; or (2) a session identification number 
(session ID) assigned by a Remote ID USS.
    The FAA proposed to allow UAS operators to use a session ID 
assigned by a Remote ID USS as the UAS Identification instead of the 
unmanned aircraft serial number. The FAA explained that the association 
between a given session ID and the unmanned aircraft serial number 
would not be available to the public through the broadcast message. 
This association would be available to the issuing Remote ID USS, the 
FAA, and other authorized entities, such as law enforcement. Where a 
session ID would have been issued, the FAA explained that the Agency 
and authorized entities would have the means to correlate the session 
ID to the UAS serial number and would consequently be able to correlate 
the unmanned aircraft serial number to its registration data. The FAA 
also proposed that a UAS would be designed to broadcast its serial 
number regardless of whether the unmanned aircraft has been registered 
or not.
    The FAA adopts the UAS Identification message element concept, but 
instead uses the more general term ``unique identifier'' in this rule 
and clarifies that the unique identifier is applicable to the unmanned 
aircraft and not the UAS. However, because the FAA has eliminated the 
Remote ID USS-related requirements, the FAA plans to develop an 
alternative strategy for assignment of session ID to UAS operators. The 
FAA is retaining the concept that the session ID will be uniquely 
identifiable such that law enforcement and the FAA will be able to 
correlate each session ID to a specific unmanned aircraft serial 
number, but that this ability will not be publicly available. The FAA 
will consider existing policies, such as the Privacy ICAO Address (PIA) 
program for aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out, when developing the 
session ID policy.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters expressed support for the session ID 
concept to protect the privacy of operations while deterring 
irresponsible operators. Pierce Aerospace recommended a unique session 
ID be created by default to protect privacy. Qualcomm and Streamline 
Designs both supported session IDs assigned by a Remote ID USS but 
suggested permitting the operator to cycle through a set of temporary 
IDs or have a session ID assigned with a time limit rather than 
requiring a unique session ID for each flight, to minimize the burden 
of assigning unique identifiers for short flights typical of many UAS.
    Kittyhawk supported the concept of assigning a session ID, and 
submitted survey data showing the importance of privacy for the 
majority of those pilots surveyed. Sky Eye Network recommended 
permitting the session ID option without an additional charge for 
operators due to the required Remote ID USS subscription to receive a 
session ID. The News Media Coalition supported the session ID concept 
to protect the privacy of journalists operating UAS, but was concerned 
about how to generate a unique session ID when operating in an area 
with no internet availability.
    Some commenters, including the New Hampshire Department of 
Transportation and Unifly, suggested permitting registration numbers to 
be broadcast or transmitted for aircraft identification as well as 
serial numbers or session ID while controlling access to the UAS and 
pilot registration database, similar to vehicle license plates and 
current manned aircraft requirements. Unifly also noted that this would 
be consistent with European Regulation 2019/945 and the ASTM F3411-19 
Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking.
    One commenter was concerned about the requirement to broadcast or 
transmit the serial number as it may be difficult to keep the same 
serial number due to quality control issues in the event of major 
repairs to the UAS, such as repairs to the UAS or control station 
transmitters, or other parts.

[[Page 4418]]

    AiRXOS and Motorola supported the session ID concept for most 
missions, but further recommended developing a ``trusted user'' process 
to allow law enforcement to flag missions for which Remote ID USS 
should not provide information to the general public. The Alabama 
Department of Transportation and the District of Columbia office of the 
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice commented that while session 
ID offers privacy to the UAS operator, it could be a hindrance for 
identification that unscrupulous operators may exploit, which may 
negate the security benefit.
    Airlines for America (A4A) opposed the option for Remote ID USS to 
issue and assign session IDs. A4A thought session ID was not justified, 
stating that the combination of session ID and the UAS pilot being at a 
different location than the UAS provided additional privacy for UAS 
operators than other airspace users, which may be a disincentive to 
safe operating practices. Several other commenters suggested that the 
Session ID option could reduce accountability and inadvertently 
increase unsafe and irresponsible operations due to the added privacy.
    The American Civil Liberties Union noted that session ID will not 
shield individuals from tracking by the government but will likely 
shield corporate operators from public scrutiny by removing public 
ability to track a UAS across multiple flight sessions. They suggested 
permitting session ID for individuals but not commercial operators, and 
that government UAS be subject to a higher level of scrutiny and 
disclosure. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggested 
the FAA avoid session IDs to reduce potential UAS identification 
problems for the public and ensure that UAS identity is not masked.
    FAA Response: Many commenters provided suggestions on how to 
implement the session ID concept, including cost models, how operators 
could use a session ID, or how Remote ID USS could issue them. The FAA 
finds that the performance-based requirements allow the unmanned 
aircraft community to innovate and find the solutions that work best 
but still meet the safety and security objectives of the rule.
    Some commenters suggested the registration number also be allowed 
as a UAS Identification message element. The addition of the 
registration number would likely require operator input and be 
susceptible to misuse, omission, or errors, and would require 
validation by an external system and require the external system to 
have access to registration information, which would create privacy and 
security concerns. As noted by a commenter, sharing of the registration 
data might lead others to misuse that information. Hence, the FAA finds 
that adding the registration number to the identification message 
element does not provide enough benefits to warrant the added 
complexity and potential for misuse of its addition.
    An individual commenter noted the difficulty of having the unmanned 
aircraft and control station both transmit the same serial number if a 
repair was needed that necessitated the remote identification equipment 
of one element needing replacement. The FAA expects that standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft will incorporate remote 
identification equipment that is highly integrated into the various 
unmanned aircraft components. Therefore, such repair actions would be 
undertaken by a specialist or someone trained by the manufacturer and 
that person would be capable of ensuring the proper functionality of 
the remote identification equipment post repair.
    The FAA agrees with many commenters that the session ID option 
strikes a balance between protecting the privacy of individual 
operations while still deterring irresponsible operators. The public 
can use remote identification messages with a session ID to report 
suspicious UAS operations to law enforcement, and law enforcement can, 
in coordination with the FAA, establish the identity of the responsible 
persons. The FAA agrees with commenters that session IDs must be 
traceable to enable the FAA and authorized entities to know the 
corresponding unmanned aircraft serial number or registration number 
for each individual session ID. The FAA does not agree, however, that 
session ID be the default option, and instead finds that both session 
ID and the serial number are equally acceptable. Thus, industry and 
individual operators are free to choose the option that best meets 
their needs.
    The FAA proposed that a session ID would be assigned by a Remote ID 
USS. Because this rule does not retain the requirement for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft to have an internet connection 
to a Remote ID USS, the FAA plans to develop an alternative strategy 
for assignment of session ID to unmanned aircraft operators. The FAA 
will consider existing policies, such as the Privacy ICAO Address (PIA) 
program for aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out, when developing the 
session ID policy. Pursuant to the Department of Transportation's 
procedures regarding significant guidance documents,\20\ FAA will seek 
public comment on the session ID policy prior to finalizing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 49 CFR 5.41(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. An Indication of the Control Station's Latitude and Longitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS broadcast 
and transmit to a Remote ID USS the latitude and longitude of its 
control station. The FAA did not propose a specific type of position 
source used to determine this information, to allow the greatest 
flexibility to designers and producers of UAS. The FAA proposed to 
require that the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS be 
co-located with the control station; therefore, knowing the control 
station location would also provide the location of the person 
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. This message element would 
be used by the FAA and authorized entities to locate the UAS operator 
when necessary for the safety, security, or efficiency of aircraft 
operations in the airspace of the United States. The FAA adopts this 
message element as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: A significant number of commenters, representing manned 
and unmanned aviation, manufacturers, users of unmanned aircraft, some 
State and local law enforcement agencies, and numerous individuals 
opposed the proposed requirement to provide the location of the control 
station to the public and cited a number of reasons including ensuring 
the safety of the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. 
Commenters expressed concerns about the privacy of their operations and 
that this information could increase the dangers for UAS operators and 
their property potentially resulting in assault, home invasion, and 
theft of their UAS and other equipment. Other commenters who opposed 
providing the ground control station location provided examples of 
confrontations, threats (including threats with firearms), and assaults 
that they or others have received during operations or referenced media 
reports of incidents involving confrontations, assaults of UAS 
operators, and people shooting at unmanned aircraft if their location 
becomes public. Many of these commenters supported the FAA and properly 
authorized law enforcement or government agencies gaining access to 
control station location information, but were concerned that making 
this

[[Page 4419]]

information available to the public would increase the danger for UAS 
operators and their property. See section X of this preamble for a 
discussion of privacy issues raised by commenters, and section XI of 
this preamble for a discussion of law enforcement access to remote 
identification information.
    Commenters suggested that requiring the control station location 
would reduce the compliance rate. Others expressed concern for the 
safety of UAS operations if the remote pilot in command is distracted 
due to questions or a confrontation from a member of the public who has 
tracked the pilot using control station location information. 
Commenters noted that public availability of control station location 
information is contrary to current practices for manned aircraft 
pilots, such as locked cockpit doors as well as takeoffs and landings 
that occur at secure locations on airport property.
    Many commenters suggested that instead of making the control 
station location publicly available, issues regarding UAS operations 
are best addressed by noting the session ID or operator ID and 
contacting appropriate law enforcement agencies who can use that 
information to initiate an investigation. Many commenters suggested 
that the location of the control station should be encrypted and 
available only to the FAA and law enforcement but not to the general 
public, or location data should be degraded or obfuscated if the 
general public is permitted access. Several commenters were concerned 
about the safety of UAS operators and other support staff engaged in 
law enforcement or emergency management operations, and asked the FAA 
to justify the safety or security reason for the public to have access 
to the control station location. Many commenters referenced the UAS 
Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAS-ID ARC) 
recommendation that only the unmanned aircraft unique identifier should 
be available to the public and asked the FAA to explain why that 
recommendation was discarded.
    Some commenters referred to the ASTM F3411-19 Standard 
Specification for Remote ID and Tracking, which supports making control 
station location available only to authorized users and permits the use 
of takeoff location in lieu of control station location. Others 
referenced international standards with similar requirements. Ax 
Enterprize suggested that UAS operator contact information is generally 
preferable to control station location information.
    Several commenters expressed alternatives for providing the 
location of the control station. Instead of providing the control 
station location as proposed, Digital Aerolus recommended requiring the 
location of the control station ``when available'' to permit UAS 
operations in areas of poor GPS coverage, such as indoors, underground, 
or under bridges. Qualcomm suggested masking the control station 
location or assigning a separate session ID to the control station, so 
that this information is only available to the Remote ID USS, FAA, and 
law enforcement. The North Carolina Department of Transportation 
commented that control station location information should be available 
not only to law enforcement, but also to other first responders so UAS 
interference can be addressed quickly in emergency response situations 
such as hurricanes.
    The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International broadly 
supported making operator location publicly available but suggested the 
FAA consider ways to protect this potentially private or confidential 
information, such as an opt-out or a trusted operator status that would 
only reveal the location to law enforcement and government agencies.
    FAA Response: While many commenters from a variety of backgrounds 
opposed the requirement to share the control station location publicly, 
the FAA finds that the requirement, as proposed, is necessary to meet 
the core objectives of this rulemaking effort to promote the safety and 
efficiency of the airspace of the United States. The inclusion of the 
control station location enables the remote identification message to 
create a direct link between an unmanned aircraft and its operator; 
promoting the accountability inherent in manned aviation. Some 
commenters raised the issue that the availability of this information 
could put remote pilots at greater risk of assault, theft, or other 
crimes. Though the FAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by 
commenters regarding personal safety, the FAA emphasizes that there are 
rules against interfering with an aircraft. The FAA finds that removal 
of the proposed requirement is not the appropriate solution, rather 
community outreach and other precautions are better suited to tackle 
these issues. Some commenters noted that sharing of the control station 
location is counter to the current practice of locking aircraft doors; 
however, the FAA finds that the analogous and appropriate practice 
would be to operate from a secure or restricted access location as 
necessary.
    Many commenters suggested the FAA modify the proposed regulation to 
allow for the control station location to only be available to specific 
entities such as the FAA and law enforcement. Though some commenters 
suggested using encryption techniques to accomplish this, the FAA finds 
that implementation of such a nuanced requirement would be highly 
complex, costly, and impractical. The FAA does not intend to limit who 
can receive the broadcast messages, and allowing encryption of certain 
message elements would limit who can receive the broadcast messages 
only to those with the capability to decrypt the messages. Allowing 
encryption is inconsistent with the FAA's policy that the remote 
identification message elements should be publicly available 
information. Further, as some commenters suggested, different 
situations may necessitate certain emergency responders or other 
individuals to make contact with a remote pilot. In these situations, a 
privacy or encryption implementation may prohibit the on-scene 
individuals from having the critically needed information. In addition, 
an encryption requirement would present technical challenges leading to 
increased cost and complexity. For example, encryption key management 
could require standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, 
broadcast modules, and authorized receivers to have internet 
connectivity and specialized software, increasing the cost of this rule 
and potentially creating cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Therefore, the 
FAA adopts the control station location requirement as proposed.
    The FAA acknowledges that location sensors such as GPS systems have 
physical limitations such as not being operational in certain urban 
environments. While some intermittent loss of position data is 
acceptable, this rule is being finalized in a performance-based manner 
and the FAA expects that industry will use a variety of inputs (such as 
GPS and cellular signals) to estimate position such that the unmanned 
aircraft is able to generate the complete remote identification message 
in its intended operating environment.
    The FAA acknowledges that the UAS industry is rapidly evolving and 
that unmanned aircraft are controlled using a multitude of methods. The 
FAA, however, continues to require all unmanned aircraft operating in 
the airspace of the United States be controllable by a responsible 
person or remote pilot. Therefore, the FAA adopts this rule in a 
performance-based manner that allows industry to innovate and use

[[Page 4420]]

the appropriate solution that meets the requirements, yet is adapted to 
the control scheme of the particular unmanned aircraft. If the person 
is controlling the flight through non-physical flight controls, then 
that person's location would be used as the control station location. 
For example, if the UAS utilizes a wrist device, then the location of 
the wrist device could be used as the control station location. For 
camera tracking technologies, the unmanned aircraft could use its own 
location estimate plus the same tracking system to calculate the 
location of the remote pilot.
3. An Indication of the Control Station's Altitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS have an 
indication of the control station's barometric pressure altitude, 
referenced to standard sea level pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury or 
1013.2 hectopascals. This information can be used to approximate the 
control station's height above ground level. Understanding height above 
ground level is necessary to help locate an operator in circumstances 
under which the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS is 
not at ground level, such as a person operating a UAS from the roof of 
a building.
    In the NPRM, the FAA considered and rejected a requirement to 
indicate the control station's geometric altitude, which is a measure 
of altitude provided by GPS that is not affected by atmospheric 
pressure. The FAA stated that barometric pressure altitude is a more 
precise measurement than geometric altitude and is the standard 
altitude reference for aviation. The FAA requested comments regarding 
whether both barometric pressure altitude and geometric altitude of the 
control station should be part of the remote identification message 
elements.
    After considering comments and engaging in further analysis, the 
FAA is finalizing the requirement that standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft include an indication of control station altitude as 
a required message element, but replaces the requirement to indicate 
barometric pressure altitude with geometric altitude. There are several 
reasons for this change from the proposal. First, barometric pressure 
sensors are not as common on unmanned aircraft control stations as GPS-
based altitude sensors, and they also require more calibration, 
testing, and maintenance. Second, geometric altitude is more compatible 
with the GPS technologies integrated into smart devices, which are 
often used as the control station for recreational unmanned aircraft. 
Third, a performance-based geometric altitude requirement allows 
industry to use the right combination of technologies to produce a 
sufficiently accurate altitude estimate for the intended environment. 
The FAA expects that UAS will use GPS to determine geometric altitude 
measured as height above ellipsoid referenced to the WGS-84 datum. The 
FAA also anticipates UAS could utilize cellular and other signals to 
complement the GPS signal and provide for a robust solution.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Several commenters suggested that control station location provides 
sufficient detail and that identifying altitude is unnecessary and 
could render many devices such as tablets and cell phones obsolete for 
use as a control station. Other commenters supported the need to 
understand whether an operator is on the ground or on the roof.
    Many commenters recommended that control station barometric 
altitude not be a required message element because many control 
stations do not have the capability to report this information 
accurately and compliance will be difficult and costly. UAS Colorado 
and Wing Aviation also noted the lack of available barometric pressure 
settings to adjust a sensitive altimeter as well as stating that this 
capability does not exist for UAS ground stations.
    Many commenters recommended using geometric altitude for control 
stations, suggesting that it would be of greater usefulness, 
reliability, and less technically complex to integrate into UAS. One 
commenter suggested that barometric altitude is appropriate because 
geometric altitude may encounter difficulties with coverage and 
multipath errors in urban areas or areas with rising terrain or other 
obstacles.
    Some commenters suggested requiring geometric altitude while 
permitting but not requiring barometric pressure altitude. Others 
suggesting permitting one or the other, while others recommended 
requiring both. Several commenters recommended a performance-based 
altitude requirement rather than specifying either barometric or 
geometric. Others recommended different requirements depending on 
whether the operation was for recreational or commercial purposes. One 
commenter suggested permitting use of the barometric pressure altitude 
of the unmanned aircraft at takeoff as a substitute to providing real 
time barometric pressure altitude.
    FAA Response: After reviewing public comments and giving further 
consideration, the FAA adopts this message element to require geometric 
altitude for the control station instead of barometric pressure 
altitude, for the reasons described above.
    The FAA declines to require both barometric pressure and geometric 
altitude as there are no significant benefits associated with such a 
requirement. Geometric altitude alone is sufficient to meet the safety 
and security needs being addressed by this rule. Further, requiring 
both forms of altitude indications would necessitate additional 
equipment, testing, and maintenance that would increase UAS costs. 
Also, the FAA declines to use the take-off altitude instead of the 
control station altitude as standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft will already have a means to indicate the control station 
latitude and longitude. The FAA expects that providing an indication of 
the control station geometric altitude will not add significant cost or 
complexity to the remote identification equipment, and provides a 
substantially higher safety and security benefit, especially in urban 
areas.
4. An Indication of the Unmanned Aircraft's Latitude and Longitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS provide 
the position of the unmanned aircraft using its latitude and longitude, 
which could be derived from a position source, such as a GPS receiver. 
The purpose of this message element is to associate a specific unmanned 
aircraft with its associated control station position. It would also be 
used to provide situational awareness to other aircraft, both manned 
and unmanned, operating nearby.
    The FAA adopts this message element as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters, including commenters from manned and 
unmanned aviation, manufacturers, users of unmanned aircraft, some 
State and local law enforcement agencies, and numerous individuals 
opposed the proposed requirement to provide the location of the 
unmanned aircraft to the public. Commenters expressed concerns about 
the privacy of their operations and that this information could 
increase the dangers for UAS operators and their property potentially 
resulting in assault, home invasion, and theft of their UAS and other 
equipment. Other commenters

[[Page 4421]]

who opposed providing the unmanned aircraft location provided examples 
of confrontations, threats (including threats with firearms), and 
assaults that they or others have received during operations or 
referenced media reports of incidents involving confrontations, 
assaults of UAS operators, and people shooting at unmanned aircraft if 
their location becomes public. Robotic Research opposed the requirement 
to share unmanned aircraft location, and stated they cannot publicly 
broadcast the position of their unmanned aircraft due to the 
sensitivity of their platforms and missions.
    Instead of making the unmanned aircraft location public, many 
commenters, suggested the public should only have access to the UAS 
session ID or other identification to support reporting unsafe 
operations to the appropriate authorities. Some of these commenters 
suggested, if unmanned aircraft location is available to the public, it 
should be an approximated or obfuscated location and only available 
within a limited distance of the public requestor. Other commenters 
suggested using technology to limit the information available to the 
public. The Experimental Aircraft Association recommended permitting 
operators to opt-out of providing remote identification data accessible 
to the public if that data is only needed by the FAA and law 
enforcement.
    Many commenters agreed that FAA, law enforcement, and other 
appropriate government agencies, including first responders should have 
access to unmanned aircraft location information. A few commenters 
noted that this proposed requirement would be similar to making airline 
information available. Some commenters supported sharing unmanned 
aircraft location information even if they are concerned about public 
access to control station location.
    Airbus UTM and the Electronic Privacy Information Center 
recommended standardizing message formats for standard and limited 
remote identification UAS by requiring unmanned aircraft location 
information, to support better identification and operational 
capabilities. Pierce Aerospace recommended requiring unmanned aircraft 
and control station location for standard remote identification UAS, 
though they suggested an exception for amateur and recreational 
operations that abide by a volume-based UTM capability.
    Many commenters stated transmitting unmanned aircraft location 
information would be burdensome because most model aircraft are not 
equipped with GPS or other navigation equipment and there are not many 
solutions currently available.
    Commenters expressed concern about how this would affect indoor UAS 
operations, noting that GPS is not available or reliable indoors, and 
that these activities are not currently regulated but will become 
regulated by default, because new commercially built unmanned aircraft 
would be prohibited from flight, even indoors, by the manufacturing 
regulations proposed. American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers 
were concerned this proposed requirement would eliminate unmanned 
aircraft tank inspections, which is one of the best use cases for UAS 
in the oil and gas industry.
    Other commenters expressed concern about the effect of this 
requirement on operations that take place in locations with limited 
GPS. Digital Aerolus recommended requiring the location of the unmanned 
aircraft ``when available'' to permit UAS operations in areas of poor 
GPS coverage, such as indoors, underground, or under bridges. A 
commenter recommended either permitting transmission of the last known 
unmanned aircraft location or operator location, permitting operators 
to manually specify they are indoors to override the remote 
identification requirement when GPS is not available.
    FAA Response: Though many commenters opposed the inclusion of the 
unmanned aircraft location message element due to privacy and safety 
concerns, the FAA finds this message element is a foundational part of 
remote identification. By including this message element, the remote 
identification message allows the FAA, law enforcement, and the public 
to have awareness of unmanned aircraft operations and correlate the 
location of unmanned aircraft with the location of their respective 
operators. The availability of this information will promote 
accountability and trust in the unmanned aircraft community overall. 
Further, remote identification in combination with community outreach 
will foster a better public understanding of the important role 
unmanned aircraft play in the economy and society overall. Some 
commenters raised the issue that the availability of this information 
could put remote pilots at greater risk of assault, theft, or other 
crimes. As noted previously, though the FAA acknowledges the concerns 
expressed by commenters regarding personal safety and the marginal risk 
created by broadcasting a control station's location, the FAA 
emphasizes that there are statutory prohibitions against interfering 
with an aircraft. Additionally, there are local, State, and Federal 
laws against assault, theft, and other crimes.
    Many commenters suggested that this message element should only be 
available to specific entities and not be publicly available, but the 
FAA finds this would adversely impact the intended transparency of 
remote identification information and the effectiveness of this rule. 
The public availability of the unmanned aircraft location as well as 
all the other message elements allows persons to associate each element 
of the unmanned aircraft and control station with a unique identifier. 
The FAA notes that the broadcast range of remote identification 
information will have a finite limit based on signal strength 
limitations for unlicensed devices.
    The FAA agrees with the comments that supported the inclusion of 
this message element and found the sharing of the unmanned aircraft 
location is similar to how airlines and other pilots share their 
aircraft locations publicly through ADS-B Out broadcasts. The FAA 
further agrees with these commenters that the accountability, safety, 
and security benefits exceed the suggested privacy impacts.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenters who suggested that 
inclusion of this message element would hinder their ability to fly 
unmanned aircraft indoors or in specific outdoor environments due to 
lack of GPS coverage. The FAA expects that there will be a variety of 
ways for industry to implement the requirement to indicate the unmanned 
aircraft's latitude and longitude under different environmental 
conditions, including when a position source such as GPS, is 
unavailable. For example, when position information is not available, a 
means of compliance may specify that the remote identification 
equipment broadcast all zeros for the indication of latitude and 
longitude to show that the position is unknown. This would allow an 
unmanned aircraft to take off even when position information is 
unavailable. These design options will be described in each FAA-
accepted means of compliance. Because of this flexibility, the FAA does 
not consider that this message element will negatively impact 
operations indoors. In addition, for unmanned aircraft intended to 
routinely operate in areas where there is no GPS coverage, operators 
may choose to use an unmanned aircraft that relies on a position source 
other than GPS. The FAA declines to include a requirement where the 
unmanned aircraft only broadcasts the message element of latitude and 
longitude when the

[[Page 4422]]

position source is ``available.'' The location of the unmanned aircraft 
is an essential element of remote identification, and the FAA considers 
that the addition of this language would add unnecessary design 
complexity and uncertainty over whether the unmanned aircraft was 
required to broadcast the position information. However, as noted 
previously, the FAA would consider means of compliance that include a 
standardized message for when that position source is unavailable.
    The applicability of this rule does not extend to unmanned aircraft 
manufactured solely for indoor use. Further, the FAA adopts this 
requirement using a performance-based approach that allows industry to 
use technologies best suited for the intended environment. Location 
estimation can be done using GPS in combination with cellular and other 
signals to work in a greater number of urban and even indoor 
environments. Smart device manufacturers commonly employ these 
techniques. The FAA thus finds that the inclusion of this message 
element will not significantly hinder the ability for people to conduct 
operations in areas with poor GPS coverage.
5. An Indication of the Unmanned Aircraft's Altitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require standard remote identification UAS 
indicate the unmanned aircraft's barometric pressure altitude 
referenced to standard sea level pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury or 
1013.2 hectopascals. The purpose of this information would be to 
establish a standard altitude reference for UAS operating in the 
airspace of the United States. It can also be used to provide 
situational awareness to other aircraft, both manned and unmanned, 
operating nearby. As with control station altitude, the FAA requested 
comments on whether to require barometric pressure or geometric 
altitude.
    After considering comments and engaging in further analysis, the 
FAA adopts the requirement that standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft include an indication of the unmanned aircraft's altitude as a 
required message element. As with the message element indicating 
control station altitude, the FAA replaces the requirement to indicate 
barometric pressure altitude with geometric altitude. This change is 
made for the same reasons explained in the discussion of control 
station altitude message elements, above.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Commenters provided many of the same comments for 
unmanned aircraft altitude as they did for control station altitude, 
including support for barometric, geometric, either barometric or 
geometric, both barometric and geometric, and neither. Airbus UTM 
agreed with the use of barometric rather than geometric altitude, 
because barometry is how altitude is typically defined in the airspace 
of the United States today, and the control station, Remote ID USS, or 
other service provider will be able to make adjustments based on 
locally reported barometric pressure to make more accurate comparisons 
to manned aircraft. One other commenter suggested that barometric 
altitude is more appropriate than geometric altitude, which may 
encounter difficulties with coverage and multipath errors in urban 
areas or areas with rising terrain or other obstacles.
    Several commenters, including AirMap, suggested that geometric or 
GPS altitude be required instead of barometric pressure altitude. 
Commenters suggested that barometric pressure altitude should not be 
required or should be optional. The Small UAV Coalition and Streamline 
Designs suggested that FAA should not require unmanned aircraft 
barometric pressure altitude because most unmanned aircraft use 
geometric altitude almost exclusively, and many unmanned aircraft do 
not have barometric pressure altitude capability so compliance will be 
difficult and costly. ANRA Technologies noted that many unmanned 
aircraft use geometric altitude as their primary reference and 
suggested that should be the requirement, with barometric pressure 
altitude as an optional element. Because remote identification is not 
being used to ensure aircraft separation, Amazon Prime Air commented 
that permitting geometric altitude for standard remote identification 
UAS would not negatively impact safety or accountability, and would 
improve compliance by leveraging current designs in smart phones and 
other equipment with GPS receivers.
    The Virginia Tech Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership recommended 
using geometric altitude instead of barometric pressure altitude due to 
errors in static pressure systems, complexity of adding those to the 
unmanned aircraft, and lack of critical need when remote identification 
is not intended for navigation or deconfliction. Another commenter 
asked the FAA not to require new sensors that would add more weight or 
require more power for the UAS, such as barometric sensors or a 
coordinated universal time clock, when similar information is already 
provided on UAS that have navigation and telemetry information.
    Airlines for America and AiRXOS recommended requiring both the 
barometric and the geometric altitude to provide redundancy and better 
ensure safe separation of unmanned and manned aircraft; one commenter 
noted that manned aircraft use both barometric and geometric altitude, 
so these elements should be transmitted if the unmanned aircraft is 
capable. Wingcopter recommended using barometric altitude as the main 
information source but also using geometric altitude for comparison and 
error detection, especially to provide a higher level of safety for 
higher risk operations.
    A commenter from the Johns Hopkins University noted that ground 
users, such as law enforcement, will need remote identification 
altitude information presented in a different format because they may 
not be experienced with barometric pressure altitudes. They recommended 
the FAA require transmission of both barometric and geometric altitude 
as well as a containment value and probability of exceedance, which 
could be met by fusing altitude and position data from multiple 
sources.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters that supported 
using geometric altitude instead of barometric pressure altitude for 
the unmanned aircraft. The FAA believes that an indication of the 
unmanned aircraft geometric altitude provides sufficient information to 
meet the safety and accountability goals of remote identification. 
Further, the FAA agrees that barometric altimetry equipment is less 
prevalent than GPS-based geometric altimetry in UAS and could add 
unnecessary complexity both in integration as well as operation. To 
align with the change from barometric pressure altitude to geometric 
altitude for the control station altitude message element, the FAA 
adopts a requirement to indicate the geometric altitude of the unmanned 
aircraft rather than the barometric pressure altitude.
    The FAA declines to require both geometric and barometric altitude 
reporting because geometric altitude alone meets the safety and 
security needs for this rule. While both forms of altitude reporting 
would add a layer of redundancy, the additional cost and complexity is 
not warranted for the core intended functions of remote identification 
information.

[[Page 4423]]

    The FAA agrees with a performance-based requirement that is 
technology agnostic. The FAA envisions that industry could meet the 
altitude requirement by using a variety of technologies and signals 
including GPS and cellular, and still report geometric altitude using a 
common reference frame.
    The FAA acknowledges that users of remote identification 
information such as law enforcement may not be experienced with 
different types of altitude reporting. The FAA envisions that 
standardized software would be available to these users to display the 
data in an easy to understand format that suits their unique needs. The 
FAA also finds that the requirements are sufficient to ensure 
standardized reporting by UAS in a manner that is processed by software 
to support display applications.
6. Time Mark
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require a time mark identifying the Coordinated 
Universal Time (UTC) time of applicability of a position source output. 
A position source output is the latitude and longitude coordinates of 
the unmanned aircraft or control station, as applicable. The time of 
applicability is a record of the UTC time when the unmanned aircraft or 
control station was at a particular set of coordinates. The FAA adopts 
this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: No commenters objected to the FAA proposal to require a 
time mark as a remote identification message element. The Small UAV 
Coalition agreed with the requirement for a time mark. Digital Aerolus 
noted that internal UAS systems will gradually lose synchronization 
when location services are not available, and recommended updating the 
requirements to reflect this possibility by adding ``when location 
services are available'' or similar language. Unifly recommended 
permitting external ``add-on'' equipment such as a remote 
identification module that provides remote identification, GNSS, and 
time information.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that synchronization may be a problem 
when location services are not available but finds that this situation 
would not be a limiting factor to the generation of remote 
identification messages because the message also includes location 
information. The FAA adopts the requirement as proposed.
7. An Indication of the Emergency Status of the UAS
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require standard remote identification UAS to 
include a message element that specifies a code indicating the 
emergency status, which could include lost-link, downed aircraft, or 
other abnormal status of the UAS. The FAA adopts this requirement as 
proposed.
    The FAA anticipates that an industry standard for remote 
identification would specify the different emergency codes applicable 
to unmanned aircraft affected by this rule. This message element could 
be initiated manually by the person manipulating the flight controls of 
the UAS or automatically by the UAS, depending on the nature of the 
emergency and the UAS capabilities. The purpose of this message element 
would alert others that the UAS is experiencing an emergency condition 
and would indicate the type of emergency.
    The FAA expects that this message element may provide an indication 
of UAS that are lost-link, are in a low battery or low fuel state, or 
are in other off-nominal or failure modes that might result in 
unexpected behaviors that other airspace users or people in the 
vicinity would benefit from knowing. The FAA anticipates that the 
emergency status indication would be used by display applications 
available to pilots and the general public to indicate when a UAS is 
experiencing an off-nominal event, such as lost-link, that may not be 
clear by visual observation alone.
    The FAA envisions that industry, through consensus standards 
bodies, will develop and incorporate specific implementations of the 
message element into a means of compliance that balances utility, 
safety, and privacy.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: One commenter supported sharing the emergency status of 
the UAS as proposed. Another commented recommended removing this 
requirement, questioning its utility. Other commenters requested that 
the requirement be explained in greater detail and specificity. Wing 
Aviation suggested UAS not be required to transmit non-critical, off-
nominal conditions that do not affect compliance or security, and 
recommended amending the requirement to ``critical emergency status.'' 
Theia recommended that the emergency status of a downed UAS should not 
be shared with the public because of the safety and security risks.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the request for greater 
specificity regarding what types of off-nominal situations should be 
included in the emergency status indication, but the FAA believes that 
the UAS industry is in the best position to determine this criteria, 
and any specificity provided by the FAA at this time may not provide 
flexibility for future changes as UAS technology evolves. As such, the 
FAA adopts the requirement as proposed without requiring any specific 
implementation.
8. Velocity
    In the NPRM, the FAA asked for public comments on whether standard 
remote identification UAS should broadcast other message elements. A 
number of commenters recommended requiring speed or velocity as 
required message elements.
    After reviewing these comments and further consideration, the FAA 
decided to require velocity as an additional message element for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. By adding an 
indication of the unmanned aircraft's velocity, the remote 
identification message set will better align with existing remote 
identification standards, such as ASTM F3411-19 and international 
implementations, as well as provide a complete description of an 
unmanned aircraft's state to the FAA, law enforcement, and the public. 
The FAA envisions that the velocity message element would be a three-
dimensional vector that conveys horizontal and vertical speed, as well 
as the direction of movement of the aircraft. The FAA notes that the 
velocity message element, when used to display unmanned aircraft flight 
information, includes both speed and direction information. The FAA is 
not prescribing specific requirements for UAS velocity, and expects 
this message element to be incorporated into a means of compliance 
which will be reviewed and evaluated as a part of the acceptance 
process.
9. Other Message Elements
    As stated above, in the NPRM, the FAA asked for public comments on 
whether standard remote identification UAS should broadcast other 
message elements. As described below, the FAA received a number of 
comments on different message elements that could be included. After 
review and careful consideration, the FAA determined that, except for 
velocity (described above), the FAA would not adopt requirements for 
additional message elements.
    Comments: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab supported 
the concept of a common message structure

[[Page 4424]]

and recommended this be further applied to Remote ID USS as well, to 
ensure that UAS are not compatible with only one Remote ID USS. One 
commenter agreed that message elements other than those proposed did 
not yield enough benefit to necessitate recording and transmitting. 
Wing Aviation recommended that required message elements be aligned to 
the ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking to 
reflect established industry consensus, specifically mentioning 
barometric altitude and emergency status.
    A few commenters suggested requiring message elements to note if 
the remote pilot is part 107 certified, if the UAS is properly 
registered, and to add the LAANC approval code or COA identification. 
UPS Flight Forward suggested adding the direction of flight and mode of 
flight (manual, automated, autonomous) to the required message 
elements. The Stadium Managers Association also recommended adding 
message element(s) to help future-proof remote identification in the 
event of a UAS operating automatically or autonomously miles away from 
the control station, such as mode of flight, flight path, and intended 
destination. The Utah Department of Transportation recommended 
requiring speed, UAS attitude (pitch, roll, and yaw), and power status 
as a message element. The Air Line Pilots Association International, 
the Consumer Technology Association, the Port of Long Beach, and the 
Small UAV Coalition recommended requiring message elements reporting 
current velocity, direction, and route, such as magnetic course and 
ground speed, with the Small UAV Coalition noting that this would be 
consistent with remote identification proposals in the European Union. 
A few commenters suggested adding message elements for horizontal and 
vertical uncertainty estimates, and another suggested aircraft 
direction, speed, and vertical speed. Ax Enterprize suggested a message 
element to specify which Remote ID USS the UAS is connected to. SeeScan 
recommended requiring a detailed flight plan to be submitted to the 
Remote ID USS, including flight plan, name, certificate number, contact 
number, flight volume polygon, maximum altitude, nearest airport, date, 
time, and duration of flight.
    The National Association of State Aviation Officials recommended 
the creation of options that provide flight data including airspeed, 
altitude, directional tracking, and battery or fuel life status 
information.
    The American Association of Airport Executives suggested a message 
element to convey if the UAS has obtained an FAA airspace 
authorization. The Alabama Department of Transportation asked why LAANC 
authorizations and COA information were not included as message 
elements, believing that this information would help law enforcement 
and public safety agencies better differentiate illegal UAS operations 
from those with specific authorization to conduct operations in certain 
areas. Airports Council International-North America asked how UAS 
remote identification information would be fused with other critical 
UAS operational information, notably LAANC data, which would enable 
local authorities to determine whether UAS had received FAA approval to 
operate in the airspace where it is necessary.
    The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggested several 
message elements to better convey the characteristics of all UAS and 
their missions, such as surveillance capabilities (audio, infrared, 
thermal sensors) and UAS purpose (recreational, commercial, government) 
with further subcategories such as commercial-delivery, media, or 
infrastructure inspection.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that a common message structure is 
critical to the successful implementation of this rule. The FAA is 
committed to utilizing a performance-based approach to rulemaking where 
industry can develop and update means of compliance as needed.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters that suggested adding unmanned 
aircraft velocity as a required message element, for the reasons 
explained above. The FAA finds that the other message elements proposed 
by commenters, while valuable in specific situations, are not essential 
to meeting the safety and security needs being addressed by this rule. 
Some of the message elements proposed by commenters are better aligned 
with remote pilots sharing their flight intent. The FAA agrees that the 
sharing of flight intent is valuable in promoting the safety and 
efficiency of the airspace of the United States, but finds that such a 
requirement is appropriate to consider once UTM has been further 
developed and implemented. Flight intent is a foundational concept of 
UTM, and the FAA envisions such requirements may be a part of a future 
rulemaking to enable wide scale use of the UTM ecosystem.
    Some commenters suggested that FAA waiver and authorization 
information be included as a message element. The FAA declines to 
include this information for two reasons. First, part 89 applies to 
unmanned aircraft regardless of the operating rules that apply to the 
operation of that aircraft. Operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809 may not 
have any waiver or authorization information that would be applicable. 
In addition, requiring that this information be included would be 
technologically challenging because the remote identification 
capability is tied to the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module being 
used whereas waivers and authorizations are issued for a specific 
operation. An unmanned aircraft may be used for an operation that has 
been granted a waiver one day and then used under other circumstances 
in which the waiver would not apply. Similarly, airspace authorizations 
are granted for specific times and airspace and would be challenging to 
encode into the remote identification capability for either the 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or the remote 
identification broadcast module. Instead of requiring that this 
information be included in a remote identification transmission, the 
FAA envisions that authorized entities will be able to access this type 
of information through the FAA based on the unique identifier and other 
message elements included in the broadcast.

B. Minimum Performance Requirements for Standard Remote Identification 
Unmanned Aircraft

    The FAA proposed to require standard remote identification UAS to 
meet the minimum performance requirements established in proposed Sec.  
89.310 by using an FAA-accepted means of compliance. Those requirements 
related to the control station location, automatic connection to a 
Remote ID USS, time mark, self-testing and monitoring, tamper 
resistance, connectivity, error correction, interference 
considerations, message transmission, message element performance 
requirements, and cybersecurity.
    After reviewing public comments and further consideration, the FAA 
adopts these minimum performance requirements with some modifications 
to reflect, among other things, the elimination of Remote ID USS 
requirements. The FAA explains the adopted requirements, identifies 
changes from the NPRM, and responds to public comments in the following 
subsections.
1. Control Station Location
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require all UAS with remote identification to 
generate

[[Page 4425]]

and encode a control station location that corresponds to the location 
of the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. The 
rationale for this requirement is to assist the FAA and law enforcement 
to locate the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. The 
FAA intended for an FAA-accepted means of compliance to outline a 
process for UAS designers and producers to determine which part or 
element of the control station should be incorporated into the remote 
identification message due to its close proximity to the person 
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. The FAA adopts this 
requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Unmanned Systems Canada commented the requirement to 
encode the ground control station could be problematic for dual-pilot 
operations. This could conceivably require the installation of more 
than one remote identification device. Many commenters stated 
transmitting unmanned aircraft location information would be burdensome 
because most model aircraft are not equipped with GPS or other 
navigation equipment and there are not many solutions currently 
available. A few commenters stated there are gaps in GPS coverage that 
could prevent operators from complying with the requirement to provide 
control station information. An individual commenter suggested limiting 
the remote pilot in command to 100 feet of the takeoff point if the UAS 
cannot transmit control station location.
    FAA Response: While a small number of commenters noted the 
confusion that may arise with multiple operators of the same unmanned 
aircraft or multiple unmanned aircraft operating in a relatively small 
area, the FAA finds that the inclusion of a unique identifier, which is 
part of the remote identification message, is sufficient to prevent 
such confusion. The FAA did not find a need to make changes to this 
requirement and will adopt it as proposed.
    With respect to concerns regarding gaps in GPS coverage, the FAA 
acknowledges that location sensors such as GPS systems have physical 
limitations such as not being operational in certain urban 
environments. While some intermittent loss of position data is 
acceptable, the FAA adopts this rule in a performance-based manner and 
expects that industry will use a variety of inputs (such as GPS and 
cellular signals) to estimate position such that the UAS is able to 
generate the complete remote identification message in its intended 
operating environment.
    The FAA declines to specify conditions, such as remaining within 
100 feet of the take-off location, when standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft cannot broadcast an indication of the control station 
location. If the unmanned aircraft can no longer broadcast the message 
elements, the person operating the unmanned aircraft must land as soon 
as practicable.
2. Automatic Remote ID USS Connection
    The FAA proposed that from takeoff to landing, standard remote 
identification UAS would be required to maintain a connection to the 
internet automatically when available and would be required to transmit 
the message elements to a Remote ID USS through that connection. This 
minimum performance requirement is no longer applicable with the 
removal of the Remote ID USS connection requirements and has been 
removed.
3. Time Mark
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS would be 
required to generate and transmit remote identification messages with 
the time mark message element. The FAA proposed that the time mark 
message element be synchronized to the time when all other message 
elements are generated. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure 
that position and other data contained in remote identification 
messages would have a usable time reference for the purposes of 
reconstructing unmanned aircraft flight profiles. The FAA adopts this 
requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    The FAA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement.
4. Self-Testing and Monitoring
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require UAS with remote identification to test 
the remote identification functionality automatically when the UAS is 
powered on and to notify the person manipulating the flight controls of 
the UAS of the result of the test. Further, the FAA proposed to 
prohibit these UAS from taking off if the remote identification 
equipment is not fully functional. Because a person would only be 
allowed to operate a standard remote identification UAS if its remote 
identification equipment is functional, the FAA envisioned that UAS 
designers and producers would build a notification system to alert 
potential operators of any remote identification equipment-related 
malfunction. This notification requirement would help operators comply 
with the operating requirements of part 89.
    The FAA also proposed that the UAS be required to self-monitor the 
remote identification functionality continuously throughout the flight 
and provide notification of malfunction or failure to the person 
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. With this capability, the 
person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS can make informed 
decisions about what actions to take to minimize risk to other users of 
the airspace and people and property on the ground. This requirement is 
necessary because a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
would be required to land as soon as practicable if it loses broadcast 
capability in-flight.
    The FAA adopts this requirement with modifications. In the NPRM, 
the FAA proposed that the automatic test must occur when the UAS is 
powered on. This rule modifies the proposal to require the automatic 
self-test to occur prior to takeoff. The FAA believes this change 
provides greater flexibility to developers of means of compliance as 
well as UAS producers when meeting this requirement. In addition, the 
requirement to monitor the remote identification equipment 
functionality has been expanded from takeoff to landing to takeoff to 
shutdown to reflect the changes to the operating rules that require 
persons operating UAS with remote identification to broadcast the 
message elements from takeoff to shutdown, as discussed in section 
VII.E.2 of this preamble.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Even though this requirement only specified a 
notification for equipment that fails or malfunctions during flight, 
many commenters emphasized that it is appropriate to notify the 
operator that remote identification equipment is not working properly 
rather than to forcibly ground an unmanned aircraft by design. The 
University of California, Irvine recommended restricting UAS from 
takeoff by operational regulation instead of hardware regulation. 
Unifly noted that in the event of loss of broadcast capability, the 
person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS should be 
responsible to not take off. Ax Enterprize agreed that the monitoring 
function should notify the remote pilot if remote identification fails. 
The FPVFC suggested an equipment solution for an indicator system, and 
recommended

[[Page 4426]]

permitting the unmanned aircraft to be flown as a non-equipped UAS if 
the self-test failed.
    The Small UAV Coalition and one individual were concerned this 
requirement could add a potential failure point with possible loss of 
control during flight. In addition, they noted the proposed rule 
required remote identification equipment to be functional for any 
operation, even if that operation occurs within an FAA-recognized 
identification area. One individual suggested eliminating the 
requirement that UAS disable themselves under certain conditions, as it 
could introduce a hazardous situation if a UAS is performing multiple 
takeoffs and landings, as it would be required to detect a landing, 
check the internet connection, and prohibit takeoff if the connection 
is lost. This could cause a loss of power at a critical phase of 
flight.
    DJI Technology, Inc. commented on its view that the NPRM reflected 
a fundamental change in philosophy, specifically that Americans cannot 
be trusted to act responsibly or in compliance with regulations. In 
addition, they stated the requirement raises technical challenges 
regarding design, application, and upgrades. They also noted potential 
legal liability concerns with the shift of responsibilities from the 
pilot to the manufacturer.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that the requirements 
represent a fundamental shift of responsibility from the operator to 
the manufacturer. Rather, the two requirements are complementary. A 
failed self-test at start up would result in the operator being 
notified that the remote identification equipment is not functioning 
properly, and the unmanned aircraft would not be able to take off. 
Though this may introduce a possible failure point if the self-test 
feature produces errors, the FAA does not agree that this requirement 
could introduce a loss of control situation. The requirement would 
inhibit take-off in the event of a remote identification equipment 
failure, but not prohibit an operator from having control of the 
unmanned aircraft mid-flight given the same failure. This design 
feature will help operators fulfill their responsibility to not takeoff 
with malfunctioning or failed remote identification equipment. Overall, 
the FAA anticipates that the manufacturing and operator requirements 
will significantly reduce instances of UAS operating in the airspace of 
the United States without properly functioning remote identification 
equipment.
5. Tamper Resistance
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require that UAS with remote identification be 
designed and produced in a way that reduces the ability of a person to 
tamper with the remote identification functionality. The FAA envisioned 
the UAS would have tamper-resistant design features to hinder the 
ability to make unauthorized changes to the remote identification 
equipment or messages. The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters supported the inclusion of a tamper 
resistance requirement. Qualcomm Incorporated stated that a secure UAS 
should respond to a tamper event by noting the event and/or ceasing to 
operate. Airlines for America urged the FAA to include a provision to 
protect against deactivation of the remote identification system. Some 
commenters requested the FAA provide additional detail on tamper 
resistance requirements. Other commenters raised concerns about added 
weight and costs.
    Some commenters opposed including tamper resistance requirements. 
Several commenters raised concerns about how this requirement would 
affect repairs, hardware upgrades, or home-built UAS. Other commenters 
raised concerns that the requirement for a tamper resistance remote 
identification UAS will create a cybersecurity threat because many 
commercially available UAS are made in foreign countries such as China. 
They also suggested this requirement will make it difficult or 
impossible to assess any cybersecurity threat.
    FAA Response: Analysis of the comments regarding tamper resistance 
of the remote identification functionality found that while most 
commenters supported the requirement, a small number of commenters were 
against it. Several commenters favored the tamper resistance of the 
remote identification functionality, but argued that the requirement 
would result in UAS that could not be repaired, maintained, or receive 
hardware upgrades as this could constitute tampering with the UAS. This 
appears to be a misunderstanding, as only the remote identification 
equipment and functionality is covered by the tamper resistance 
requirement. Commenters opposed to the tamper resistance requirement 
mentioned additional weight or cost, while others speculated that 
tamper resistance may introduce a cybersecurity threat. The FAA does 
not agree with these assertions because the FAA considers this 
requirement to be performance-based. The FAA envisions industry will 
find ways to comply without increasing the weight or cost significantly 
(for example, anti-tamper stickers), or introducing additional 
cybersecurity or other threats.
6. Connectivity
    For standard remote identification UAS, the FAA proposed that the 
UAS would be designed to not take off unless it is connected to the 
internet and transmitting the message elements to a Remote ID USS if 
the internet was available. As a part of this proposal, a standard 
remote identification UAS would have to continuously monitor its 
connection to the internet and the transmission of remote 
identification message elements to a Remote ID USS. If either is lost, 
the UAS would have to notify the person manipulating the flight 
controls of the UAS so he or she may take appropriate action, such as 
landing as soon as practicable. As discussed above in section VII.A of 
this preamble, the requirement for the UAS to be designed to connect to 
the internet is not included in this rule. Accordingly, the requirement 
to monitor the connection to the internet is no longer necessary and is 
not included in this rule.
7. Error Correction
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require all UAS with remote identification 
equipment to incorporate error correction in the transmission and 
broadcast of the message elements. Error correction allows remote 
identification broadcast receivers, such as smart phones, and Remote ID 
USS to detect potential errors that may exist in the message and take 
the appropriate action. The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed, 
with a modification to remove references to transmitting message 
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Most commenters agreed with the error correction 
requirements with some requesting additional specificity. Some offered 
slight changes in semantics, but still supported the requirement. One 
commenter stated the NPRM confused two concepts from wireless 
communications engineering. The first is error correction, which 
encompasses techniques intended to increase the sensitivity of the 
receiver, and focuses on minimizing rather than detecting errors. The 
second is error detection, which includes techniques intended to detect 
when a message is

[[Page 4427]]

correctly received, and focuses on detecting rather than minimizing 
errors.
    FAA Response: The FAA declines to provide additional specificity 
regarding the error correction requirement because a performance-based 
requirement is appropriate to allow for flexibility in meeting this 
requirement as well as incorporating new techniques as technology 
evolves. Any specific error correction capabilities incorporated into a 
proposed means of compliance would be reviewed and evaluated as a part 
of the acceptance process.
    The FAA appreciates the comment that highlighted the differences 
between error correction and error detection techniques, and suggested 
the FAA may have confused the two concepts. The FAA confirms that 
``error correction'' was the intended minimum performance requirement 
in the NPRM and adopts this requirement.
8. Interference Considerations
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Consistent with FCC regulations, which include exempted devices 
under 47 CFR 15.103, the FAA proposed to prohibit the remote 
identification equipment used in standard remote identification UAS 
from causing harmful interference to other systems or equipment 
installed on the unmanned aircraft or control station. The FAA adopts 
this requirement as proposed.
    The design of the UAS must ensure that the broadcast remote 
identification equipment is independent of command and control 
interfaces. The FAA explained that, for example, the remote 
identification equipment could not cause harmful interference to the 
UAS command and control datalink and could not otherwise be in 
violation of FCC regulations. In addition, the remote identification 
equipment would not meet the requirements of this rule if its operation 
would be adversely affected by interference from other systems or 
equipment installed on the unmanned aircraft or control station, such 
as the UAS command and control datalink or a camera feed from the 
unmanned aircraft to a display at the control station. Therefore, the 
FAA expects that producers under subpart F will provide secure and 
reliable interfaces well protected from interference or attacks by 
malicious entities, and will validate minimum performance via the means 
of compliance acceptance process as well as through ongoing oversight, 
auditing, and monitoring of UAS producers that have an FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance.
    The FAA explained that a specific means of compliance may include 
requirements to use specific radio frequency emitters and receivers. 
The FAA envisioned that a proposed means of compliance could include an 
analysis of frequency congestion and interference considerations. The 
FAA did not propose a particular method by which interference 
considerations are identified or mitigated by designers or producers. 
Instead, the FAA would consider proposed methods for dealing with 
interference considerations and would verify that they are appropriate 
for the types of equipment and operations applicable to those means of 
compliance and do not run counter to any applicable regulations, 
including FCC regulations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FCC regulatory requirements are enforced by the FCC. It is 
the producer's responsibility to ensure that broadcast equipment 
meets all applicable FCC regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Commenters were generally supportive of this provision. 
One commenter suggested the FAA set the level of interference that 
rises to the level of `harmful.'
    FAA Response: As used in this rule, interference is considered 
harmful if it adversely affects a system's ability to operate safely. 
The FAA declines to specify a level of interference that would be 
considered ``harmful'' because different systems may be able to 
tolerate different levels of interference before their performance is 
adversely affected. Instead, FAA will allow developers of means of 
compliance to incorporate the appropriate interference requirements as 
needed. This approach is in line with the FAA's continued commitment to 
a performance-based rulemaking.
9. Message transmission
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS be capable 
of transmitting message elements through an internet connection to a 
Remote ID USS. In addition, the FAA proposed to require that standard 
remote identification UAS be capable of broadcasting the message 
elements using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and radio 
frequency spectrum compatible with personal wireless devices in 
accordance with 47 CFR part 15. The FAA envisioned that remote 
identification would be broadcast using spectrum similar to that used 
by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. The FAA did not, however, propose a 
specific frequency band. Rather, the FAA envisioned industry 
stakeholders would identify the appropriate spectrum to use for this 
capability and would propose solutions through the means of compliance 
acceptance process. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that 
the public has the capability, using existing commonly available and 47 
CFR part 15 compliant devices, such as cellular phones, smart devices, 
tablet computers, or laptop computers, to receive these broadcast 
messages.
    The FAA considered the conditions of operation, the general 
technical requirements, and the performance limitations associated with 
the use of 47 CFR part 15 devices and has determined that these 
conditions, requirements, and limitations would be acceptable and 
compatible with the proposed use and expected performance of the 
broadcast capability of standard remote identification UAS. The FAA 
acknowledged that, under FCC regulation, 47 CFR part 15 devices, 
including those used for the remote identification broadcast, may not 
cause harmful interference and must accept any interference received.
    To meet the proposed requirement of compatibility with personal 
wireless devices, the FAA explained that a means of compliance may take 
into consideration whether the remote identification capability would 
be compatible with current and older models of personal wireless 
devices still in common usage. The FAA intended the proposed 
requirement to ensure that the broadcast message from standard remote 
identification UAS would be accessible by most personal wireless 
devices in use.
    In addition, for standard remote identification UAS, the FAA 
proposed that the broadcast device use radio frequency spectrum in 
accordance with 47 CFR part 15 that is compatible with personal 
wireless devices and must be designed to maximize the range at which 
the broadcast can be received, while complying with the 47 CFR part 15 
and any other laws in effect as of the date the declaration of 
compliance is submitted for FAA acceptance, and must be integrated into 
the unmanned aircraft or control station without modification to its 
authorized radio frequency parameters. The purpose of this requirement 
is to ensure that producers use a means of compliance that specifies a 
broadcast technology or broadcast technology characteristics that 
maximize the broadcast range while still meeting the other minimum 
performance requirements under this rule. Maximizing the broadcast 
range would ensure that remote identification information would be 
available to the largest number of potential receiving

[[Page 4428]]

devices within the limits permitted by law.
    The FAA adopts the substance of this requirement as proposed, with 
modifications to reflect the removal of the network transmission 
requirement (see section VII.A of this preamble for a discussion of the 
removal of the network requirement). Accordingly, this rule changes the 
title of this requirement from ``message transmission'' to ``message 
broadcast'' in Sec.  89.310(g).
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The FAA received numerous comments on the use of radio 
frequency spectrum in accordance with 47 CFR part 15 for the remote 
identification broadcast, including recommendations to require or allow 
the use of licensed spectrum as well as establishing government-
allocated spectrum.
    Many commenters expressed concerns regarding the broadcasting 
requirement, noting potential radio frequency spectrum issues, 
including potential for interference with UAS systems and other 
systems. A number of commenters suggested using licensed instead of, or 
in addition to, unlicensed spectrum for a variety of reasons, including 
distance and reliability.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the use of part 15 devices 
for remote identification broadcasts may result in reduced distance and 
reliability as compared to solutions leveraging licensed spectrum. The 
FAA finds that such solutions, however, would necessitate specialized 
equipment to receive the broadcasts that would be incompatible with the 
concept of remote identification data being widely accessible to the 
public using existing smart devices.
    Comments: The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 
recommended the FAA confirm the broadcast identification concept is a 
local broadcast directly from the unmanned aircraft to receivers in 
physical proximity without a network requirement. CTIA--The Wireless 
Association also asked the FAA to consider requiring an interoperable 
encryption and authorization mechanism for all remote identification 
broadcasts, and to consider incorporating a 15 digit IMEI number as the 
ANSI standard serial number, which could support tracking lost or 
stolen UAS and registration within a central equipment identity 
register.
    FAA Response: The FAA reaffirms the remote identification broadcast 
requirement, as adopted, is a local broadcast that would be receivable 
to smart devices and other compatible receivers within a limited 
proximity to the aircraft.
    The FAA declines to include additional capabilities specifically to 
facilitate the tracking of lost or stolen UAS to the remote 
identification rules, but does acknowledge a limited capability might 
exist based on the rules as adopted. This use-case is not the focus of 
this rule, and any changes as suggested would be out of scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Comments: AERO Corporation supported the requirement to broadcast, 
and suggested a remote identification transponder similar to ADS-B Out.
    FAA Response: The FAA notes that broadcast equipment, while 
somewhat similar in general concept to ADS-B Out, is also different in 
many significant ways. Moreover, as detailed in section XVII of this 
preamble, ADS-B Out is not a form of remote identification.
    Comments: The Small UAV Coalition recommended removing the 
requirement for the broadcast device to be designed to maximize the 
range and replacing it with a performance-based requirement for minimum 
range for the intended operation.
    FAA Response: The FAA considered all comments regarding the use of 
licensed spectrum and determined that using unlicensed 47 CFR part 15 
frequencies is the most practical way to ensure interoperability and 
access to the greatest number of potential users.
    The FAA does not agree with the recommendation to remove the 
requirement that the broadcasting device be designed to maximize range, 
as removal of this requirement would allow systems to be designed that 
broadcast at short ranges that are incompatible with the objective of 
providing remote identification information to as many receivers as 
possible located nearby the unmanned aircraft. The method of compliance 
must address how it maximizes range for the applicable unmanned 
aircraft and expected operating environments.
10. Interoperability
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    To achieve interoperability among standard remote identification 
UAS that may be produced using different means of compliance, the FAA 
proposed that for standard remote identification UAS, a means of 
compliance must require that the message elements be broadcast using a 
non-proprietary specification for remote identification. For the 
broadcast to be interoperable with personal wireless devices, the 
message elements for standard remote identification UAS would have to 
be broadcast using a message format available to the public. The FAA 
explained that a known message format is necessary for the receiving 
personal wireless devices to decode the messages and make the message 
elements available for use by software applications on the receiving 
devices.
    The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Some commenters suggested using existing broadcast-based 
systems, such as Wi-Fi Aware or similar systems rather than network-
based systems. Others requested additional specificity. One commenter 
suggested that the FAA specify all aspects of the link, to include 
frequency, power, antenna patterns, modulation and data format. Other 
commenters were concerned that the interoperability requirement would 
limit the acceptable types of broadcast to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and that 
this could limit operational deployment in the short term. AiRXOS 
recommended an additional performance requirement related to 
interoperability. The Small UAV Coalition suggested that the rule make 
clear that message encryption is permitted.
    FAA Response: Interoperability for standard remote identification 
UAS and the requirement that the message elements be broadcast using a 
non-proprietary specification for remote identification are necessary 
for the receiving wireless devices to decode the messages and make the 
contents of the remote identification messages usable to the public. 
The FAA does not require a specific message format because the current 
performance-based requirement allows the UAS industry to collaborate 
and innovate to optimize the message format. As broadcast technologies 
evolve, the specified message format may need to evolve as well, and 
the requirement adopted in this rule allows for that without a need to 
update the regulations. In addition, reflecting the removal of the 
network transmission requirement, and to provide the necessary 
interoperability to ensure publicly receivable remote identification 
information, the FAA clarifies that encryption of the required message 
elements is not permitted.
11. Cybersecurity
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require all UAS with remote identification 
equipment to incorporate cybersecurity protections for the transmission 
and broadcast of the message elements, as appropriate.

[[Page 4429]]

The FAA did not propose any specific cybersecurity protection methods 
that would be required to be incorporated into an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance. Instead, the cybersecurity protection methods incorporated 
into a proposed means of compliance would be reviewed and evaluated as 
a part of the acceptance process.
    The proposed minimum performance requirement related to 
cybersecurity is removed from this rule because of the deletion of the 
requirement for standard remote identification UAS to connect to the 
internet and transmit information to a Remote ID USS. As discussed in 
the NPRM, the cybersecurity requirement applied to both the 
transmission and broadcast of the remote identification message 
elements, and the requirement to broadcast the remote identification 
messages is retained in this rule. However, the FAA believes that with 
the removal of the internet connectivity requirement, cybersecurity 
requirements for the broadcast functionality are no longer warranted.
    While this rule no longer requires standard remote identification 
UAS to have an internet connection for the purpose of remote 
identification, the FAA acknowledges that many UAS could have internet 
connection capabilities to support other design features or 
capabilities not related to remote identification. The FAA encourages 
designers and producers of remote identification UAS that can connect 
to the internet to incorporate cybersecurity protections to ensure that 
those other design features or capabilities are protected from cyber 
threats.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The FAA received many comments supporting cybersecurity 
in general, but that also requested the FAA provide greater specificity 
or adopt specific standards. The vast majority of these comments 
related to transmission of message elements through the internet to the 
Remote ID USS.
    The FPVFC noted that if a radio frequency broadcast remote 
identification system is used, there are no cybersecurity concerns.
    FAA Response: As described in section VII.A of this preamble, this 
rule does not require transmission of message elements through the 
internet to a Remote ID USS. In addition, the FAA agrees with the FPFVC 
that broadcasting the message elements does not raise cybersecurity 
concerns. Accordingly, the proposed minimum performance requirement 
related to cybersecurity is removed from this rule, for the reasons 
described above.
12. Other Performance Requirements
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    In the NPRM, the FAA identified several potential requirements that 
it considered, but ultimately decided were not necessary to include in 
the proposed minimum performance requirements, and requested comments 
on whether and why any of those should be required. The list included:
     Other message elements such as certain UAS operator 
contact information or other aircraft or control station information 
such as velocity, direction, route, or altitude above ground level.
     Equipment interface requirements such as the appropriate 
connections between GPS receivers, altimeters, and the remote 
identification message compiler; the communication protocol between the 
aircraft and the control station through which remote identification 
message data is exchanged; or protocols and interfaces between UAS, 
internet providers, and Remote ID USS.
     Flight data recording features to store remote 
identification information within the UAS.
     Requirements for connection indications such as a separate 
indication of whether the UAS is connected to the internet and its 
connection to a specific Remote ID USS, an indication of the 
transmission latency, or a notification of the specific Remote ID USS 
to which the UAS is connected.
     Transmission or broadcast requirements during a command 
and control lost-link event.
    After reviewing comments and further consideration, the FAA decided 
to require velocity as an additional message element for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft, as discussed in section 
VIII.A.8 of this preamble. The FAA is not adopting in this rule any of 
the other minimum performance requirements described in this section 
that were identified for potential inclusion.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Airbus UTM suggested minimum performance requirements for 
the remote identification broadcast to include range, reliability, and 
authenticity. uAvionix suggested a requirement for minimum broadcast 
power. Ciconia Aviation Services suggested a minimum radio transmission 
range of 1.5 to 2 kilometers for UTM and possibly other manned 
interfaces. Wing Aviation LLC suggested defining loss to mean 
persistent (not temporary) loss of signal, contending that remote 
identification is not critical to flight safety and a brief 
interruption should not trigger an immediate contingency. The Aviators 
Code Initiative recommended establishing a maximum power output for 
broadcast equipment. Droneport Texas LLC requested that any additional 
performance requirements beyond those in the NPRM undergo a public 
comment process in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
    DroneBusiness Center suggested changing the performance standard 
requirement to a consensus standard approach. ANRA Technologies and 
Small UAV Coalition suggested using ASTM standards. Ax Enterprize noted 
that that ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and 
Tracking has taken the position that remote identification is strictly 
for security, not safety functions, thereby excluding detect-and-avoid. 
They suggested a prescriptive definition of ``real-time'' and ``near 
real-time.'' They also proposed Trustworthy Multipurpose Remote 
Identification Protocol which is intended to satisfy several 
requirements including, but not limited to, verifying that messages are 
from the stated sender and the UAS Identification is in a registry, 
looking up public and private information, and structuring that 
information for readability.
    The FPVFC suggested UAS equipment interfaces should be determined 
by industry, and the performance requirements for self-testing and 
monitoring, error correction, interference considerations, message 
element performance requirements, and cybersecurity are too vague. They 
were also concerned that UAS would be grounded if the requirements are 
too rigid. Unmanned Systems Canada stated the performance standard is 
unreasonable and more restrictive than altitude requirements on manned 
aviation. One individual commenter stated that requirements on modelers 
is greater than the requirements on manned aircraft operations, and 
others stated the proposed rule mandates technology that is not yet 
available or mature.
    FAA Response: The FAA finds that the message elements proposed by 
commenters, while valuable in specific situations, are not essential to 
meeting the safety and security needs being addressed by this rule. In 
addition, the performance requirements as finalized meet the needs of 
remote identification while remaining sufficiently performance-based to 
allow for technological innovation.

[[Page 4430]]

C. Message Elements Performance Requirements for Standard Remote 
Identification Unmanned Aircraft

    The FAA proposed to require that all UAS with remote identification 
meet certain minimum requirements regarding the transmission of the 
message elements including the minimum performance requirements related 
to positional accuracy, barometric pressure accuracy, message latency, 
and message transmission rate. The FAA invited comments on whether the 
proposed minimum performance requirements for the message elements are 
appropriate and requested that commenters provide feedback and 
recommendations, supported by data, to sustain their position. The FAA 
also proposed that standard remote identification UAS must transmit and 
broadcast identical message elements.
    The message element minimum performance requirements proposed in 
the NPRM are considered design requirements, not operational 
performance requirements. A standard remote identification UAS must 
demonstrate that it meets minimum performance requirements for these 
message elements under test conditions specified in an FAA-accepted 
means of compliance. The test conditions must be representative of 
those that are likely to be encountered during typical UAS operations. 
The FAA acknowledges and accepts that the actual in-service performance 
may vary from the performance established under test conditions. The 
operator of a standard remote identification is not required to monitor 
the actual in-service performance of the UAS.
    After reviewing public comments and further consideration, the FAA 
is adopting the message element performance requirements that were 
proposed, with some modifications. The FAA explains these requirements, 
including changes from the NPRM, in the following subsections.
1. Transmit and Broadcast Identical Message Elements
    The FAA proposed that the UAS be required to transmit through the 
internet to a Remote ID USS and broadcast identical message elements. 
As described above, the FAA eliminated the requirement to transmit 
remote identification message elements to a Remote ID USS. As a result, 
performance requirements related to the requirement to transmit and 
broadcast identical message elements have been removed from this rule.
2. Positional Accuracy
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed positional accuracy requirements that are 
compatible with commercial off the shelf position sources, such as GPS 
receivers integrated into many existing UAS, smart phones, or other 
smart devices. For an unmanned aircraft, the position source is 
considered to be equipment onboard the aircraft that computes a 
geometric position (latitude and longitude). The position source can be 
a separate sensor or can be integrated into other systems. While the 
FAA anticipated that most unmanned aircraft would use a GPS receiver as 
the position source, other equipment could be used as long as it is 
capable of producing the required message elements and meets the 
proposed accuracy requirement. For a control station, the position 
source is considered to be equipment that is either integrated into the 
control station or separate from, but in close proximity to, the 
control station.
    For standard remote identification UAS, the FAA proposed that the 
reported position of the unmanned aircraft and control station would 
have to be accurate to within 100 feet of the true position, with 95 
percent probability.
    The FAA is adopting this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Skydio commented that the proposed unmanned aircraft location 
accuracy and latency requirements, including the prohibition on takeoff 
and the requirement to land as soon as practicable, are unjustified in 
areas of limited or degraded GPS based on the known deficiencies of GPS 
and the advantages of computer vision-enabled UAS, and recommended 
increasing the accuracy requirement from 100 feet to 500 feet to 
accommodate these UAS operations. Ciconia Aviation Services suggested 
that current devices are capable of greater than 100 feet accuracy for 
UAS position, and suggested requiring 30-foot accuracy as well as 0.1 
seconds latency and a 4 Hz transmission rate to support conflict 
management and collision avoidance.
    FAA Response: The FAA considered comments that suggested both 
increased and decreased positional accuracy compared to the proposed 
requirement, while still other comments asserted that the positional 
accuracy proposed was not possible under certain conditions where GPS 
was limited or degraded. The FAA emphasizes that GPS is one possible 
position source, but using GPS is not a requirement and there may be 
other types of position sources that perform better in different 
operating environments. As such, this rule adopts the proposed 
requirement that the reported position of the control station and 
unmanned aircraft be accurate to within 100 feet of the true location, 
with 95 percent probability.
    The positional accuracy requirement is a design requirement and not 
an operational performance requirement, and the specific test method 
for ensuring that the UAS design meets this accuracy requirement will 
be reviewed and evaluated as a part of the means of compliance 
acceptance process. Depending on the unmanned aircraft operating 
environment, the actual in-service accuracy may be better or worse than 
accuracy demonstrated under the test conditions of an FAA-accepted 
means of compliance.
3. Geometric Altitude Accuracy
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that for standard remote identification UAS, the 
reported barometric pressure altitude for the unmanned aircraft and the 
control station must be accurate to within 20 feet of the true 
barometric pressure altitude for pressure altitudes ranging from 0 to 
10,000 feet. The FAA sought comments from UAS designers and producers 
and other interested individuals on whether the proposed barometric 
pressure altitude accuracy requirement is consistent with current and 
anticipated future UAS performance capabilities. As discussed in 
section VIII.A.3 of this preamble, after considering comments and 
engaging in further analysis, the FAA decided to adopt the requirement 
that standard remote identification include an indication of control 
station altitude as a required message element, replacing the 
requirement to indicate barometric pressure altitude with geometric 
altitude. As a result, the FAA removed the minimum performance 
requirements for an indication of barometric pressure altitude and 
instead adopts minimum performance requirements for an indication of 
geometric altitude as follows.
    Though the barometric pressure altitude accuracy requirement was 
the same for both the control station and the unmanned aircraft, the 
transition to a geometric altitude indication warrants different 
accuracy requirements for the control station and the unmanned 
aircraft. For the unmanned aircraft, the FAA is adopting a geometric 
altitude accuracy requirement that is compatible with commercial off 
the shelf position

[[Page 4431]]

sources, such as GPS receivers integrated into many existing unmanned 
aircraft. The reported geometric altitude for the unmanned aircraft 
must be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude, 
with 95 percent probability. The FAA expects that future unmanned 
aircraft will take advantage of technological advancements in geometric 
altitude accuracy to provide even greater accuracies as technologies 
evolve.
    For the control station, the FAA is adopting a geometric altitude 
accuracy requirement that is compatible with the performance 
requirements being established for cellular service providers under the 
E911 mandate that allows emergency service providers to accurately 
locate the geographic position of the mobile device. The reported 
geometric altitude for the unmanned aircraft must be accurate to within 
15 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95 percent probability. 
The FAA anticipates that most standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft will be designed to be paired with an existing smart phone or 
smart device to provide the control station location information. If 
the unmanned aircraft design does not use a smart phone or smart device 
as the position source for the control station location, the FAA 
believes the geometric altitude accuracy requirement is compatible with 
the performance of modern GPS receivers.
    The geometric altitude accuracy requirement is a design requirement 
and not an operational performance requirement, and the specific test 
method for ensuring that the unmanned aircraft design meets this 
accuracy requirement will be reviewed and evaluated as a part of the 
means of compliance acceptance process.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Many commenters weighed in on various aspects of the barometric 
pressure altitude accuracy, including technical capabilities of 
currently available technology. These comments are no longer applicable 
because the FAA eliminated this requirement. The FAA appreciates these 
comments, however, because they helped inform the FAA's analysis with 
respect to the accuracy requirement for the geometric altitude 
indication for the control station and unmanned aircraft.
4. Remote Identification Message Latency
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed a latency of no more than one second for the 
remote identification message set for standard remote identification 
UAS. This is the time between when a position is measured by the 
unmanned aircraft or control station position source and when it is 
emitted by the remote identification equipment. The FAA proposed the 
latency requirement to apply to both the transmitted message set and 
the broadcast message set. The FAA noted that the latency requirement 
does not apply to any systems external to the UAS, such as broadcast 
receivers or information display devices.
    The FAA is adopting this requirement as proposed with respect to 
the broadcast message set. As discussed in section VII.A of this 
preamble, the FAA eliminated the requirement to transmit message 
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. Accordingly, the FAA 
is promulgating this rule without reference to latency requirements for 
internet-based transmissions.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The majority of the comments the FAA received regarding 
latency raised concerns about the technical feasibility or cost 
associated with internet-based transmission latency. An individual 
commented that latency in transmitting data, particularly regarding the 
location of the UA, would render such data immediately obsolete.
    FAA Response: With the removal of the requirement for a standard 
remote identification UAS to connect to the internet and transmit the 
message elements to a Remote ID USS, the majority of these comments are 
not applicable. The FAA finds that this requirement is appropriate for 
the broadcast of the remote identification message elements and is 
adopting the requirement as proposed.
    The FAA does not agree with the individual commenter who expressed 
concern regarding the latency issues in transmitting data. The FAA 
notes that remote identification messages that meet the requirements 
must be transmitted no more than one second after being generated, and 
a message must be transmitted at least every second. The FAA finds that 
these two requirements ensure that the data is sufficiently current for 
purposes of remote identification.
5. Remote Identification Message Transmission Rate
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed a transmission rate of at least 1 message per 
second (1 hertz) as the minimum transmission rate for the remote 
identification message elements for standard remote identification UAS. 
The proposed transmission rate applied to both the message elements 
transmitted to a Remote ID USS and broadcast, and is the minimum rate 
at which the remote identification message would be either broadcast or 
transmitted to a Remote ID USS by the remote identification equipment.
    The FAA is adopting this requirement as proposed with respect to 
the broadcast message set. As discussed in section VII.A of this 
preamble, the FAA eliminated the requirement to transmit message 
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. Accordingly, the FAA 
is adopting this rule without reference to a transmission rate 
requirement for internet-based transmissions.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    The FAA did not receive any comments with data to support a change 
from the proposal.

IX. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements: Remote 
Identification Broadcast Modules

    The FAA is promulgating this rule with a regulatory framework that 
allows persons to equip unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules to enable them to identify remotely. Further 
discussion on the operational requirements for remote identification 
broadcast modules is available in Sec.  89.115(a) of this rule.
    As previously discussed in section VII.D of this preamble, the 
remote identification broadcast module is a retrofit-option that 
replaces the limited remote identification UAS regulatory framework and 
provides flexibility to achieve remote identification for operators of 
unmanned aircraft that do not qualify as standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft. The required message elements and minimum 
performance requirements for remote identification broadcast modules 
are discussed in this section.
    A remote identification broadcast module must broadcast the 
following message elements: A unique identifier (the serial number 
assigned to the remote identification broadcast module); an indication 
of the unmanned aircraft latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude; 
an indication of the unmanned aircraft take-off location latitude, 
longitude, and geometric altitude; an indication of the unmanned 
aircraft velocity; and a time mark. The message elements for remote 
identification broadcast modules are the same as those for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft, with the exception of the 
control station location and altitude, the emergency

[[Page 4432]]

status indication, and the Session ID. Remote identification broadcast 
modules must include the unmanned aircraft take-off location and 
altitude as a message element instead of control station location and 
altitude. In addition, remote identification broadcast modules cannot 
use a Session ID as the unique identifier.
    Otherwise, the following required message elements are identical to 
those required for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft:
     A unique identifier.
     An indication of the unmanned aircraft latitude, 
longitude, and geometric altitude.
     An indication of the unmanned aircraft velocity.
     A time mark.
A discussion of the message elements and the need for them is in 
section VIII.A of this preamble.
    The minimum performance requirements and message elements 
performance requirements for remote identification broadcast modules 
are similar to those for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft, but are modified to accommodate the use of broadcast modules 
on unmanned aircraft produced without remote identification. For a 
discussion of the minimum performance requirements and the need for 
them see section VIII.B of this preamble. For a discussion of the 
message elements performance requirements and the need for them see 
section VIII.C of this preamble.
    One of the differences between the requirements for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast 
modules is that the latter includes takeoff location as a message 
element in lieu of control station location. Because the remote 
identification broadcast module may be a separate module secured to the 
unmanned aircraft or implemented through a software upgrade using 
existing equipment on the unmanned aircraft, a requirement to broadcast 
an indication of the control station location may not be feasible. 
However, the FAA maintains that knowledge of the remote pilot's 
location is a necessary component of remote identification. Therefore, 
the FAA is requiring that the remote identification broadcast module 
provide an indication of the unmanned aircraft takeoff location as a 
proxy for the remote pilot's location.
    The FAA expects this message element to be a static message element 
that does not change for the duration of the unmanned aircraft flight 
operation. The FAA declines to prescribe how the takeoff location is 
determined by the remote identification broadcast module, but 
anticipates the equipment will be designed in a manner that allows the 
latitude and longitude of the takeoff location to be determined and 
stored as part of the broadcast module initialization prior to takeoff. 
The FAA is also adopting a requirement to indicate the geometric 
altitude of the unmanned aircraft take-off location--instead of the 
altitude of the control station. This information will help to 
determine whether the takeoff location was from ground level or some 
other elevation.
    Under the final rule, the takeoff location message element 
broadcast by remote identification broadcast modules may not be 
distinguishable from the control station location message element 
broadcast by standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. As such, 
a smart phone app being used by a member of the public to display 
remote identification information may not be able to immediately 
distinguish between whether an indication is a takeoff location or 
control station location solely from FAA's requirements. The FAA notes, 
however, that smart device apps that display remote identification 
information may be able to recognize this distinction by detecting the 
emergency status message element which is only broadcast by standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft. Moreover, as discussed 
elsewhere in the preamble, the FAA notes that industry consensus 
standards may include message element requirements above and beyond the 
FAA's minimum performance requirements, and such a standard could 
include methods for differentiating these message elements.
    Other differences between the minimum performance requirements for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules include removing the design 
requirement that the unmanned aircraft cannot take off if it fails the 
self-test or is not broadcasting the message elements. There are also 
changes to the interference considerations to accommodate use of 
broadcast modules on compatible types of unmanned aircraft, and 
adjustments to the accuracy requirement for the indication of the take-
off location geometric altitude.
    To meet the minimum performance requirements established in this 
rule, the equipment must be capable of recording the geometric position 
and geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft takeoff location for 
these indications to be broadcast by the remote identification 
equipment. The aircraft takeoff location must meet the positional 
accuracy requirements as discussed in section VIII.C.2 of this 
preamble. The takeoff location altitude must meet the geometric 
altitude accuracy requirements applicable to the unmanned aircraft as 
discussed in section VIII.C.3 of this preamble.

X. Privacy Concerns on the Broadcast of Remote Identification 
Information

A. Discussion of the Final Rule

    As explained in the proposed rule, remote identification message 
elements that are broadcast would be publicly available to any device 
capable of receiving the broadcast. The proposed rule explained that 
though the message elements themselves would be publicly accessible 
information, the ability to cross-reference that information with non-
public registry data would not be publicly available. This information 
would be limited to the FAA and available only to government agencies 
for the purpose of security or enforcement of laws, unless otherwise 
required by law to be released. This policy remains unchanged for this 
rule.

B. Public Comments and FAA Response

    Comments: Many commenters were confused regarding the accessibility 
of certain registration information. Commenters expressed concerns over 
access to registration information potentially being open to the 
general public and wanted to restrict access to law enforcement. Other 
individuals commented that the registration system should not divulge 
the name of the registrant, and should include only the unmanned 
aircraft serial number, FAA aircraft registration number, phone number, 
and location of the UAS pilot. A commenter was concerned that using a 
serial number issued under ANSI/CTA-2063-A poses a concern for 
potential Personal Identifying Information (PII) leakage. Commenters 
mentioned that the serial number would allow an unmanned aircraft to be 
linked back to prior owners after resale. They also argued that 
competitors could track historical information on UAS usage (e.g., by a 
delivery company). The Consumer Technology Association expressed the 
importance of protecting the privacy, confidentiality, and data of 
users through the proper storage of personally identifiable 
information.
    Many commenters felt that both the registration and remote 
identification broadcast information should only be available to 
government, law enforcement, and emergency services. Some commenters 
specifically referenced the 1989 murder of Rebecca Schaeffer, which led 
to passage of the

[[Page 4433]]

1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Several commenters offered the 
example of the privacy protections required for automobile license 
plate numbers as well as manned aircraft registry privacy provisions, 
and suggested that UAS identification should be afforded similar 
protections. A commenter suggested that sharing remote identification 
information with the public should be a Federal crime similar to 
driver's license and license plate information. Qualcomm suggested only 
granting public access to a limited set of message elements.
    Several commenters suggested the FAA consider the privacy of 
commercial and recreational users differently. These commenters 
suggested doing so by requesting recreational operators to provide less 
information in comparison to commercial ones, noting the potential 
security and safety resources available to large commercial operators.
    Though the Small UAV Coalition expected the accountability that 
comes with the remote identification final rule would deter 
irresponsible operations, including invasions of privacy by UAS, it 
mentioned the privacy interests of both UAS end-users and operators 
should also be protected. The Small UAV Coalition suggested the rule 
include limitations on: (1) The type of entities that can access 
historical message element data stored by a Remote ID USS (directly or 
indirectly); (2) the purposes for accessing this data; and (3) the 
correlation of public information such as remote identification message 
elements with non-public information like registration data.
    Numerous commenters believed remote identification of UAS does not 
include privacy and personally identifiable information protection, and 
others commented that the NPRM conflicted with existing privacy 
regulations at the State or Federal levels and could violate 
Constitutional rights. Kittyhawk submitted survey data showing the 
importance of privacy for the majority of those pilots surveyed. The 
Consumer Technology Association submitted survey results showing 90 
percent of UAS owners were not comfortable with publicly sharing remote 
identification information such as pilot location, identification 
information, and historical flight data; and nearly 40 percent were 
less likely to purchase a UAS if that is required. Some commenters 
expressed fear that their personal data could be misused by those who 
are ``enraged by drones'' and otherwise harbor antipathy toward UAS 
operators. Other comments were concerned about the possibility of the 
broadcasted information being vulnerable to hackers or available for 
data mining and misuse of registrants' information, as well as the need 
to properly protect the data because of proprietary techniques and 
maneuvers of a company. Several commenters were also concerned about 
protecting the safety of young pilots and women, and were concerned 
that criminals may use the data to track them. Many commenters 
expressed privacy concerns if remote identification message elements 
became public, including issues related to confrontation leading to 
assaults or thefts as well as concerns that persons may be able to 
track where delivery unmanned aircraft have dropped packages.
    One commenter suggested that if FAA makes the real-time location 
data available to the public, they should also have a data log that 
shows who looked up the pilot's location. Another commenter also wanted 
FAA to use an open standard of flight logs, and adherence to the flight 
regulations set by the FAA, stating that ``like operating a motor 
vehicle, we do not need private companies tracking our movements to 
create a safe and orderly system.''
    FAA Response: Though the remote identification message elements 
broadcast from unmanned aircraft are publicly available information, 
registration data pertaining to individuals is protected in accordance 
with the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Therefore, 
registry information pertaining to individuals will only be disclosed 
outside DOT if a Privacy Act exception applies. In addition to other 
disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act, DOT has 
published System of Records Notice (SORN) DOT/FAA 801, which identifies 
the specific circumstances under which the DOT discloses individuals' 
registry information to the public under the Privacy Act's routine use 
exception. 81 FR 54187, August 15, 2016.
    For those individuals who register small unmanned aircraft under 14 
CFR part 48, the only registration information generally available to 
the public includes the registrant's country, state, city, postal code, 
and number of unmanned aircraft registered. For individuals and 
entities who register unmanned aircraft, including small unmanned 
aircraft, under part 47, the registry information generally available 
to the public includes the registrant's name, street address, country, 
state, city, postal code, and additional information about the 
registered unmanned aircraft. For both categories of unmanned aircraft 
registration, these are the same data elements that have always been 
publicly available, and are unchanged by this rule. Serial numbers of 
unmanned aircraft are not included in the information publicly 
available from the registry for those who register under part 48. As 
with all other information maintained within the registry, the FAA has 
implemented the required privacy and security measures to protect data 
maintained in the registry system. Therefore, the FAA does not believe 
that there are compelling concerns regarding PII data leakage from 
serial numbers.
    Because the serial number is not generally available to the public, 
members of the public will be unable to correlate a broadcasted serial 
number with identifying information of the individual who owns the UAS 
through the public facing registry. In addition, in accordance with 
routine use (1) contained in SORN DOT/FAA 801, the FAA will not 
routinely disclose identifying information of individuals who register 
under 14 CFR part 48 to the public unless a member of the public 
provides the unmanned aircraft registration number, which is not one of 
the data elements that the unmanned aircraft will broadcast. Members of 
the public cannot generally receive a part 48 registrant's name or 
address if their request to the FAA identifies only the serial number, 
rather than the registration number.
    Any correlation of other information held by the FAA that would 
identify any individual member of the public beyond the public remote 
identification message elements will be strictly limited to authorized 
FAA and other government and law enforcement personnel who are 
operating in their official capacities pursuant to all legal 
limitations and authorized use of the information. This correlation may 
occur with data such as unmanned aircraft registration information held 
by the FAA, authorizations to operate UAS under 14 CFR part 107 and 49 
U.S.C. 44809, and any waivers from the operating requirements of 14 CFR 
part 107. All personnel, whether FAA or other government or law 
enforcement, allowed to access the data will need to be authorized and 
will access the information only through approved, secured channels 
when necessary to perform proper actions authorized by law in 
accordance with all due process and other legal and constitutional 
requirements.
    UAS operators will broadcast the serial number or session ID of 
their unmanned aircraft. However, that serial number is non-identifying 
unless it is correlated with the information in the FAA aircraft 
registration databases. Access to the part 48 database is strictly

[[Page 4434]]

controlled, and no member of the public may have access to FAA's 
database; information within the database is disclosed to members of 
the public only in accordance with the Privacy Act. As with correlating 
information related to session IDs, access will be limited to 
authorized official personnel who are engaged in approved duties with 
proper legal foundation and authority. For persons with concerns about 
broadcasting the unmanned aircraft serial number, a session ID may be 
used and broadcasted instead of the serial number to help protect the 
privacy of the individual user or the confidentiality of a business. 
These message elements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft are discussed in more detail in section VIII.A of this 
preamble.
    The only information that will be broadcast or otherwise available 
publicly is the remote identification message elements as described in 
subpart D of part 89. As these message elements will be broadcast 
directly from the unmanned aircraft, they are public data.
    In connection with this rule, DOT has conducted a Privacy Impact 
Assessment (PIA) further analyzing the privacy impact of this rule on 
individuals. This PIA is published on the DOT website and has been 
included in the docket for this rulemaking.

XI. Government and Law Enforcement Access to Remote Identification 
Information

A. Discussion of the Final Rule

    In addition to aiding the FAA in its civil enforcement of FAA 
regulations, the FAA anticipates that law enforcement and Federal 
agencies will find remote identification information useful for 
enforcement of laws, public safety, and security purposes. The FAA 
envisions pairing remote identification data with certain registration 
data, when necessary, for accredited and verified law enforcement and 
Federal agencies. The information could be used to identify, locate, or 
contact the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS during 
an incident response. This information will help with preliminary 
threat discrimination.
    For example, when correlated with registration information, remote 
identification of UAS also enables law enforcement officers to 
determine some information about who the unmanned aircraft owner is 
before engaging with the person manipulating the flight controls of the 
UAS. In addition, once located, a law enforcement officer can speak 
with the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS to gain 
potential insight into his or her intentions, and allow the officer to 
either educate the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS 
or begin an investigation. Though remote identification of UAS may not 
deter all nefarious actors, this rule allows the swift interdiction of 
clueless and careless persons manipulating the flight controls of the 
UAS and can help law enforcement and security partners focus their 
efforts on truly nefarious actors. This information will also aid in 
any subsequent criminal or civil enforcement action.

B. Public Comments and FAA Response

1. Law Enforcement Access to Remote Identification Information
    Comments: Several commenters expressed support for law 
enforcement--including Federal, State, and local agencies--as well as 
the FAA, having access to remote identification information. The 
Stadium Managers Association commented that remote identification 
information should be made available to law enforcement and that 
information available to the general public should be limited, 
particularly in the case of stadiums. The University of Washington--NSF 
RAPID Facility, Pierce Aerospace, and many individual commenters 
believed the remote identification message should be encrypted or 
otherwise protected to ensure that only law enforcement, and not the 
general public, had access to the information. A number of commenters, 
including the American Association of Airport Executives, supported the 
need for law enforcement to have access to remote identification 
information, but believed that the proposed rule did not outline in 
enough detail how, when, why, and to what extent the data would be 
available to law enforcement or even to the general public.
    A few commenters expressed support for law enforcement and other 
entities having access to remote identification information in 
controlled airspace or while operating near sensitive security 
locations, but opposed having information other than aircraft location 
made available while operating in Class G airspace.
    Commenters mentioned a need to clarify who would grant access to 
the information. Airlines for America stated the FAA should provide 
details of the standard(s) and processes verifying and accrediting law 
enforcement for UAS enforcement and allow the public to provide 
comments on such standards and processes. Some commenters believed that 
no one should have access to their remote identification information, 
including law enforcement.
    A form letter from the Academy of Model Aeronautics stated the 
safety of law enforcement officers depends on having remote 
identification information available in real-time. The Academy of Model 
Aeronautics expressed concerns that many local law enforcement agencies 
do not have the resources to outfit their officers with smart phones or 
other technology capable of receiving remote identification 
information.
    A significant number of commenters, while not necessarily objecting 
to having information provided to law enforcement, questioned the value 
of the remote identification rule entirely. These commenters asserted 
that only law-abiding UAS operators would comply with remote 
identification requirements and those persons who intend to violate the 
law will not comply with remote identification requirements at all. 
Based on this assumption, these commenters questioned the value of the 
rule and its necessity. The Stadium Managers Association was skeptical 
of remote identification's ability to assist law enforcement in 
locating and apprehending UAS pilots given the amount of time they 
believed it will take to identify the unmanned aircraft and then locate 
the pilot some distance away from the aircraft.
    FAA Response: A remote identification broadcast is, by nature and 
intent, public. Though remote identification provides situational 
awareness to law enforcement, it will also provide the public with 
basic information about a particular unmanned aircraft to facilitate 
reporting to law enforcement, if appropriate. This information will be 
anonymous, however. Under this rule, the FAA will not grant members of 
the public access to information that could be correlated to a 
particular unmanned aircraft or operation. This is similar to the 
public ADS-B Out broadcast emitted by manned aircraft. As in the case 
with ADS-B Out, it is possible that members of the public could develop 
systems for tracking and aggregating information about UAS flights, but 
those systems would not include personal information from the FAA's 
databases.
    The FAA finds that remote identification information plays a 
critical role in threat discrimination by law enforcement and national 
security entities regardless of class of airspace. Law enforcement 
officials have made clear that it can be very difficult to make a 
decision about the risk posed by a person manipulating the flight 
controls

[[Page 4435]]

of the UAS with the limited information available from visually 
observing an unmanned aircraft. Remote identification information will 
enable better threat discrimination, an immediate and appropriate law 
enforcement response, and a more effective follow-on investigation. 
This is because remote identification information can be correlated 
with unmanned aircraft registry information to inform law enforcement 
officers about the registered owner. This information, along with the 
real-time location of the unmanned aircraft operator, provides critical 
input to a law enforcement officer's decision on whether intervention 
is appropriate. The remote identification message is broadcast over 
unlicensed radio frequency spectrum and therefore would be accessible 
by any device capable of receiving that broadcast. Though the FAA does 
not consider that such a device would be costly, this rule does not 
place any compliance requirements on local law enforcement agencies, 
leaving them free to choose not to use remote identification as a tool.
    The FAA's regulatory approach is based on the fundamental 
assumption that regulated entities will comply with the rules; the FAA 
does not assume noncompliance. Acknowledging that not all entities will 
comply with regulations, the FAA is promulgating this rule to be a tool 
to help relevant authorities distinguish between compliant and 
noncompliant actors. The FAA recognizes that certain nefarious actors 
may not comply with remote identification requirements; however, the 
fact that an unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft operation is 
noncompliant is an important data point for law enforcement to consider 
as they engage in a threat analysis. A noncompliant actor will stand 
out, allowing law enforcement to shift its attention appropriately. 
Even if the noncompliant actor has no nefarious intent, there is value 
in this type of threat discrimination. A careless or clueless operator 
may be introducing unnecessary risk into the airspace of the United 
States without realizing it. Remote identification allows appropriate 
authorities to identify the operator for follow up or education on how 
to operate safely and in compliance with the FAA's rules.
2. Law Enforcement Uses of Remote Identification Information
    Comments: Commenters expressed concerns regarding potential abuse 
of remote identification information by law enforcement. Some 
commenters described the proposed remote identification system as a 
central database, and believed that the information would be used 
inappropriately when provided to local law enforcement. The Academy of 
Model Aeronautics expressed concern that there is nothing in the NPRM 
about how remote identification information will be integrated with the 
rest of the data that law enforcement routinely uses. The Academy of 
Model Aeronautics believed this is a critical point because law 
enforcement officers are trained to use personal identifying 
information about the person they have in front of them. Many 
commenters believed that all remote identification information for all 
unmanned aircraft flights would be provided to all law enforcement 
organizations regardless of need. These commenters argued that law 
enforcement, particularly local law enforcement, does not need this 
type of information for every pilot and every flight regardless of 
origin, destination, and other factors. Other commenters argued that 
law enforcement does not need information regarding every flight in 
real time, noting that law enforcement does not have access to real-
time driving information for every vehicle on the roads. Commenters 
questioned local law enforcement agencies' need for this information, 
particularly as the Federal Government is the sole regulator of 
airspace.
    Wing Aviation asserted that persistent surveillance without cause 
is not consistent with community expectations of privacy and due 
process, nor is it necessary to support compliance, accident 
investigation, or security. If agencies intend to use retained data for 
other purposes, Wing Aviation believed that request should be subject 
to administrative, civil, or criminal procedures.
    Many commenters believed that Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement agencies would use the data provided to identify, harass, 
and arrest remote operators. Some commenters believed this was a 
particular possibility if law enforcement believed that the UAS 
operator was using unmanned aircraft-mounted camera systems to expose 
law enforcement's behavior or activities to the public. Still other 
commenters believed that the proposal creates the potential for illegal 
tracking, unwarranted surveillance, and harassment of American citizens 
by Federal, State, and local law enforcement. An individual commenter 
asked the FAA to clarify if remote pilots operating small UAS under 
part 107 have the same protection as manned pilots from outside 
interference, and if such interference would carry ``hefty penalties.'' 
The commenter noted that he had been ``accosted by law enforcement even 
when operating [his] UAS responsibly.'' The commenter suggested that an 
emphasis be placed on ensuring that law enforcement officers do not 
interfere with remote pilots during flight operations. Multiple 
commenters expressed the view that unfettered access by law enforcement 
to remote identification information could lead to both a compromise of 
personally identifiable information and potential abuses. Many 
individual commenters believed that law enforcement should not be 
granted access to any remote identification information without 
probable cause and a warrant.
    The Consumer Technology Association stated that remote 
identification requirements should include due process protections and 
articulate a legal standard for law enforcement and security officials 
seeking access to database information, if they will have access with 
less than a subpoena or warrant. To ensure accountability and prevent 
abuse, the Consumer Technology Association advocated the FAA should 
maintain a record that documents every instance where officials access 
the remote identification database, with this information (who 
requested access, when was it requested, and for what purpose) subject 
to the Freedom of Information Act.
    Other commenters were concerned about the inappropriate policing of 
UAS activities. Several commenters used examples of having incorrect 
altitude readings above the 400-foot limit for part 107 operations of 
unmanned aircraft broadcast and questioned what type of enforcement 
action would result at the Federal, State, or local level. Commenters 
also asked who would validate the data, determine whether violations 
had been committed, and assess fines or other penalties.
    Further, several commenters expressed the view that unfettered 
access by law enforcement to remote identification information could 
lead to specific monitoring of the media by law enforcement agencies, 
impacting freedom of the press.
    FAA Response: The FAA emphasizes that any use of remote 
identification data by law enforcement agencies is bound by all 
Constitutional restrictions and any other applicable legal 
restrictions. The purpose of this rule is to provide a tool for 
identifying an unmanned aircraft and locating its operator. One of 
those uses is to help

[[Page 4436]]

local law enforcement engage in threat discrimination while discharging 
their lawful law enforcement duties. This rulemaking does not speak to 
the use of information by law enforcement agencies or how remote 
identification data will be correlated with other law enforcement data. 
Real-time information is critical for law enforcement and national 
security purposes because compliance is a useful tool for threat 
discrimination.
    The FAA considers that the remote identification requirements are 
analogous to surface transportation vehicles. Though real-time driving 
information is not available for every vehicle on the road, an 
indication of certain compliance status is viewable to law enforcement 
for all vehicles by way of visible markings such as a license plate, 
registration marking, and inspection marking. Similarly, a vehicle not 
in compliance with license plate display, registration, or inspection 
would be apparent to law enforcement, and the driver is co-located with 
the vehicle. There is currently no standardized system to query such 
information for unmanned aircraft for law enforcement and national 
security purposes, and this rule would meet that need.
3. Law Enforcement Training on Remote Identification Information
    Comments: A number of commenters discussed the necessity for public 
safety training to recognize questionable operations. Several 
commenters, including the National Sheriffs' Association, were 
concerned that law enforcement will need training as to what is, and is 
not, a legal UAS operation. Some commenters believed that information 
gathered from remote identification would be used by local law 
enforcement to enforce local regulations that conflict with FAA 
regulations pertaining to use of the airspace of the United States. 
Individual commenters discussed the confusion of local law enforcement 
regarding operations permitted under part 107 and believed that access 
by these organizations to remote identification information would be 
used to further harass persons conducting such legitimate operations.
    Several individual commenters also raised concerns about flight 
safety if they were interrupted, interfered with, interrogated, or 
harassed by law enforcement while conducting a lawful unmanned aircraft 
operation. These commenters believed the FAA needed to provide greater 
training to law enforcement. Commenters emphasized the need for law 
enforcement to learn how to interact with a UAS pilot appropriately to 
ensure the safety of the operation, including the safe landing of the 
aircraft if necessary. The National Sheriffs' Association called 
specifically on the FAA to work with more than Federal law enforcement 
agencies, by providing training or assistance to State and local 
agencies as to what is, and is not, a UAS threat. One commenter also 
cited the need for an easy-to-use system to report illegal UAS 
operations.
    The executive director of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) 
asked who was going to fund, train, and equip law enforcement to use 
the remote identification system. AMA believes that the remote 
identification rule should not be implemented without further research 
and data, to include the impact on privacy.
    The Coconino County Sheriff's Office asked the FAA, prior to 
adoption of any rule on remote identification, to seek further 
clarification in consultation with Federal, State, local, and tribal 
law enforcement representatives regarding the provision of equipment 
and training for local law enforcement for access to remote 
identification information.
    FAA Response: The FAA is actively engaged in significant outreach 
and education to law enforcement on many matters related to UAS, 
including educating the public safety community on understanding how to 
distinguish between, and respond to, authorized and unauthorized or 
unsafe UAS operations. The FAA also maintains an updated toolkit for 
public safety and government users. Further, law enforcement personnel 
can contact Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) Special Agents, 
who regularly assist law enforcement on matters related to FAA 
regulations. The desire of a commenter for an easy-to-use system to 
report illegal unmanned aircraft operations is outside the scope of 
this rulemaking. The purpose of this rule is to provide a tool for 
locating and identifying an unmanned aircraft and locate its operator. 
One of those uses is to help local law enforcement engage in threat 
discrimination while discharging their law enforcement duties. This 
rulemaking does not speak to the use of information by law enforcement 
agencies, or how remote identification data will be correlated with 
other law enforcement data.

XII. FAA-Recognized Identification Areas

A. Discussion of the Final Rule

    As discussed in section VII.F.2 of this preamble, FAA-recognized 
identification areas are locations where unmanned aircraft may operate 
without remote identification equipment. The FAA proposed subpart C to 
outline the requirements for establishment of FAA-recognized 
identification areas. After consideration, the FAA is making changes to 
this subpart in the final rule. This rule expands eligibility to apply 
for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area to include 
educational institutions in addition to community-based organizations 
(CBOs), and also removes the 12-month limitation on time to submit 
applications. The FAA is also clarifying the application review 
criteria and required information for application. The criteria will be 
described in greater detail in the advisory circular on FAA-recognized 
identification areas, which will be published following this 
rulemaking.
    Finally, this rule removes the prohibition on re-application for 
FAA-recognized identification areas for (1) locations that have 
expired, or (2) locations that have been terminated, so long as the 
conditions that led to termination are no longer in effect.
    This rule promulgates the other provisions of subpart C as 
proposed.

B. Eligibility

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    In the NPRM, the FAA discussed the purpose of FAA-recognized 
identification areas and acknowledged that after the production 
compliance date, unless a UAS fell into an exception such as amateur-
built UAS, most UAS would have remote identification. Because the FAA 
recognized that certain UAS, such as amateur or home-built UAS, would 
not be able to equip, the FAA proposed that a CBO recognized by the 
Administrator would be eligible to apply for the establishment of a 
flying site as an FAA-recognized identification area to enable 
operations of UAS without remote identification within those areas.\22\ 
This rule maintains eligibility for CBOs. In addition, to better 
accommodate science, technology, engineering, and math programs and 
encourage participation in aviation for educational purposes, the rule 
expands that eligibility to also include education institutions, 
including institutions of primary and secondary education, trade 
schools, colleges, and universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The FAA clarified in the proposed rule that the concept of 
FAA-recognized identification areas is different and independent 
from the fixed-site concept in 49 U.S.C. 44809(c)(1) and a fixed 
site would not automatically be approved as an FAA-recognized 
identification area.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4437]]

2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Commenters, including AOPA, the Massachusetts Department 
of Transportation and the Air Line Pilots Association, supported the 
idea of FAA-recognized identification areas generally. Many commenters, 
including the National Agricultural Aviation Association supported CBOs 
being eligible to apply for FAA-recognized identification areas. 
However, some commenters raised concerns that limiting eligibility to 
CBOs was too restrictive, and that many individuals would not want to 
join a CBO to fly. Flite Test Community Association said they have 
surveyed hobbyists and 65 percent of respondents indicated they would 
not join a CBO even if it were free.
    Many commenters such as Signatory Higher Education Associations and 
Institutions of Higher Education, Wing Aviation LLC, and the North 
Carolina Department of Transportation supported the idea that in 
addition to CBOs, other persons should be eligible to apply for FAA-
recognized identification areas. Several commenters, including State 
and local governments, such as the Minnesota Department of 
Transportation, and several individual commenters suggested that 
educational institutions and State and local governments should be 
eligible to apply for FAA-recognized identification areas. Commenters 
reasoned that educational institutions are well-positioned to ensure 
UAS operations comply with regulations and campus safety, security, and 
privacy policies. In addition, commenters argued that not allowing 
universities to request and control FAA-recognized identification areas 
would pose an unnecessary impediment to science and engineering 
opportunities for university students, faculty, and staff. Some 
commenters such as the Alliance for Drone Innovation and AiRXOS 
contended that expanding eligibility to educational institutions is 
necessary to spur innovation and promote workforce development and 
public safety.
    Commenters emphasized that certain universities and other entities 
such as State and local governments could not qualify to become CBOs in 
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44809(h) due to the 501(c)(3) requirement and 
because they are not membership-based associations. Organizations such 
as the National Association of State Aviation Officials, City of 
Albuquerque Parks and Recreation Department, Experimental Aircraft 
Association, Southern Company, The Commercial Drone Alliance, and 
University of Texas Austin UAV Committee made similar comments in 
support of expanding eligibility. Some commenters highlighted section 
350 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 as evidence that Congress 
intended for the FAA to create allowances for recreational UAS that are 
operated by an institution of higher education for educational 
purposes.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that eligibility to 
apply for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area should 
be expanded to include educational institutions. Community-based 
organizations will continue to be eligible to apply.
    The FAA is including educational institutions--including primary 
and secondary educational institutions, trade schools, colleges, and 
universities--in recognition of the critical role they play in 
providing pathways to aviation careers, whether through science, 
technology, engineering, and math curricula; the building and flight of 
unmanned aircraft; or other educational activities. The FAA determined 
it is appropriate to allow educational institutions to request the 
establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas. The FAA believes 
that extending the ability to request establishment of FAA-recognized 
identification areas to educational institutions will provide 
additional convenient locations for those associated with the 
educational institution to be able to operate unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification and reduce costs associated with travel time to 
other FAA-recognized identification areas.
    Comments: Several commenters advocated for wider expansion of 
eligibility for FAA-recognized identification areas beyond just CBOs 
and educational institutions. Several commenters requested the FAA 
consider expanding eligibility to State and local governments. Many 
individual respondents believed the proposed eligibility criteria would 
force local governments and schools to work through a non-governmental 
organization to request FAA-recognized identification area designations 
on public property. One commenter noted there are many local 
organizations not affiliated with a CBO that operate from local private 
and municipal fields. Commenters stated that limiting eligibility to 
CBOs would discourage student model flyers who predominately learn at 
parks, schools, and gyms, and could disadvantage low-income and urban 
enthusiasts who cannot afford CBO dues.
    FAA Response: The FAA considers that expanding eligibility to CBOs 
and educational institutions at all levels is sufficient to meet the 
needs of student model flyers and declines to expand eligibility to 
State and local governments. Expanding eligibility to State and local 
governments could expand the scope of FAA-recognized identification 
areas to an extent that would undermine the effectiveness of remote 
identification. The purpose of FAA-recognized identification areas is 
to help accommodate traditional model aircraft, many of which are home-
built unmanned aircraft and may not meet remote identification 
requirements, and not to provide sites for State or local governments 
to operate.
    Comments: The New Hampshire Department of Transportation stated 
that anyone should be able to request an FAA-recognized identification 
area by certifying that they are responsible for the area and will 
operate within FAA regulations. A large number of individual commenters 
believed that private individuals should be able to register their 
private property as an FAA-recognized identification area. Some 
commenters also asserted this restriction infringes on private property 
rights. The American Association of Airport Executives recommended that 
local governments should control the use of FAA-recognized 
identification areas through local laws and ordinances. The 
Experimental Aircraft Association suggested that if the FAA adopted a 
system like the FAA's Web-based Operations Safety System (WebOPSS) to 
automate the application process, a CBO intermediary would be 
unnecessary.
    FAA Response: The FAA declines to extend eligibility to request 
FAA-recognized identification areas to any individual or individual 
property owner, regardless of affiliation. As discussed in the NPRM, 
the FAA intends most UAS to identify remotely. The operation of 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment at FAA-
recognized identification areas is primarily for those who are truly 
unable to use either standard remote identification UAS or remote 
identification broadcast modules. The benefits of requiring remote 
identification generally are undermined if the FAA-recognized 
identification area eligibility criteria are expanded to a point where 
every backyard could be a potential site. Permitting private 
individuals to seek FAA-recognized identification areas would undermine 
the FAA's primary goal in establishing the remote identification 
requirements: Enabling

[[Page 4438]]

the identification of unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of 
the United States by the FAA, law enforcement, and other government 
officials. That goal cannot be met if every individual is able to 
operate without remote identification by requesting an FAA-recognized 
identification area.
    Comments: Many commenters equated a ``community-based 
organization'' with the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and 
expressed concern that the FAA would favor the AMA when establishing 
FAA-recognized identification areas. These commenters argued that model 
aircraft flyers would be compelled to join Academy of Model 
Aeronautics-affiliated clubs to pursue their hobby. Some commenters 
requested the FAA automatically establish FAA-recognized identification 
areas at all existing AMA flying sites.
    FAA Response: The FAA considers that CBOs and educational 
institutions can perform an important function in promoting safety in 
recreational UAS flying. These organizations must submit applications 
for any sites for which they request establishment of FAA-recognized 
identification areas. Only by submitting an application and providing 
the FAA with the information requested will the FAA be able to 
appropriately and objectively evaluate each site to determine its 
eligibility. The FAA is not pre-approving any existing flying sites as 
FAA-recognized identification areas with the publication of this rule.

C. Time Limit for Submitting an Application To Request an FAA-
Recognized Identification Area

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that applications for establishment of an FAA-
recognized identification area would have to be submitted within 12 
calendar months from the effective date of a final rule. Under the 
proposal, at the end of that 12-calendar month period, no new 
applications for FAA-recognized identification areas would be accepted. 
This rule eliminates the 12 calendar month limitation on applications, 
and the FAA will begin accepting applications September 16, 2022.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Though a few commenters suggested varying timeframes over 
12 months for the application period, the vast majority of commenters 
opposed the 12-month application time period limitation. Commenters 
including the Airports Council International-North America, AiRXOS, 
AirMap, the Consumer Technology Association, DJI, New Frontier 
Airspace, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Wing 
Aviation, and others strongly opposed the 12-month application period. 
Some commenters, including AUVSI and AOPA, expressed concern that the 
12-month limit on new FAA-recognized identification areas would 
adversely affect science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
access, especially for those young persons interested in aviation as a 
career. Academic respondents, such as the Mobile County Public School, 
Mobile County Public School JROTC, the University of Maryland UAS Test 
Site, the Virginia Tech Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership, University 
of Texas at Austin, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and 
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University opposed the 12-month limit on 
similar grounds--as did a number of private organizations. The New 
Hampshire Department of Transportation and many individual respondents 
opposed the 12-month window as potentially limiting not only 
recreational opportunity, but also economic growth.
    Many commenters pointed out that the need to establish and change 
the parameters of an FAA-recognized identification area would continue 
after the 12-month period had passed, asserting that land development, 
re-zoning, community encroachment, sale of property or loss of lease, 
demographics, and other factors regularly necessitated that flying 
clubs cease operations and re-locate. Commenters also expressed concern 
that the 12-month period would result in the elimination of traditional 
radio controlled flying through attrition. Nearly all commenters felt 
that the 12-month limit should be eliminated, and that recreational UAS 
without remote identification should be permitted to operate--at least 
at selected sites--in perpetuity.
    FAA Response: Based on the comments received, the FAA has 
determined that there will be a continued need for FAA-recognized 
identification areas for certain types of unmanned aircraft such as 
home-built unmanned aircraft and that these areas will not phase out as 
originally conceived. Though the FAA considered that the addition of 
the remote identification broadcast module option and elimination of 
the proposed network requirements would reduce the need for FAA-
recognized identification areas, the FAA still foresees an ongoing need 
for these areas for some operators such as some home-built UAS that 
cannot equip and educational science, technology, engineering, and math 
programs. Due to this ongoing need, the FAA has decided to remove the 
12 calendar month limitation on applications to establish an FAA-
recognized identification area.
    In addition, comments about the potential impacts on education and 
the recreational community were persuasive.
    The FAA will begin accepting applications for FAA-recognized 
identification areas September 16, 2022.

D. Process To Request an FAA-Recognized Identification Area and FAA 
Review for Approval

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The NPRM proposed in Sec.  89.210 that certain information be 
provided to the FAA as part of an application for an FAA-recognized 
identification area. With the exception of minor adjustments to reflect 
the expansion of organizations eligible to apply as discussed 
previously in this section, the FAA will adopt this list as proposed. 
Applications for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area 
must include: (1) The name of the community based organization or 
educational institution eligible under Sec.  89.205; (2) the name of 
the individual making the request on behalf of eligible persons (i.e., 
the CBO or educational institution per Sec.  89.205); (3) a declaration 
that the individual making the request has the authority to act on 
behalf of the community-based organization or educational institution; 
(4) the name and contact information, including telephone number(s), of 
the primary point of contact for communications with the FAA; (5) the 
physical address of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area; 
(6) the location of the FAA-recognized identification area in a form 
and manner prescribed by the Administrator; (7) if applicable, a copy 
of any existing letter of agreement regarding the flying site; (8) a 
description of the intended purpose of the FAA-recognized 
identification area and why the proposed FAA-recognized identification 
areas is necessary for that purpose; and (9) any other information 
required by the Administrator. The advisory circular on the FAA-
recognized identification area application process will be published 
following this rulemaking.
    In Sec.  89.215 of the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the 
Administrator may consider certain criteria when reviewing a request 
for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. This rule 
clarifies the criteria proposed in Sec.  89.215 to explain how the FAA 
may evaluate the requested location of an

[[Page 4439]]

FAA-recognized identification area. In Sec.  89.215(a), the FAA 
clarifies that it may consider the existence of flight or airspace 
restrictions and special flight rules, including any restrictions or 
regulations limiting UAS flight for safety, efficiency, national 
security, or homeland security, which may overlap with a requested or 
established FAA-recognized identification area. The Agency may also 
consider the need for an FAA-recognized identification area in the 
proposed location and proximity of other FAA-recognized identification 
areas to determine whether to grant or deny an application. The 
effectiveness of remote identification relies upon the majority of 
operators remotely identifying, therefore, these considerations are 
necessary to prevent undermining of that effectivity. The FAA has 
removed the separate criteria of the effects on airspace capacity, 
determining that the criteria is already encompassed in the 
consideration of the safe and efficient use of the airspace by other 
aircraft.
    The FAA is adopting the other criteria (e.g., the safe and 
efficient use of airspace by other aircraft and the safety and security 
of persons or property on the ground) as proposed. The FAA will issue 
an advisory circular to provide additional guidance on FAA-recognized 
identification areas, which will be published following this 
rulemaking.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The FAA received comments on the information required for 
application as well as the criteria used to evaluate potential FAA-
recognized identification areas. Some commenters, including the 
Airports Council International-North America, requested that FAA-
recognized identification areas also be bound by height above ground 
level and that information be required in addition to latitude and 
longitude boundaries.
    FAA Response: The FAA declines to include height above ground level 
in the required application criteria as unnecessary. Operations in FAA-
recognized identification areas will continue to be bound by the 
constraints of the operating rules followed by each UAS operator in 
those areas (e.g., part 107, 49 U.S.C. 44809, etc.). These operating 
rules contain altitude restrictions and adherence to airspace 
requirements that sufficiently bound the maximum altitude in which UAS 
would be operating in these areas without including height above ground 
level.
    Comments: Some commenters argued that geographic boundaries are too 
complex a request and that the default boundary shape should be 
circular. They suggested that the application should only require the 
latitude and longitude coordinates of the center point of the circular 
area for the FAA-recognized identification area boundary.
    FAA Response: The advisory circular on FAA-Recognized 
Identification Areas will provide additional guidance for how the FAA 
may accept descriptions of the location and boundary shapes. The FAA 
adopts this application requirement for geographic boundaries as ``the 
location of the FAA-recognized identification area in a form and manner 
prescribed by the Administrator.'' The FAA expects that a CBO or 
educational institution requesting establishment of an FAA-recognized 
identification area would need to have a clear understanding of the 
boundaries of the area they are requesting and that the FAA may require 
specific details about that location's geographic boundaries. The 
application information and criteria established in this rule do not 
preclude circular FAA-recognized identification areas; however, the FAA 
foresees a need for increasingly specific boundary information to 
depict these areas accurately for the public. The advisory circular for 
FAA-recognized identification areas will provide additional guidance, 
and will be published following this rulemaking.
    Comments: Some commenters including the Commercial Drone Alliance 
supported the criteria for evaluation proposed in the NPRM and 
recommended that FAA take all four factors into consideration for every 
application. Other commenters requested additional requirements prior 
to the establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. The 
Association of American Railroads and Association of Airport Executives 
recommended that critical infrastructure operators be allowed to review 
and comment on FAA-recognized identification area applications near 
critical infrastructure, for example within 5 miles of an airport. 
Multiple organizations including The Airports Council International-
North America and International Association of Amusement Parks and 
Attractions recommended FAA use a public notification process such as 
the Federal Register along with a 30 day public comment period, as part 
of the FAA review and approval process for FAA-recognized 
identification areas to get input from local communities, citizens, and 
other stakeholders such as existing airspace users, critical 
infrastructure operators, public and private infrastructure owners, and 
neighborhoods affected by FAA-recognized identification areas.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not consider that public notice and 
comment is appropriate for the approval of FAA-recognized 
identification areas. The existence of an FAA-recognized identification 
area does not change airspace requirements for the area; all operating 
rules and airspace requirements and restrictions remain in effect 
whether an FAA-recognized identification area is established or not. 
The FAA-recognized identification area merely indicates that unmanned 
aircraft in that location are not required to be equipped with remote 
identification broadcast. Because the decision to establish an FAA-
recognized identification area does not alter airspace requirements, 
the FAA finds that public notice and comment is not necessary.
    Comments: Flite Test Community Association recommended that the 
application process for FAA-recognized identification areas could be 
implemented similarly to the process for part 107 waivers. Commenters 
mentioned the FAA could identify default risk and safety thresholds and 
if the requested locations of the FAA-recognized identification areas 
meet those thresholds the location could be granted automatic approval.
    FAA Response: The FAA notes the granting of part 107 waivers is not 
automatic and operational waivers are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 
The Small UAV Coalition recommended the FAA should not simply approve 
or disapprove applications as submitted, but should grant approval if 
attributes of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area such as 
geographic boundaries can be altered to address FAA concerns. The FAA 
considers this to be unnecessary because applicants for FAA-recognized 
identification areas would be able to re-apply with different 
geographic boundaries if the initial application is denied.
    Comments: Many other commenters looked for greater specificity in 
the criteria and processes for requesting and approving an FAA-
recognized identification area. Commenters argued that it is more 
effective for them to build an FAA-recognized identification area to 
FAA-established requirements than to risk FAA disapproval because their 
application did not meet the generalized criteria of Sec.  89.215. In 
particular, commenters sought clarity regarding the term ``critical 
infrastructure.''
    FAA Response: The FAA has revised the criteria to clearly state 
that the FAA may consider the existence of flight or airspace 
restrictions and special flight rules, including any restrictions or 
regulations limiting UAS flight for

[[Page 4440]]

safety, efficiency, national security, or homeland security that 
overlap with the request. The FAA considers that this criteria would 
include any airspace restrictions over critical infrastructure. The 
advisory circular on FAA-Recognized Identification Areas will provide 
greater specificity in the criteria and process for establishment of an 
FAA-recognized identification area, and will be published following 
this rulemaking.

E. Official List of FAA-Recognized Identification Areas

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA stated it would maintain a list of FAA-recognized 
identification areas at https://www.faa.gov, and that the location of 
FAA-recognized identification areas would be made available to the 
public. The list would enable operators of unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification, and the public, to stay informed about these 
locations where unmanned aircraft without remote identification may be 
flown. In addition, law enforcement and security personnel would be 
able to identify if a suspect unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification is legally operating within an FAA-recognized 
identification area. Though no comments were received on this aspect of 
the proposal, the FAA believes it is appropriate to retain flexibility 
concerning the means by which FAA will publish the locations of 
approved FAA-recognized identification areas and ensure the information 
is made available in a useful format for the flying public and other 
stakeholders. The FAA clarifies in this rule that it will publish the 
location of FAA-recognized identification areas on a publicly 
accessible website in a form and manner to be prescribed by the 
Administrator. This may take the form of a list or another format, such 
as a graphical depiction. Additional guidance will be provided in the 
advisory circular on FAA-Recognized Identification Areas, which will be 
published following this rulemaking.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    The FAA received no public comments on this topic.

F. Amendment of the FAA-Recognized Identification Area

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    In Sec.  89.220 the FAA proposed that any change to the information 
submitted in a request for establishment of an FAA-recognized 
identification area be submitted to the FAA within 10 calendar days of 
the change, including changes to the point of contact or organizational 
affiliation of an FAA-recognized identification area. The geographic 
boundaries of the FAA-recognized identification area will not change 
unless they have been approved in accordance with Sec.  89.215. The FAA 
would review and approve or deny any requested changes to the 
geographic boundaries using the same criteria used for a request for 
establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. Any change 
submitted to the Administrator may result in the termination of the 
FAA-recognized identification area pursuant to proposed Sec.  89.230 or 
modification of the FAA-recognized identification area if the FAA-
recognized identification area no longer meets the criteria or 
eligibility requirements. After reviewing the public comments, the FAA 
adopts the time period to amend information as proposed. The FAA finds 
that 10 calendar days is a reasonable amount of time for the holder of 
the FAA-recognized identification area to submit administrative changes 
to the FAA, and that this process does not impact operations within the 
site.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many members of AMA provided comments that stated the 
need to change geographic boundaries over time due to club movement, 
population encroachment, or lease expiration, among other reasons. They 
requested that FAA not only consider amendments to the geographic 
boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area, but also consider 
entire new geographic areas if the current flying site needs to move.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters and acknowledges that 
there may be situations that require an FAA-recognized identification 
area's boundaries to be altered or completely relocated. The FAA will 
allow for submission of revised geographic boundaries but will evaluate 
the revised location against the criteria in Sec.  89.215. The FAA 
considers that changes to geographic location that would require 
entirely new geographic boundaries can also be submitted as a new 
application for an FAA-recognized identification area and would be 
subject to the same criteria. With the removal of the 12 calendar month 
limitation, the FAA finds that this requirement is not overly 
burdensome. One commenter suggested allowing applicants to transfer the 
affiliation of an approved FAA-recognized identification areas from one 
CBO to another, which may be necessitated by CBO reorganization. The 
FAA finds that such a change in affiliation may be acceptable but would 
require the new CBO to submit an application and indicate the change, 
and for the FAA to review and approve the application.
    Comments: An individual commenter stated the allowance of only 10 
days to submit amended information for an FAA-recognized identification 
area is too short for volunteer-based clubs that may only meet once 
every 30 days.
    FAA Response: The FAA adopts the time period to amend information 
as proposed. The FAA finds that 10 calendar days is a reasonable amount 
of time for the holder of the FAA-recognized identification area to 
submit administrative changes to the FAA, and that this process does 
not impact operations within the site. The FAA envisions that CBOs that 
meet infrequently would likely make such administrative changes during 
these meetings or members could communicate with each other through 
other means and still provide the FAA notice within the required 
timeframe.

G. Duration of an FAA-Recognized Identification Area, Expiration, and 
Renewal

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Under Sec.  89.225, the FAA proposed a term of 48 calendar months 
after the date of approval for FAA-recognized identification areas. The 
FAA explained that a person wishing to renew the FAA-recognized 
identification area would have to submit a request for renewal no later 
than 120 days before the expiration date. In the proposal, if a request 
for renewal is submitted after that time but prior to the expiration 
date, the Administrator could choose not to consider the request. 
Requests for renewal submitted after the expiration date of the 
designation would not be considered by the Administrator. The FAA has 
determined that 48 calendar months is a reasonable term for a renewal 
interval. A 48 calendar month renewal period gives the FAA the 
opportunity to update its FAA-recognized identification area database 
to delete abandoned and non-operational sites, and therefore, the FAA 
is keeping the site duration term as proposed. The proposed rule 
included the restriction that once an FAA-recognized identification 
area had expired, it could not be re-established. This rule removes 
that restriction.
1. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Commenters did not agree on whether FAA-recognized 
identification areas should ever expire. Some noted that many fixed 
flying sites

[[Page 4441]]

are used (and reused) on a short-term basis for infrequent events such 
as competitions. Many commenters noted that current flying sites are 
leased from private property owners and are subject to renewal. Some 
commenters felt the 48 month renewal requirement is burdensome, while 
others disputed that sites should require any renewal to retain their 
approval status. One commenter argued that expiration should only occur 
if a characteristic used to approve the FAA-recognized identification 
area has changed. Several commenters asserted that the renewal period 
should be longer than 48 months. The Small UAV Coalition and an 
individual commenter recommended extending the renewal period to 60 
months to align with the duration of AMA-affiliated fixed site land 
leases. The commenter also recommended allowing FAA-recognized 
identification areas to continue to operate while the renewal is being 
considered, to include any period of time where the FAA's determination 
is under appeal. One individual commenter recommended a 60-month 
duration but with annual reviews for changes in site parameters. The 
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and two individual commenters 
recommended the FAA change the renewal period to 120 calendar months. 
They commented that 48 months is too burdensome for both community-
based organizations and the FAA as well. Commenters generally objected 
to provisions such as expiration and the prohibition on re-applying for 
an FAA-recognized identification area in the location of an expired or 
terminated FAA-recognized identification area. Commenters asserted the 
FAA's assumption that non-equipped UAS would dwindle is faulty and 
demonstrates a flawed understanding of the modeling community.
    Commenters stated that the requirement to request renewal of FAA-
recognized identification areas no later than120 days before the 
expiration date was onerous or unnecessary. The Small UAV Coalition did 
not raise concerns with the renewal time period requirement.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that 48 months is a reasonable 
term for a renewal interval. A 48-calendar month renewal period gives 
the FAA the opportunity to update its FAA-recognized identification 
area database to delete abandoned and non-operational sites. In 
addition, the 48-month renewal period gives the FAA the opportunity to 
validate that these sites are still necessary and continue to meet the 
applicable safety and security criteria. The FAA has determined that a 
48-calendar month term balances the safety and security needs to 
periodically review FAA-recognized identification areas against the 
administrative overhead associated with conducting the review. The FAA 
finds that commenter suggestions for longer time periods (60 months or 
120 calendar months) do not allow for sufficiently frequent review. For 
the reasons detailed above, the FAA has also determined the requirement 
to submit a renewal request for FAA-recognized identification areas is 
also reasonable. The FAA determines that the requirement to request 
renewal no later than 120 days before the expiration period is 
necessary to provide the FAA time to process the renewal.
    Comments: Commenters objected to the restriction on re-
establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas that have expired. 
AiRXOS commented that the FAA provided no reasonable explanation for 
prohibiting applicants from applying to reestablish a previously 
approved FAA-recognized identification area that had expired, and noted 
that it does not appear to be a risk-based provision.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that these areas will 
not phase out as initially conceived. In addition to removing the 12-
calendar month limitation for application, the FAA will allow 
applicants to re-apply for an area that had expired. The FAA envisions 
that the process to re-apply be the same as the process for new 
applications, because the application would be evaluated against the 
same criteria.

H. Requests to Terminate an FAA-recognized Identification Area

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    As proposed in Sec.  89.230(b)(1), if the holder of an FAA-
recognized identification area seeks to terminate the site prior to the 
expiration date, the organization would do so by submitting a request 
for termination to the Administrator. In the proposed rule, that site 
would no longer be eligible to be an FAA-recognized identification area 
in the future. This rule removes this restriction and allows 
voluntarily terminated FAA-recognized identification areas to be 
submitted to be re-established.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Commenters objected to the proposed restriction against 
the re-establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area that was 
voluntarily terminated.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. This rule allows applicants to re-
apply for an area that has been terminated by the previous holder of 
the FAA-recognized remote identification area. The FAA envisions that 
the process to re-apply be the same as the process for new 
applications, because the application would be evaluated against the 
same criteria and the 12-calendar month limitation on new applications 
is no longer applicable.

I. Termination by FAA and Petitions To Reconsider the FAA's Decision To 
Terminate an FAA-Recognized Identification Area

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed in Sec.  89.230(b)(2) that the FAA would be able 
to terminate an FAA-recognized identification area for cause or upon a 
finding, including but not limited to: (1) The FAA-recognized 
identification area may pose a risk to aviation safety, public safety, 
or national security; (2) a finding that the FAA-recognized 
identification area is no longer associated with a community-based 
organization recognized by the Administrator; or (3) a finding that the 
person who submitted a request for establishment of an FAA-recognized 
identification area provided false or misleading information during the 
submission, amendment, or renewal process.
    The FAA proposed that a person whose FAA-recognized identification 
area has been terminated by the Agency would be able to petition for 
reconsideration by submitting a request for reconsideration within 30 
calendar days of the date of issuance of the termination as required in 
proposed Sec.  89.230.
    This rule adopts this section with minor changes to clarify the 
rationale for terminating an FAA-recognized identification area and the 
criteria to petition to reconsider the FAA's decision to terminate an 
FAA-recognized identification area.
    As proposed, once an FAA-recognized identification area is 
terminated by the FAA, a CBO would not be able to reapply to have the 
associated area reestablished as an FAA-recognized identification area. 
In this rule, the FAA clarifies that except as provided in petitions 
for reconsideration, if the FAA terminates an FAA-recognized 
identification area based upon a finding that the FAA-recognized 
identification area may pose a risk to aviation safety, public safety, 
or national security, that flying site will no longer be eligible to be 
an FAA-recognized identification area for as long as those conditions

[[Page 4442]]

remain in effect. The FAA is also adding ``homeland security'' to the 
list of considerations in Sec.  89.230(b)(2) that may necessitate 
termination, for consistency with other changes made in Sec.  89.215. 
The FAA agrees that if at some point there is reasonable expectation 
that the reason for terminating the FAA-recognized identification area 
is no longer relevant, then an FAA-recognized identification area 
application should be open to consideration.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters, including AOPA and the Utah Department 
of Transportation, did not agree with the termination and expiration of 
FAA-recognized identification areas generally and specifically were 
concerned with the inability to re-establish these sites. PRENAV and 
some individual commenters suggested CBOs should be allowed to reapply 
to have a flying site reestablished as an FAA-recognized identification 
area following a failed appeal. These commenters noted the conditions 
which led to the FAA's decision to terminate an FAA-recognized 
identification area may have changed at some point after the 
termination.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that if the conditions that led to the 
termination are no longer in effect, a previously-established FAA-
recognized identification area should be allowed to be re-established 
and has modified this final rule, accordingly. However, if those 
conditions that led to termination are still present, the FAA would not 
re-establish the site. The FAA is committed to not allowing FAA-
recognized identification areas in locations that would pose a risk to 
aviation safety, public safety, or national security.
    Comments: A number of commenters expressed concern with the 
termination and appeal process, in particular over whether due process 
was being sufficiently applied. AOPA suggested the FAA allow for a 
decision reconsideration process so that CBOs may address and resolve 
any relevant outstanding safety issues that lead to the FAA termination 
decision. AOPA further proposed that impacted parties should be able to 
seek an administrative hearing concerning the FAA's decision to 
terminate an FAA-recognized identification area under part 13, 
expressing concern that without an administrative hearing there was no 
guarantee that all the relevant facts would be considered, nor that an 
impartial decision on the matter would be reached.
    FAA Response: The absence of an FAA-recognized identification area 
does not prohibit UAS from operating in the area so long as those UAS 
are able to identify remotely. However, the FAA recognizes that the 
termination of an FAA-recognized identification area could affect 
persons flying unmanned aircraft without remote identification because, 
for example, the persons would have to fly their unmanned aircraft at 
another FAA-recognized identification area or would have to retrofit 
their unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module. 
As discussed in this rule, Sec.  89.230(b) establishes the grounds for 
termination of an FAA-recognized identification area. Because of the 
effect of the termination on persons operating unmanned aircraft, the 
FAA included a reconsideration process in Sec.  89.230(c) to ensure due 
process by providing a reasonable time frame for eligible persons to 
submit a petition to the Administrator requesting reconsideration of 
the decision by stating the reasons justifying the request and 
including any supporting documentation. The FAA believes this process 
is reasonable and adequate because the termination of an FAA-recognized 
identification area does not ground unmanned aircraft that can remotely 
identify, persons can choose to retrofit their unmanned aircraft with 
remote identification broadcast modules if they want to continue flying 
in that airspace, and they can continue to fly their unmanned aircraft 
without remote identification at other FAA-recognized identification 
areas.
    Comments: Some individual commenters were unsatisfied with the 
wording of this section. One individual commenter requested the FAA 
amend the wording to specify that a ``FAA-recognized identification 
area representative or CBO representative'' rather than a ``person'' 
can submit a petition. This commenter felt the current wording was not 
broad enough to encompass a CBO or property owner or lessee.
    FAA Response: The FAA clarifies that the word ``person'' carries 
the meaning ascribed to it in 14 CFR 1.1, and includes corporate 
entities and other organizations as well as individuals. The FAA agrees 
that if at some point there is reasonable expectation that the reason 
for terminating the FAA-recognized identification area is no longer 
relevant, an FAA-recognized identification area application should be 
open to consideration. The advisory circular will contain further 
details regarding FAA-recognized identification areas, including the 
process for termination and appeal. The advisory circular on FAA-
recognized identification areas will be published following this 
rulemaking.

XIII. Means of Compliance

A. Performance-Based Regulation

    The FAA adopts the regulatory framework for remote identification 
with performance-based requirements rather than prescriptive text to 
provide a flexible regulation that allows a person to develop a means 
of compliance--which may include industry consensus standards--that 
adjusts to the fast pace of technological change, innovation, design, 
and development while still meeting the regulatory requirements. 
Performance-based requirements describe outcomes, goals, or results 
without establishing a specific means or process for regulated entities 
to follow.\23\ The FAA recognizes that UAS technology is continually 
evolving, making it necessary to harmonize regulatory action with 
technological growth. Setting performance requirements is one way to 
promote that harmonization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See OMB Circular A-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of 
compliance and submit them to the FAA for acceptance. These bodies 
generally incorporate openness, balance, due process, appeals process, 
and peer review. The FAA has an extensive history of working with 
consensus standards bodies such as ASTM International (ASTM), Society 
of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTAA) \24\ directs Federal 
agencies to use consensus standards in lieu of government-unique 
standards except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. 
The FAA intends to rely increasingly on consensus standards as FAA-
accepted means of compliance for UAS performance-based regulations for 
remote identification, consistent with FAA precedent for general 
aviation aircraft and other initiatives taken with respect to UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approach aligns with DOT regulatory policy, which requires that 
DOT regulations be ``be technologically neutral, and, to the extent 
feasible, they should specify performance objectives, rather than 
prescribing specific conduct that regulated entities must adopt.'' \25\ 
This approach is also consistent with the direction of the Office of

[[Page 4443]]

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, which favors the use of 
performance-based regulations and voluntary consensus standards. OMB 
Circular A-119 states that, for cases in which no suitable voluntary 
consensus standards exist, an agency may consider using other types of 
standards. In addition, an agency may develop its own standards or use 
other government-unique standards, solicit interest from qualified 
standards development organizations for development of a standard, or 
develop a standard using the process principles outlined in section 2e 
of the Circular.\26\ OMB Circular A-119 cautions regulators to avoid 
standards with biases in favor of a few large manufacturers that create 
an unfair competitive advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 49 CFR 5.5(e).
    \26\ OMB Circular A-119, Section 5d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    As promulgated in this rule, a person may use a means of compliance 
to meet the remote identification minimum performance requirements. The 
FAA has determined that the use of an FAA-accepted consensus standard 
as a means of compliance provides stakeholders the flexibility to 
comply with the remote identification requirements. However, the FAA 
recognizes that consensus standards are one way, but not the sole 
means, to show compliance with the performance requirements of this 
rule. The FAA emphasizes that, though a means of compliance developed 
by a consensus standards body (e.g., ASTM, SAE, Consumer Technology 
Association (CTA), etc.) may be available, any individual or 
organization can submit its own means of compliance to the 
Administrator for consideration and potential acceptance under subpart 
E of this rule.
    The FAA adopts subpart E essentially as proposed in the NPRM. 
However, the Agency is making certain modification to subpart E to 
reflect the revisions made to the remote identification framework in 
subpart B and subpart D. The FAA is eliminating all references to 
limited remote identification UAS in subpart E because of the decision 
not to move forward with that concept. The Agency is also incorporating 
the remote identification broadcast module solution into subpart E to 
enable the development of means of compliance used to produce the 
broadcast modules. For more information on these changes, see sections 
VII.A and VII.D of this preamble.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems 
International (AUVSI) and other commenters believed that the FAA's 
proposal is not performance-based; they mentioned that the rule is 
based on prescriptive technology mandates. AUVSI asked the FAA to adopt 
performance-based requirements that comply with international standards 
and avoid requiring specific technology mandates.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with this assertion because 
this rule mainly describes outcomes, goals, and results without 
establishing a specific way to achieve it. The FAA recognizes that UAS 
technology is continually evolving, making it necessary to harmonize 
regulatory action with technological growth. By establishing 
performance requirements in part 89, the FAA is promoting harmonization 
and is providing a flexible regulation that allows a person to develop 
a means of compliance that adjusts to the fast pace of technological 
change, innovation, design, and development while still meeting the 
regulatory requirements.

B. Applicability and General Comments

    In Sec.  89.401, the FAA describes the applicability of subpart E. 
The FAA did not receive significant comments on this section and adopts 
the section mostly as proposed. The Agency is revising the regulatory 
text to delete references to the limited remote identification UAS, and 
incorporate the remote identification broadcast module concept.

C. Submission of a Means of Compliance

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    In accordance with Sec.  89.405, any person may submit a means of 
compliance for acceptance by the FAA. Section 89.405 also establishes 
the information that has to be submitted to seek the FAA's acceptance 
of a means of compliance, and requires a means of compliance to include 
testing and validation procedures.
    The FAA adopts this section mostly as proposed. The Agency is 
revising the regulatory text to delete references to limited remote 
identification UAS, and incorporate the remote identification broadcast 
module concept so that persons can file a means of compliance for the 
latter.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Some commenters questioned the value and use of the means 
of compliance process. Others believed that the proposed requirements 
for the submission of the means of compliance were vague. A number of 
commenters asked the FAA to clarify what information must be submitted 
for the FAA to accept a means of compliance under subpart E. Some asked 
the FAA to include standards or performance metrics for persons to 
follow when submitting a means of compliance for FAA-acceptance. Other 
commenters asked the FAA to consider ``best practices'' when evaluating 
submissions. Commenters also asked the Agency to publish guidance 
material or examples of FAA-accepted means of compliance and related 
documents.
    Multiple commenters asked the Agency to identify the standards and 
organizations it would work with to develop and accept the means of 
compliance under part 89.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters who believe 
the means of compliance process is vague. Section 89.405 describes the 
information that must be submitted by any person seeking the FAA's 
acceptance of a means of compliance. The FAA has determined this 
information is necessary to assess whether a proposed means of 
compliance (e.g., a standard) meets all of the remote identification 
requirements of subpart D and subpart E of this rule and whether it can 
be used for the design and production of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules.
    The process is an essential component of the remote identification 
framework because an FAA-accepted means of compliance is used by 
designers and producers of standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules to ensure that the 
unmanned aircraft or broadcast modules meet the minimum performance 
requirements of this rule.
    Consistent with its statements in the NPRM, the Agency is not 
planning on publicly disclosing the details or specification of any 
FAA-accepted means of compliance or related documents because they may 
contain proprietary data or commercially valuable information. The FAA 
is, however, publishing an advisory circular on the Means of Compliance 
Process for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, that 
provides further guidance on the process. The advisory circular 
addresses the process and information that must be submitted under 
subpart E and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    Comments: Multiple commenters believed the requirements in subpart 
E will impose financial and

[[Page 4444]]

administrative burdens, and will prevent or dissuade persons from 
submitting a means of compliance for FAA acceptance.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the rule imposes certain 
costs related to the development and submission of a means of 
compliance. These costs are justified by the benefits that will result 
from the rule, and both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed 
in the regulatory evaluation available in section XXII.A of this 
preamble.
    Comments: Many commenters, including some that identified as home-
builders, expressed concerns about the submission requirements and 
mentioned that the process is geared towards large manufacturers. They 
mentioned that small manufacturers, non-commercial manufacturers, or 
home-builders could have difficulties in submitting means of 
compliance. Some commenters believed that only manufacturers can submit 
a means of compliance for FAA-acceptance.
    FAA Response: As being promulgated, Sec.  89.405(a) allows any 
person to submit a means of compliance. This includes, but is not 
limited to consensus standard bodies, designers and producers of 
unmanned aircraft, or other persons (e.g., universities or 
individuals.) The FAA noticed a common misunderstanding among 
commenters who believed that producers of standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
modules must develop and submit their own means of compliance for FAA 
acceptance. This is not the case. A producer must use an FAA-accepted 
means of compliance, but it can be any FAA-accepted means of compliance 
(e.g., one developed by a third party).
    While this rule allows a home-builder to submit a means of 
compliance for FAA-acceptance, the Agency does not expect many home-
builders to do so because home-built unmanned aircraft are explicitly 
excepted from the design and production requirements of subpart F. Even 
when a home-builder chooses to voluntarily opt into the design and 
production requirements of subpart F to produce a home-built standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft, the FAA does not envision that 
many home-builders will file their own means of compliance. The FAA 
expects most will use an FAA-accepted means of compliance submitted by 
another person, such as a consensus standards body.
    Comments: Wingcopter and other commenters mentioned that the 
testing and validation requirements in Sec.  89.405(c) are complex and 
might make it difficult for persons to comply with the regulation. The 
commenters specifically questioned whether the means of compliance 
framework applies to UAS produced under part 21. The commenters said it 
was confusing because the certification specifications, special 
conditions, or Technical Standard Order requirements of part 21 cover 
testing and validation in addition to compliance demonstrations as part 
of the type certification process. Commenters specifically asked the 
FAA to clarify that the testing and validation requirements for 
certificated unmanned aircraft are addressed through the type 
certification process of part 21 instead of the requirements in part 
89.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that the testing and 
verification procedures are essential because an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance is used for the production of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. The 
requirement enables the person responsible for the production of the 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module to 
demonstrate to the FAA through analysis, ground test, or flight test, 
as appropriate, how the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module performs 
its intended functions and meets the requirements in subpart D.
    The FAA clarifies that the means of compliance framework applies to 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft manufactured under 
parts 89 and 21. While unmanned aircraft that are certified under the 
airworthiness certification processes of part 21 may have other 
identification requirements in addition to those included in this rule, 
the requirements in subpart D of part 89 (which can be met through an 
FAA-accepted means of compliance issued under subpart E) will be 
applied during the type or supplemental type certification process for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft certificated and 
produced under part 21.
    Comments: A multitude of commenters urged the FAA to revise the 
rule to allow for the submission of a means of compliance for remote 
identification retrofit equipment. Commenters support allowing 
manufacturers to produce these means of compliance to produce retrofit 
equipment and argued it would help increase compliance with the remote 
identification operating requirements.
    FAA Response: As discussed in sections VII.A and VII.D of this 
preamble, after reviewing public comments and giving further 
consideration, the FAA is incorporating the remote identification 
broadcast module concept into this rule. Accordingly, the Agency is 
revising this rule by incorporating minimum performance requirements 
for remote identification broadcast modules. With the changes effected 
in this rule, persons can now develop means of compliance for remote 
identification broadcast modules and submit them to the FAA for 
acceptance. The procedural requirement for submission and acceptance of 
means of compliance remains the same as with standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft. Such FAA-accepted means of compliance 
can be used for the production of remote identification broadcast 
modules under subpart F. With these revisions, operators are now able 
to equip their existing unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules to comply with the operating requirements of subpart 
B.
    Comments: The Motion Picture Association asked the FAA to develop 
an alternate means of compliance particularly for UAS operated indoors 
or those unable to utilize certain means to determine location reliably 
(e.g., GPS).
    FAA Response: The FAA regulates the navigable airspace of the 
United States. Because this rule does not apply to indoor operations of 
unmanned aircraft, the FAA has determined that there is no need to 
incorporate the alternate means proposed by the Motion Picture 
Association. See section VI.B for more information on the applicability 
of operating requirements.

D. Acceptance of a Means of Compliance

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Section 89.410 prescribes the requirements for accepting a means of 
compliance. This section requires that a person must demonstrate to the 
Administrator that the means of compliance submitted for assessment and 
potential acceptance addresses all of the requirements of subpart D and 
E, and that any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
remote identification broadcast module designed and produced in 
accordance with such means of compliance would meet the performance 
requirements of subpart D. Section 89.410 also clarifies that the 
Administrator will evaluate a means of compliance that is submitted to 
the FAA and may request additional information or documentation, as 
needed, to supplement the means of compliance. The Administrator will 
notify the person submitting the means

[[Page 4445]]

of compliance whether the means of compliance has been accepted or not.
    The FAA adopts this section mostly as proposed. The Agency is 
revising the regulatory text to delete references to limited remote 
identification UAS and incorporate the remote identification broadcast 
module concept.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The National Association of State Aviation Officials, 
Skydio Inc., the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), and others 
asked the FAA to commit to a deadline to review all submissions of 
means of compliance. Commenters indicated that without deadlines, the 
review process could be lengthy, impede the ability of designers and 
producers of UAS to bring products to market quickly, and inhibit 
innovation. Some commenters suggested specific deadlines. For example, 
Skydio Inc. asked the FAA to render a decision within 90 days of the 
submission unless there is a justified reason for the delay. Commenters 
also mentioned that the FAA should notify submitters, in writing, of 
the reason of any delay in reviewing the application.
    FAA Response: A means of compliance must be accepted prior to being 
listed on a declaration of compliance for the design and production of 
a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module. The FAA acknowledges that the review 
process and response time will vary, and will be dependent on the 
complexity of the application and the technology employed. In certain 
circumstances the Administrator may need additional information or 
documentation to supplement the filing to be able to make a 
determination. Therefore, the FAA cannot commit to a specific timeline 
for review because the process is dynamic, however the Agency is 
committed to working with stakeholders and allocating the necessary 
resources to review submissions of means of compliance in a timely 
manner.
    Comments: Various commenters mentioned that the Agency should 
explain the grounds for rejecting a means of compliance, so submitters 
can understand the issues and correct defects.
    FAA Response: The FAA will evaluate the means of compliance to 
ensure completeness and compliance with the requirements of subpart D 
or E. Consistent with Sec.  89.410(c), if the Administrator determines 
the person has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
means of compliance meets the requirements of subpart D or E, the 
Agency will notify the person that the Administrator has not accepted 
the means of compliance and provide the reasons for the decision.
    Comments: Streamline Designs LLC and others asked the FAA to file a 
notice of availability in the Federal Register whenever it accepts a 
means of compliance submitted by a standards body.
    FAA Response: As discussed in the NPRM and as promulgated in this 
rule, the FAA will indicate acceptance of a means of compliance by 
notifying the submitter and publishing a notice in the Federal Register 
identifying that a means of compliance is accepted. All FAA-accepted 
means of compliance will be listed on https://www.faa.gov. The FAA will 
not disclose proprietary information in the document and will only 
provide general information stating that FAA has accepted the means of 
compliance. The FAA may disclose the non-proprietary broadcast 
specification and radio frequency spectrum so that sufficient 
information is available to develop receiving and processing equipment 
and software for the FAA, law enforcement, and the public.
    Comments: The Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l and various 
commenters expressed concerns with the ability of the FAA to handle the 
workload created by this rule. Commenters specifically mentioned issues 
regarding cost, timeliness, and availability of resources. For example, 
they argued that the FAA and other stakeholders would need to invest a 
significant amount of money and identify substantial resources.
    FAA Response: As stated earlier, the FAA is committed to the 
implementation of remote identification and is developing internal 
procedures and allocating the appropriate resources to facilitate the 
review and acceptance processes under part 89. The FAA is committed to 
working with internal and external stakeholders to ensure that the 
process for submitting and obtaining FAA-acceptance of a means of 
compliance is conducted in an effective and timely manner.
    Comments: Many commenters, including Amazon Prime Air, AUVSI, GSMA, 
ASTM International, Drone Delivery Systems, and others urged the FAA to 
accept the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
international F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and 
Tracking as a means of compliance under this rule and requested the FAA 
work with ASTM to develop a rigorous standardized test plan. Drone 
Delivery Systems mentioned it supported the ASTM F3411-19 Standard 
Specification for Remote ID and Tracking for commercial UAS but that 
they did not expect it to become the requirement for every UAS.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that FAA-accepted consensus 
standards are one way, but not the sole means, to show compliance with 
the performance requirements of part 89. The FAA encourages ASTM and 
all other consensus standards bodies and interested parties to submit a 
means of compliance for FAA acceptance in accordance with the 
requirements of subpart E. The FAA emphasizes that, though a means of 
compliance developed by a consensus standards body may be available, 
any individual or organization is able to submit its own means of 
compliance to the Administrator for consideration and potential 
acceptance. Only FAA-accepted means of compliance can be used to 
produce standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules.
    The FAA acknowledges those comments requesting the FAA adopt ASTM 
F3411-19 as a remote identification means of compliance as part of this 
final rule. The FAA recognizes the significant work that ASTM and its 
members have put into the development of ASTM F3411-19. The FAA notes 
that some aspects of ASTM F3411-19 may need to be revised or updated as 
a result of the requirements of this final rule. Once that process has 
occurred, the FAA looks forward to evaluating ASTM F3411-19 as a 
potential means of compliance for remote identification of unmanned 
aircraft.

E. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Means of Compliance

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    According to Sec.  89.415, the Administrator may rescind its 
acceptance of a means of compliance if that means of compliance no 
longer meets the requirements of subpart D or E. The FAA will publish a 
notice of rescission in the Federal Register.
    The FAA adopts this section as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns that UAS might no 
longer comply with this rule if the means of compliance used by the 
manufacturer for the production of the standard remote identification 
UAS or the remote identification broadcast module is rescinded. 
Commenters

[[Page 4446]]

believed the requirement could inhibit the production of UAS and 
broadcast equipment and stifle UAS research and development, especially 
if the means of compliance becomes obsolete a couple of years after it 
has been accepted.
    FAA Response: An FAA-accepted means of compliance will remain in 
effect until the FAA rescinds its acceptance after the Administrator 
determines that the means of compliance does not meet the requirements 
in subpart D or E. This means that a standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or a remote identification broadcast module that is 
produced under a means of compliance that remains accepted by the FAA--
however old it may be--complies with the requirements of this rule as 
long as it continues to meet all of the requirements of subparts D and 
E. The filing of new means of compliance for the manufacturing of new 
or upgraded standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast modules that addresses technological 
advancements does not render the older versions obsolete.
    In the event the means of compliance is rescinded, the FAA's 
acceptance of any declaration of compliance that relies on the no 
longer accepted means of compliance may be rescinded as well. The FAA 
may allow the submitter of the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance 
to amend the declaration of compliance to include another FAA-accepted 
means of compliance, as long as the standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module produced 
and listed on the declaration of compliance complies with the newly-
listed means of compliance. The FAA will not rescind its acceptance of 
a declaration of compliance that is promptly amended to list another 
FAA-accepted means of compliance. However, failure to amend the 
declaration of compliance may result in the rescission of the FAA's 
acceptance of the declaration of compliance in accordance with subpart 
F.

F. Record Retention Requirements

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA adopts Sec.  89.420 as proposed. According to this section, 
a person who submits a means of compliance must retain all 
documentation and substantiating data submitted to the FAA for 
acceptance of the means of compliance; records of all test procedures, 
methodology, and other procedures, as applicable; and any other 
information necessary to justify and substantiate how the means of 
compliance enables compliance with the remote identification 
requirements. The person must retain these records for as long as the 
means of compliance is accepted, plus an additional 24 calendar months. 
The person is also required to make the records available for the 
Administrator's inspection.
    The record retention requirement in Sec.  89.420 applies to all 
persons holding FAA-accepted means of compliance. These could be, for 
example, consensus standards bodies; designers and producers of remote 
identification unmanned aircraft of all sizes; or other persons (e.g., 
universities or individuals.)
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Drone Delivery Systems and other commenters indicated 
that the record retention requirements in subpart E of this rule would 
increase unmanned aircraft costs. Some mentioned that the requirements 
would be overly burdensome for home-builders and small to medium size 
designers and producers of UAS.
    FAA Response: The costs related to the record retention requirement 
in subpart E are justified by the benefits that will result from the 
rule, and both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the 
Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The FAA clarifies that home-builders do not have to submit a means 
of compliance under subpart E. Home-builders are also not required to 
comply with the design and production requirements of subpart F unless 
they voluntarily opt into such requirements to build a home-built 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. If a home-builder 
opts into the design and production requirements, the home-builder can 
develop and use its own means of compliance or can use an FAA-accepted 
means of compliance held by another person (e.g., a consensus 
standard). The home-builder would not need to comply with the data 
retention requirements of subpart E unless it chooses to submit its own 
means of compliance under subpart E.
    Comments: Streamline Designs LLC and others asked which data the 
holders of an FAA-accepted means of compliance have to retain.
    FAA Response: Section 89.420 lists the data that the holders of 
FAA-accepted means of compliance have to retain. Further guidance is 
also provided in the advisory circular for means of compliance process 
for remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems, which is 
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.

XIV. Remote Identification Design and Production

    The FAA adopts the design and production requirements for remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft in subpart F. The essence of 
subpart F remains as proposed but the Agency is revising the regulation 
to reflect the elimination of the limited remote identification UAS 
concept and the incorporation of the remote identification broadcast 
module concept. The FAA is also reorganizing various sections in 
subpart F to clarify the production requirements that apply to unmanned 
aircraft produced under a design and production approval issued under 
part 21; unmanned aircraft designed and produced under a declaration of 
compliance issued under part 89; and remote identification broadcast 
modules.

A. Applicability of Design and Production Requirements

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    According to Sec.  89.501, subpart F prescribes the requirements 
for the design and production of unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification produced for operation in the airspace of the United 
States and remote identification broadcast modules. It also prescribes 
procedural requirements for the submission, acceptance, and rescission 
of declarations of compliance and certain rules governing persons 
submitting declarations of compliance for FAA acceptance.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Multiple commenters mentioned that the applicability of 
subpart F extends beyond the statutory authority of the FAA. They 
believed subpart F prohibits the manufacturing of UAS for indoor 
operations and in places other than the airspace of the United States 
and asked the Agency to except such UAS from the requirements of 
subpart F.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters and the 
suggested production exception for unmanned aircraft operated indoors 
is unnecessary. The Agency regulates aircraft operated in the navigable 
airspace of the United States--not unmanned aircraft operations 
conducted indoors. As indicated in Sec.  89.501, the production 
requirements apply to unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
operated in the airspace of the United States.
    Comments: Aerospace Industries Association and others asked the FAA

[[Page 4447]]

to clarify who is a ``manufacturer'' under subpart F to help people 
identify whether they need to comply with the design and production 
requirements. Airlines for America, the Experimental Aircraft 
Association, and others questioned whether the FAA has statutory 
authority to regulate the foreign manufacturing of UAS as well as the 
importation and sale of UAS, particularly those without an 
airworthiness certification. A commenter asked the FAA to clarify how 
it would ensure foreign producers comply with the requirements of 
subpart F within the timeframes established in the rule, and without 
burdening operators.
    FAA Response: The FAA clarifies that it does not regulate the sale 
or importation of unmanned aircraft. The requirements in subpart F 
apply to the production of remote identification broadcast modules and 
the production of unmanned aircraft with remote identification operated 
in the airspace of the United States. Any person, whether in the United 
States or a foreign country, producing such unmanned aircraft or 
broadcast modules must file a declaration of compliance, provide 
certain information, and agree to abide by the production requirements 
and certain terms and conditions (e.g., inspection, audit, product 
support and notification, instructions). If the person produces an 
unmanned aircraft or broadcast module that is not covered by an FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance, the unmanned aircraft or broadcast 
module would not meet the remote identification requirements of part 
89, and the operation would be restricted to an FAA-recognized 
identification area when conducted in the airspace of the United 
States. This regulatory framework is necessary to ensure that standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification 
broadcast modules used in the airspace of the United States can 
broadcast the remote identification message elements required by this 
rule, irrespective of where the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module 
is produced.
    Persons producing unmanned aircraft identified in Sec.  89.501(c), 
as discussed below, are not subject to the requirements of subpart F, 
and do not need to follow the production requirements or file a 
declaration of compliance.
    Comments: The Small UAV Coalition, Wing Aviation, and other 
commenters mentioned that the manufacturing requirements should only 
apply to certain UAS, such as highly automated unmanned aircraft used 
for commercial purposes or sold to third parties. The Small UAV 
Coalition described ``highly automated'' as a UAS with a combination of 
``geo-awareness, self-flying, and self-navigation capabilities.''
    Some commenters asked the FAA to modify the applicability of 
subpart B based on a risk-based approach that maximizes opportunities 
for compliance and enhances the safety and security outcomes for 
airspace users. Wing Aviation indicated that risk factors associated 
with UAS operations are most closely correlated with careless, 
clueless, or higher-risk operations, and indicated that the design and 
production requirements would impose unnecessary restrictions on self-
built UAS, which typically pose a lower risk. Multiple commenters also 
mentioned that the design and production requirements would preclude 
many hobbyists from designing, building, and flying their own UAS. The 
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and many individuals indicated 
that the design and production requirements should not apply to 
traditional model aircraft given their low risk profile and lack of 
need for specialized equipment. Many recreational UAS owners expressed 
concerns that only FAA-approved ready-to-fly UAS would be allowed for 
sale and this would increase the financial burden to UAS operators.
    Some commenters mentioned that the design and production 
requirements should apply to manufacturers of a certain size or to 
``mass manufacturers'' of UAS. A significant number of commenters 
opposed requiring manufacturers of single units, UAS used in 
recreational operations, UAS used for experimental purposes, or similar 
UAS from having to comply with subpart F. Another commenter mentioned 
that the FAA should create an expedited process (e.g., with less 
documentation requirements) to allow persons manufacturing few UAS to 
have a simpler means to comply with the design and production 
requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with comments that the design 
and production requirements should be based on the performance or 
capacity of the unmanned aircraft, the number of unmanned aircraft 
produced, the size or weight class, or the risk of the operation. The 
FAA also does not agree that the requirements should only apply to 
highly automated aircraft intended for sale to third parties or for 
commercial use.
    The design and production requirements of this rule apply to most 
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States. They 
are necessary to ensure that standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules used in the United 
States broadcast the remote identification message elements to enable 
compliance with the operating requirements of subpart B. The FAA has 
determined that it is in the interest of safety and security to require 
most unmanned aircraft to identify remotely when operating in the 
airspace of the United States. Accordingly, it has determined that the 
design and production requirements should be a rule of general 
applicability.
    The FAA acknowledges that certain exceptions are warranted and 
adopts these exceptions in Sec.  89.501(c), as further discussed below.

B. Exceptions to the Applicability of Design and Production 
Requirements

1. Exceptions: In General
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA has determined that--as a general rule--the design and 
production requirements should apply to unmanned aircraft operated in 
the airspace of the United States and should not be based on the 
intended use of the aircraft because the FAA's need to identify 
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States is 
independent of the purpose of the operation or the perceived or actual 
risk associated with an unmanned aircraft operation.
    As promulgated in this rule, Sec.  89.501(c) establishes the 
exceptions to the applicability of subpart F. The design or production 
requirements do not apply to: home-built unmanned aircraft; unmanned 
aircraft of the United States Government; unmanned aircraft that weigh 
0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, including everything that is on board 
or otherwise attached to the aircraft; and unmanned aircraft designed 
or produced exclusively for the purpose of aeronautical research or to 
show compliance with regulations.
    The FAA is making conforming changes to Sec.  89.501(c). Section 
89.501(c)(1) was revised to replace the term ``amateur-built unmanned 
aircraft system'' with the term ``home-built unmanned aircraft,'' which 
is consistent with the terminology change addressed in section V.D of 
this preamble. Furthermore, in Sec.  89.501(c)(3), the FAA 
inadvertently included the wrong threshold by saying the exclusion 
would apply to unmanned aircraft that weigh less than 0.55 pounds. The 
FAA is correcting this error and clarifying that the exception applies 
to unmanned aircraft ``that weigh 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, 
including everything that is

[[Page 4448]]

on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.''
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The FAA received many comments addressing exceptions to 
the design and production requirements. The Boeing Company asked the 
FAA to remove the proposed exceptions for home-built UAS, UAS of the 
United States Government, and UAS designed or produced for aeronautical 
research or to show compliance with regulations, unless the UAS are 
intended exclusively for operations at FAA-recognized identification 
areas. Boeing believed that, when operated in civil airspace, those 
excepted UAS should be subject to the same rules and requirements as 
other UAS to ensure safe operations for all.
    Multiple commenters also mentioned that the design and production 
requirements should apply to all UAS. Some commenters indicated that 
the FAA could create tiers of design and production requirements so 
that the requirements that apply to certain UAS (e.g., home-built UAS 
and UAS used in recreational operations) are less strict than those 
that apply to other UAS (e.g., UAS used in commercial operations).
    FAA Response: The FAA considered extending the design and 
production requirements to all unmanned aircraft operating in the 
airspace of the United States. However, the Agency identified a need to 
except certain unmanned aircraft from the design and production 
requirements of this rule. As discussed above, home-built unmanned 
aircraft, unmanned aircraft of the United States Government, and 
unmanned aircraft designed or produced exclusively for the purpose of 
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations, are 
included in the exceptions to the design and production requirement the 
FAA is adopting in this rule. These exceptions, as well as the 
exception for unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds or less on 
takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to 
the aircraft, are discussed in detail in sections XIV.B.2 through 
XIV.B.5 of this preamble.
    Comments: A number of commenters opposed requiring UAS used in 
recreational operations or traditional model aircraft to comply with 
the requirements of subpart F. The commenters argued that these 
aircraft are typically used in low risk profile operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with comments that the design 
and production requirements of subpart F should not apply to unmanned 
aircraft used in recreational operations or to traditional model 
aircraft given the low risk profile of the operations. The design and 
production requirements of subpart F are implemented to ensure unmanned 
aircraft have the remote identification capabilities necessary to 
enable operators to comply with the operational requirements in subpart 
B, which apply to most unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of 
the United States.
2. Exceptions: Home-Built Unmanned Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA chose to exclude home-built unmanned aircraft from the 
design and production requirements because persons building these 
unmanned aircraft may not have the necessary technical knowledge, 
ability, or financial resources to design and produce an unmanned 
aircraft that meets the minimum performance requirements of this rule. 
The FAA believes requiring home-built unmanned aircraft to comply with 
the performance requirements for remote identification would place an 
undue burden on homebuilders. The Agency expects home-built unmanned 
aircraft will represent a very small portion of the total number of 
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States. The 
FAA's position is that nothing in this rule prohibits a person from 
building a home-built standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
for educational or recreational purposes. However, in that case, the 
person would be subject to all of the requirements of subpart F, even 
if the unmanned aircraft would otherwise be considered a home-built 
unmanned aircraft.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The Utah Department of Transportation and many others 
supported the FAA's proposal to except home-built UAS from the design 
and production requirements of subpart F. However, numerous commenters 
believed the requirements in subpart F apply to home-built UAS and 
urged the FAA to revise the rule to except home-built UAS from having 
to meet the design and production requirements of subpart F. Many 
commenters mentioned that the requirement to show compliance with 
subpart F is too expensive and time-consuming for homebuilders, and 
persons building UAS for recreational purposes or science, technology, 
engineering and math education needs.
    FAA Response: As the FAA explained in the NPRM, and as being 
promulgated in Sec.  89.501(c)(1) of this rule, home-built unmanned 
aircraft are excepted from the design and production requirements of 
subpart F, unless the homebuilder is specifically intending to produce 
a home-built standard remote identification unmanned aircraft.
    The remote identification design and production requirements are 
different from the operating requirements. While some producers may be 
excepted from the design and production requirements under subpart F, 
operators would still have to comply with the remote identification 
operating requirement prescribed in subpart B of this rule. So, while 
home-built unmanned aircraft are not subject to the design and 
production requirements of subpart F, all operators of unmanned 
aircraft (including home-built unmanned aircraft) in the airspace of 
the United States must comply with the operating requirements of 
subpart B if the unmanned aircraft is registered or required to be 
registered under part 47 or 48. This means that the operator of a home-
built unmanned aircraft that is not produced as a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft under subpart F must operate within 
FAA-recognized identification areas, must equip their unmanned aircraft 
with a remote identification broadcast module to operate outside of 
FAA-recognized identification areas, or must request authorization from 
the Administrator to deviate from the operating requirements of subpart 
B to operate without remote identification.
    Comments: The FPVFC asserted that the requirements, as proposed, 
would make it unlawful for individuals to produce home-built UAS.
    FAA Response: This is incorrect. As explained in the NPRM and as 
adopted in this rule, this rule establishes certain operational, 
design, and production requirements for unmanned aircraft. Nothing in 
the rule prohibits the production of home-built unmanned aircraft. 
Under Sec.  89.501(c)(1), home-built unmanned aircraft are excepted 
from having to comply with the design and production requirements of 
subpart F. However, designers or producers of home-built unmanned 
aircraft can choose to comply with the design and production 
requirements by voluntarily opting into subpart F and building home-
built standard remote identification unmanned aircraft.
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns with the exception for 
home-built UAS. These commenters said that the exception could increase 
the demand for UAS kits and lead to an increase in UAS being built 
without remote identification. The Motion Picture Association (MPA) 
expressed concerns with excepting home-built

[[Page 4449]]

UAS from the design and production requirements because they could have 
the ability to fly several miles from the control station using a 
remotely viewable camera, even though they are not equipped with remote 
identification capabilities. The MPA asked the FAA to add a 
technological requirement to the home-built UAS exception in Sec.  
89.501(c) to clarify that the exception would not apply to highly-
capable aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA determined that the exception for home-built 
unmanned aircraft is necessary because many homebuilders do not have 
the necessary technical knowledge, ability, or financial resources to 
design and produce unmanned aircraft that meet the minimum performance 
requirements of this rule. The FAA also determined that the risks of 
excepting home-built unmanned aircraft from the design and production 
requirements are mitigated by the fact that the operators of home-built 
unmanned aircraft must still comply with the operating rules of subpart 
B.
    Comments: Several commenters asked the FAA for an alternate way for 
home-built UAS to comply, noting that hobbyists often build UAS from 
parts, including foam and balsa wood, rather than kits from recognized 
manufacturers. Other commenters mentioned that kit-built UAS are 
considered home-built and should be excepted from the design and 
production requirements, while other commenters mentioned that kit-
built UAS should have some type of remote identification, particularly 
if they are operated outside an FAA-recognized identification area. For 
example, DJI Technology, Inc. asserted that excepting UAS from the 
remote identification requirements when a person fabricates and 
assembles more than 50 percent of the UAS makes no difference to safety 
and would not address approximately 80 percent or more of home-built 
aircraft as they are built today. DJI recommended a focus on the 
performance of the resulting UAS, basing the need to comply with remote 
identification on the risk the UAS creates due to its performance.
    The Academy of Model Aeronautics supported excepting persons 
assembling UAS from kits that contain 100 percent of the parts and 
instructions from having to comply with the design and production 
requirements. They recognized that many of these kit UAS would only be 
flown at FAA-recognized identification areas. Droneport Texas LLC 
stated that UAS kit designers or producers and suppliers should be able 
to provide 100 percent of the parts and instructions that are necessary 
for assembly of a fully functioning UAS without remote identification 
capabilities. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation suggested 
that the rule would motivate designers and producers of UAS to produce 
kits with less than 100 percent of the necessary parts to shift 
responsibility for subpart F compliance to homebuilders who would be 
reluctant or unable to comply.
    FAA Response: As further discussed in section V.D of this preamble, 
the FAA originally proposed to use the term amateur-built unmanned 
aircraft system for the exception in Sec.  89.501(c)(1) and defined it 
as ``an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been 
fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction 
project solely for their own education or recreation.'' Under the 
proposal, the person building the amateur-built unmanned aircraft would 
have been required to fabricate and assemble at least 50 percent of the 
UAS. Following comments received, the FAA relabeled the exception as 
home-built unmanned aircraft and eliminated the fabrication and major 
portion requirements. This rule adopts the definition of home-built 
unmanned aircraft that an individual built solely for education or 
recreation.
    The FAA recognizes that homebuilders may produce unmanned aircraft 
from scratch, may use partial kits in the building process, or may 
assemble unmanned aircraft from a complete kit produced by another 
person or entity. The exception for home-built unmanned aircraft in 
Sec.  89.501(c)(1) of this rule applies to persons producing unmanned 
aircraft from scratch or using partial kits to build unmanned aircraft 
without remote identification solely for education or recreation. These 
persons do not have to comply with the design and production 
requirements in subpart F.
    As commenters noted, many unmanned aircraft, especially model 
aircraft, are produced with various levels of completion, such as 
ready-to-fly or almost ready-to-fly. Unmanned aircraft kits that are 
produced without key components of the unmanned aircraft, such as the 
engine or electric motor, flight control servos, or RF receiver, are 
not considered complete kits and the producers of these partial kits 
are not subject to the production requirements in subpart F.
    However, the exception in Sec.  89.501(c)(1) does not apply to the 
manufacturing of a complete unmanned aircraft kit because the complete 
kit is essentially a deconstructed unmanned aircraft. The FAA considers 
that any kit containing all the parts and instructions necessary to 
assemble an unmanned aircraft must have remote identification 
capabilities; therefore, a person or entity producing complete kits is 
subject to the production requirements of this rule. A different 
determination would grant a way to circumvent the intent of the design 
and production requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the person or 
entity producing the complete kit must comply with the design and 
production requirements of this rule, and must ensure that the complete 
kit contains all necessary parts and instructions for homebuilders to 
assemble a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, even if 
the unmanned aircraft is considered home-built for other purposes. A 
homebuilder assembling an unmanned aircraft from a complete kit is not 
the designer or producer of the unmanned aircraft for purposes of 
subpart F of this rule. Therefore, the homebuilder does not need to 
comply with the design and production requirements in subpart F. 
Nevertheless, the operator of a home-built unmanned aircraft--whether 
produced from scratch or assembled from a partial kit or a complete 
kit--must comply with the operating requirements in subpart B of part 
89.
3. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft of the United States Government
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA chose to exclude unmanned aircraft of the United States 
Government from the design and production requirements because of the 
need for the Federal Government of the United States to produce 
aircraft without remote identification to meet certain operational 
missions.
    The production requirements and operational requirements are 
independent of each other. Even though subpart F establishes an 
exception for unmanned aircraft of the United States Government, an 
entity of the Federal Government of the United States operating an 
unmanned aircraft must assess whether it is subject to the operational 
requirements of part 89. The entity will have to comply with the remote 
identification operating requirements if it operates an unmanned 
aircraft that is registered, or required to be registered under part 47 
or 48. Only the aircraft of the national defense forces of the United 
States are excepted from the aircraft registration requirements and are 
therefore not required to comply with the operating requirements of 
subpart B. This means that all other entities of the Federal Government 
of the United States, as

[[Page 4450]]

well as all entities of the government of a State, the District of 
Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a 
political subdivision of one of these governments or an Indian Tribal 
government, that wish to operate an unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification at a location other than an FAA-recognized 
identification area would be required to seek authorization from the 
Administrator to deviate from the operating provisions of subpart B of 
part 89.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The Utah Department of Transportation requested that the 
FAA clarify which aircraft are covered by the exception in Sec.  
89.501(c)(2) by deleting the phrase ``aircraft of the United States 
Government'' and replacing it with ``aircraft of the United States 
Military.''
    FAA Response: The FAA adopts the language as proposed because 
aircraft of the Federal Government of the United States are excepted 
from the design and production requirements of subpart F. This 
includes, but is not limited to, aircraft of the United States 
Military.
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with the proposed 
exception for UAS of the United States Government because they believe 
it could cause public distrust. The commenters mentioned that a better 
approach would be to create requirements (e.g., specific operational or 
pilot-related requirements) to enable sensitive operations to be 
conducted safety while still identifying in a general or broader 
manner.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined the exception is necessary so 
that the United States Government can produce unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification equipment, or can deviate from the design and 
production requirements of this rule. The exception is necessary to 
facilitate certain operational missions of the United States 
Government. The FAA believes that--unlike with the Federal Government--
a State, the District of Columbia, territories, possessions, or Indian 
Tribal governments are unlikely to produce their own unmanned aircraft. 
However, the FAA acknowledges that these governments may have a need to 
deviate from the operating requirements of this rule when conducting 
sensitive operations. This is why this rule incorporates a deviation 
option. Through this deviation, governments can request authorization 
from the Administrator to deviate from the operating provisions of 
subpart B.
4. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft That Weigh 0.55 Pounds or Less on 
Takeoff, Including Everything That Is On Board or Otherwise Attached to 
the Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA chose to exclude unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds 
or less on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise 
attached to the aircraft from the design and production requirements 
because, most of these unmanned aircraft may not be subject to the 
registration or recognition of ownership requirements of part 48, and 
therefore would not need to comply with the operating requirements of 
subpart B of part 89.
    As discussed in section XV of this preamble, if an unmanned 
aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less is operated under part 91, 107, 
or 135, an exemption issued under 49 U.S.C. 44807, or any other 
regulatory part requiring the aircraft to be registered, the design and 
production of such unmanned aircraft would have to comply with subpart 
F of part 89 and the operation of the unmanned aircraft would have to 
comply with subpart B.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Several commenters suggested that the FAA should except 
small UAS from the remote identification requirements because many 
cannot carry additional equipment to comply with the rule. Commenters 
asked the FAA to expand this exception to cover UAS that end up 
exceeding the 0.55 pound threshold as a result of the installation of 
remote identification equipment. A commenter stated that UAS that weigh 
less than 0.55 pounds should be allowed up to an additional 0.1 pounds 
of add-ons to enable compliance with this rule.
    Some commenters believed only large UAS would be capable of 
carrying remote identification equipment. Similarly, others believed 
that the Agency should only require large UAS to identify remotely. 
Therefore, many commenters suggested the FAA implement remote 
identification requirements based on the weight or size of the unmanned 
aircraft. For example, a commenter mentioned that a UAS weighing less 
than 20 pounds and with a wingspan of less than 80 inches should be 
excepted from the remote identification requirements of this rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with comments urging the 
Agency to expand the exception in Sec.  89.501(c)(3) to unmanned 
aircraft that exceed the 0.55 pounds threshold as a consequence of 
installing remote identification equipment. The exception covers a 
subgroup of unmanned aircraft that is not subject to the registration 
requirements of part 48 because they weigh 0.55 pounds or less on 
takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to 
the aircraft. Because aircraft that exceed the weight threshold have to 
register (or file a confirmation of identification for foreign civil 
unmanned aircraft) and comply with the operating requirements of 
subpart B, the FAA determined these unmanned aircraft should also 
comply with the design and production requirements of this rule.
5. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft Designed or Produced Exclusively for 
the Purpose of Aeronautical Research or To Show Compliance With 
Regulations
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA chose to exclude unmanned aircraft designed or produced 
exclusively for the purpose of aeronautical research or to show 
compliance with regulations from the design and production requirements 
of this rule. This exclusion fosters innovation and encourages 
research, development, and testing activities related to the unmanned 
aircraft, the unmanned aircraft's control systems, equipment that is 
part of the unmanned aircraft (such as sensors), and the unmanned 
aircraft's flight profiles, as well as the development of specific 
functions and capabilities for the unmanned aircraft. The FAA 
determined that the exception is also necessary so that unmanned 
aircraft prototypes can show compliance with FAA regulations. This 
exception includes regulations related to FAA-accepted means of 
compliance or declarations of compliance for remote identification, and 
airworthiness regulations including but not limited to flights to show 
compliance for the issuance of type certificates and supplemental type 
certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights 
to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of 
the regulations. The exception further supports research, development, 
and testing necessary for UAS infrastructure, systems, and 
technologies, including but not limited to future UTM and United States 
Government counter-UAS capabilities.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: A number of commenters asked the FAA to expand the scope 
of the exception in Sec.  89.501(c)(4) so that UAS could be produced 
without remote identification for other purposes such as educational 
activities; science,

[[Page 4451]]

technology, engineering, and math-related activities; and recreational 
operations. Wing Aviation, LLC mentioned that the FAA should clarify 
whether this exception applies to UAS designed or produced for an 
operation approved by the Administrator under proposed Sec.  89.120 
(the operating requirements for operations at FAA-recognized 
identification areas and operations for aeronautical research).
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the request to expand the 
activities covered under the exception in Sec.  89.501(c)(4). The term 
``educational activity'' is broad and conceivably covers areas beyond 
the design and production of the unmanned aircraft and its component 
parts. Many educational activities are covered by the home-built 
exception in Sec.  89.501(c)(1) of this rule. The aeronautical research 
exception is meant to allow the testing of prototype UAS, unmanned 
aircraft component parts, and related infrastructure, systems, and 
technologies without the requirement that the producer meet all of the 
design and production requirements of the rule. Persons operating UAS 
built without remote identification under this exception must comply 
with the operating requirements in subpart B of this rule.

C. Requirement To Issue Serial Numbers

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    As promulgated in Sec.  89.505, no person may produce a standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft under part 21 or 89, or a 
remote identification broadcast module, unless the unmanned aircraft or 
broadcast module is issued a serial number that complies with ANSI/CTA-
2063-A. A producer of an unmanned aircraft with an integrated broadcast 
capability may update the serial number as part of the software upgrade 
to install the remote identification broadcast module. The ANSI/CTA-
2063-A standard is incorporated by reference into this regulation, and 
is available for review and download, free of charge, at the time of 
publication of this rule.
    The FAA adopts the use of the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard because 
using a single accepted format for serial numbers helps ensure 
consistency in the broadcast of the message element. The FAA adopts 
this section essentially as proposed, but is making certain 
modification to the regulation to eliminate the limited remote 
identification UAS concept and incorporate the remote identification 
broadcast module concept.
    The NPRM sought comments regarding the adoption of ANSI/CTA-2063-A 
as the serial number standard for remote identification. The FAA 
specifically requested comments on whether ANSI/CTA-2063-A can be 
effectively used as a serial number standard for larger unmanned 
aircraft. The Agency particularly sought feedback from designers and 
producers of unmanned aircraft that assign serial numbers in accordance 
with ANSI/CTA-2063-A and inquired about the type and number of unmanned 
aircraft that the serial numbers are being assigned to.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. General Comments Regarding The Requirement To Issue a Serial Number 
to Unmanned Aircraft With Remote Identification
    Comments: Droneport Texas LLC, Wing Aviation, LLC, and others urged 
the FAA to modify the serial number requirement so that it only applies 
to UAS intended to be flown in the airspace of the United States, 
BVLOS, or for commercial use. Along these lines, a number of commenters 
opposed requiring producers of UAS used for limited recreational 
operations to comply with the serial number requirement in Sec.  
89.505. They mentioned that many of the unmanned aircraft will fly 
within FAA-recognized identification areas or VLOS, and therefore 
believed there is no need to require such aircraft to comply with the 
serial number requirement. The Drone U, Brands Hobby, University of 
Utah and many individuals also asked the FAA to eliminate the serial 
number requirement or to except UAS used for limited recreational 
operations from having to comply.
    Many stated that this requirement would be impossible to comply 
with for those with amateur-built aircraft, as they do not come with 
serial numbers. Some of the commenters believed the requirement would 
potentially destroy the value of recreational UAS and threaten 
recreational operations of UAS and supporting industries. The Executive 
Director of the Academy of Model Aeronautics stated that a serial 
number requirement would destroy the historical accuracy of scale 
replicas of manned aircraft. The DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety Alliance 
worried that many current models from popular manufacturers do not have 
serial numbers that comply with the proposal.
    FAA Response: Aircraft registration and identification is 
consistent with preserving aviation safety. The FAA has determined that 
the serial number requirement must apply to all aircraft and broadcast 
modules subject to subpart F, and should not be based on the purpose or 
intent of the operation of the unmanned aircraft. The serial number 
requirement is necessary because it enables the unique identification 
of unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States. 
The requirement is particularly necessary to identify every unmanned 
aircraft that is registered under a single registration number issued 
under 14 CFR part 48 to the owner of multiple unmanned aircraft used 
exclusively for limited recreational operations in accordance with 49 
U.S.C. 44809. This is particularly important when these unmanned 
aircraft are flown outside of FAA-recognized identification areas.
    Home-built unmanned aircraft are excluded from the design and 
production requirements under subpart F. Producers of home-built 
unmanned aircraft do not have to comply with Sec.  89.505, which 
requires producers of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
or remote identification broadcast modules to issue serial numbers that 
comply with ANSI/CTA-2063-A.
    Comments: Some commenters asked the FAA to clarify which serial 
number enables compliance with Sec.  89.505 because, in theory, every 
component of a UAS could have a serial number of its own. Commenters 
wanted the FAA to clarify which serial number would an owner retain, 
including for registration purposes, if the UAS parts were swapped in 
any way--whether due to an accident, suffering damages, or for general 
improvements. Watts Innovations LLC mentioned that many UAS use common 
components such as flight controllers, radio, and motors, and that 
there should be one ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number for each component of 
the UAS.
    FAA Response: This rule does not require a producer to assign a 
serial number to individual components. Producers subject to the design 
and production requirements must comply with the requirements under 
subpart F of part 89. To comply with Sec.  89.505, the producer must 
issue an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number to the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft, as a whole, or the remote 
identification broadcast module. That serial number has to be listed in 
the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance corresponding to the 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or the remote 
identification broadcast module. That same serial number also has to be

[[Page 4452]]

included in the unmanned aircraft's registration, and must be broadcast 
in accordance with the operating requirements of this rule.
    Comments: The General Aviation Manufacturers Association suggested 
that a serial number not be required for those UAS already required to 
be equipped with ADS-B.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the requirement to issue a serial 
number should only apply to producers of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. Unmanned 
aircraft that are only equipped with ADS-B Out would not be required to 
have a serial number assigned by the producer under Sec.  89.505.
    Comments: A number of commenters urged the FAA to establish an 
alternative mechanism to enable UAS produced prior to the effective 
date of this rule or with a serial number that does not conform to the 
ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard to comply with Sec.  89.505. Multiple 
commenters asked the FAA to allow the installation and use of remote 
identification add-on equipment on those UAS. Commenters mentioned that 
the serial number of the remote identification add-on equipment could 
be used to meet the serial number requirement in Sec.  89.505.
    Other commenters believed that the serial number requirement in 
Sec.  89.505 would make the existing UAS fleet obsolete.
    FAA Response: As explained earlier, the requirements for remote 
identification have been modified to allow persons to produce a 
retrofit solution, known as remote identification broadcast modules, to 
equip unmanned aircraft without remote identification to enable them to 
identify remotely. See section VII.D of this preamble for more 
information on the operating requirements for remote identification 
broadcast modules. Remote identification broadcast modules that comply 
with all requirements in part 89 can be produced after the effective 
date of this rule. The availability of remote identification broadcast 
modules helps facilitate the early adoption of remote identification by 
operators of unmanned aircraft.
    In accordance with the serial number requirement in Sec.  89.505, a 
producer would assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number to 
each remote identification broadcast module. An unmanned aircraft 
produced without remote identification that is retrofitted with a 
remote identification broadcast module would broadcast the ANSI/CTA-
2063-A compliant serial number and would be able to fly outside of FAA-
recognized identification areas.
    Even without the broadcast solution, an existing unmanned aircraft 
that is not retrofitted with a remote identification broadcast module 
is not obsolete or grounded. A person may continue to operate such 
existing unmanned aircraft at FAA-recognized identification areas. See 
section VII.F.2 of this preamble for more information on operating 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification. This rule does not 
require any person to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number 
to any existing unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date 
of the design and production requirements.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Producers may choose to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant 
serial number to an unmanned aircraft produced prior to the 
compliance date of the design and production requirements of this 
rule (e.g., through a software upgrade). The assignment of the 
serial number--by itself--does not make the unmanned aircraft a 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a compliant 
unmanned aircraft that is properly equipped with a remote 
identification broadcast module. Persons who wish to ``upgrade'' an 
unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date of this rule 
to make it a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or an 
unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast 
module may do so by meeting all design and production requirements 
in subpart F. Subpart F contains the design and production 
requirements for a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
and a remote identification broadcast module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments Addressing ANSI/CTA-2063-A and Other Alternatives
    Comments: The District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for 
Public Safety and Justice, senseFly, Ax Enterprize, Wing Aviation, LLC, 
and many other commenters expressed support for the FAA's proposal to 
adopt ANSI/CTA-2063-A as the serial number standard for remote 
identification of UAS. In contrast, Watts Innovations LLC and some 
individuals indicated the requirement to issue a serial number that 
complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A is unnecessary, especially for 
recreational UAS and home-built UAS.
    Numerous AMA members said homebuilders should be allowed to select 
a personal serial number (e.g., a serial number that does not conform 
to the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standards) for their home-built UAS. Some 
commenters recommended the FAA not require an ANSI serial number 
standard or permit existing unmanned aircraft to be exempted from this 
requirement. A commenter added that current popular manufacturers do 
not follow the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number standard, so adopting that 
standard would place many manufacturers in noncompliance, unless 
granted exemptions. The commenter believed that this proposal could 
force operators to purchase new UAS before the expiration of their 
current fleet in the absence of a clear path to retrofit.
    The Coconino County Sheriff's Office expressed concern about 
current serial numbers not complying with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard, 
but suggested that compliant serial numbers could perhaps be issued by 
the FAA at the time of registration or re-registration. One commenter 
stated the FAA should permit the use of user-generated serial numbers 
at least until industry makes available modular dongles that transmit 
serial numbers compliant with ANSI/CTA-2063-A. Another individual 
suggested the FAA provide a mechanism allowing for serial number 
equivalent assignment during registration of amateur-built UAS using an 
approved open source code.
    Commenters questioned whether the requirement applied to the legacy 
UAS fleet. Other commenters mentioned that producers should be able to 
provide the serial number through a software upgrade. Some of these 
commenters raised concerns with a software upgrade because UAS 
manufacturers might not have the ability to track whether the upgrade 
was successfully installed for the UAS to meet the serial number 
requirement.
    FAA Response: The broadcast of a serial number is an essential 
component of remote identification. The FAA has decided to maintain its 
position to adopt the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard, and require applicable 
producers to assign ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial numbers to 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules. While ANSI/CTA-2063-A was 
specifically developed to provide a serial number format for small 
unmanned aircraft serial numbers, the FAA has determined that ANSI/CTA-
2063-A is appropriate to issue serial numbers under this rule 
regardless of the size of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module 
because it enables the issuance of unique serial numbers, and promotes 
worldwide standardization of unmanned aircraft remote identification 
requirements. The use of ANSI/CTA-2063-A would provide a single 
accepted format for serial numbers. It would also help ensure 
consistency and avoid duplication in the broadcast of this message 
element at any given moment. The ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard is available 
for viewing and download free of charge as of the publication of this 
final rule.
    The FAA reaffirms that subpart F of this rule does not apply to the 
production of home-built unmanned

[[Page 4453]]

aircraft. Accordingly, individuals constructing home-built unmanned 
aircraft are not required to obtain ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial numbers for 
their aircraft. As previously discussed, the serial number requirement 
in Sec.  89.505 does not apply to existing unmanned aircraft. Unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification can continue to operate, as long 
as they comply with the operating requirements under subpart B of this 
rule.
    The FAA is permitting the production and use of remote 
identification broadcast modules that may be retrofitted in unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification to meet the requirements of this 
rule. If operators of unmanned aircraft without remote identification, 
such as home-built unmanned aircraft or existing unmanned aircraft, 
want to operate outside of FAA-recognized identification areas, they 
would need to equip their unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules to comply with the operational requirements of this 
rule.
    In addition, the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard has been available since 
before the publication of this rule, and nothing in this rule prohibits 
a producer from voluntarily assigning a compliant serial number to 
existing unmanned aircraft (e.g., through a software upgrade). A 
producer of unmanned aircraft with integrated broadcast capability may 
update the serial number as part of the software upgrade to install the 
remote identification broadcast module--this way existing unmanned 
aircraft may be issued an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number and 
comply with the remote identification requirements.
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with their ability 
to access the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard and the economic burdens of 
obtaining it.
    FAA Response: As of the publication of this rule, the ANSI/CTA-
2063-A standard is available for viewing and download free of charge, 
so the FAA does not believe its adoption will pose financial hardships.
    Comments: Various individuals said the FAA should obtain a 
``manufacturer code'' so they can issue ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant 
serial numbers to the existing fleet of UAS. Other commenters indicated 
the FAA should provide a compliant serial number when the unmanned 
aircraft is registered or if the producer of the unmanned aircraft did 
not assign a serial number to the unmanned aircraft. Some commenters 
believe the FAA should create an automatic process to enable producers 
to obtain a manufacturer code to enable them to issue serial numbers 
via the FAA or ICAO website. Some commenters questioned whether they 
would have sufficient time to comply with the requirement.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined there is no need for the 
Agency to issue serial numbers to the existing unmanned aircraft fleet, 
at this time. As discussed in this rule, an existing unmanned aircraft 
that does not meet all requirements of subpart F can continue to fly at 
FAA-recognized identification areas. It can also be retrofitted with a 
remote identification broadcast module to fly elsewhere. The remote 
identification broadcast module would need to have a serial number 
issued by the producer in accordance with Sec.  89.505.
    This rule does not establish a specific process to issue serial 
numbers. Producers may develop or follow any process that enables them 
to issue and assign ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial numbers to the 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast modules.
    Comments: Some commenters highlighted that ANSI/CTA-2063-A covers 
the issuance of serial numbers for small UAS. The National Agricultural 
Aviation Association and others asked the FAA to revise the rule so 
that the serial number requirement applies to UAS of a particular size 
or larger. The Small UAV Coalition and others asked the FAA to revise 
Sec.  89.505 to require compliance with the ANSI serial number standard 
at the time of production of the UAS. Another commenter suggested the 
requirement be to use ``an accepted industry standard on serial 
numbers.'' A commenter asked the FAA to use a standard that provides a 
scalable format for serial numbers and a scalable process for producers 
to request or assign serial numbers.
    FAA Response: While ANSI/CTA-2063-A was specifically developed to 
provide a serial number format for small unmanned aircraft serial 
numbers, the FAA has determined that ANSI/CTA-2063-A is appropriate to 
issue serial numbers under this rule regardless of the size of the 
unmanned aircraft or broadcast module because it enables the issuance 
of unique serial numbers, and promotes worldwide standardization of 
unmanned aircraft remote identification requirements. The use of ANSI/
CTA-2063-A provides a single accepted format for serial numbers, 
helping to ensure consistency in the broadcast of this message element. 
The FAA believes this standard provides for flexibility and 
scalability, noting that the ``Manufacturer's Serial Number'' field of 
the full serial number allows for over a quadrillion different number 
and letter combinations. The FAA notes that ANSI/CTA-2063-A is the 
current version of the standard as of the date of this rule and 
declines to include a policy for accepting new serial number standards. 
Any future changes to the requirement to issue serial numbers that 
comply with ANSI/CTA-2063-A would require a new rulemaking activity.
    The incorporation by reference approach requires pointing to a 
specific standard and the FAA must evaluate each standard to ensure it 
is consistent with the remote identification requirements and 
appropriately supports the transmission of the message elements. While 
this rule adopts ANSI/CTA-2063-A, the Agency may consider revisions to 
this standard--as well as other serial number standards--and may 
incorporate them into the regulation at a later time.
iii. Incorporation by Reference
    As promulgated in Sec.  89.505, the producer of a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module must issue a serial number to the unmanned aircraft or broadcast 
module that complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A, Small Unmanned Aerial 
Systems Serial Numbers (September 2019). The Office of the Federal 
Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 
CFR part 51. These regulations require that, for a final rule, agencies 
must discuss in the preamble to the rule the way in which the materials 
that the Agency incorporated by reference are reasonably available to 
interested persons, and how interested parties can obtain the 
materials. In addition, in accordance with 1 CFR 51.5(b), the Agency 
must summarize the material in the preamble of the final rule.
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the FAA states that the 
ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard outlines the elements and characteristics of 
serial numbers used by small UAS. Each serial number is comprised of 
three basic components: The manufacturer code, the length code, and the 
manufacturer's serial number. Thus, each serial number is unique to a 
specific unmanned aircraft and can also be used to identify the 
manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft.
    Interested persons can view and download ANSI/CTA-2063-A at: 
https://www.cta.tech by creating a free account and searching under 
``Research and Standards.'' The ANSI/CTA-2063-

[[Page 4454]]

A standard is available for review and download, free of charge, at the 
time of publication of this rule.

D. Labeling Requirements

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    According to Sec.  89.525, no person may produce a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft under the declaration of compliance 
process of part 89 or a stand-alone remote identification broadcast 
module unless the unmanned aircraft or the broadcast module displays a 
label indicating that it meets the requirements of part 89. The label 
must be in English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed 
to the unmanned aircraft or the broadcast module. For existing unmanned 
aircraft that are upgraded to have remote identification broadcast 
module capabilities integrated into the aircraft, the FAA envisions 
that the label would be affixed to the unmanned aircraft. In those 
instances, the producer may provide the label to the operator and 
instructions on how to affix them to the unmanned aircraft. Standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft produced under a design or 
production approval issued under part 21 have to comply with the 
labeling requirements of part 21, as applicable.
    The FAA is adopting the labeling requirement in Sec.  89.525 
essentially as proposed. The section was revised to eliminate the 
limited remote identification UAS concept and replace it with the 
remote identification broadcast module concept.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The FAA received many comments supporting the proposed 
labeling requirements. Commenters that agreed with this requirement 
included Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, 
National Rural Electric Association, Alliance for Drone Innovation, the 
Northwest Electric Power Cooperative, Streamline Design, and many 
individual commenters. Some commenters asked the FAA to require 
producers to label their product compliance levels at the time of 
purchase.
    The FAA also received numerous comments opposing the labeling 
requirement. DJI Technology, Inc. and other commenters indicated that 
the requirement was unnecessary and would complicate compliance with 
the regulation. Commenters noted that some small UAS may not have room 
for multiple labels (e.g., a remote identification label in addition to 
the registration markings.) Others mentioned that the labeling 
requirement could potentially limit the physical space for collision-
avoidance sensors and other features in small UAS because a significant 
portion of the unmanned aircraft could be covered with multiple labels.
    Many commenters raised concerns regarding the impact of the 
labeling requirement on home-built unmanned aircraft or UAS used for 
recreational operations. Some commenters believed that the labeling 
requirement may reduce the performance and appearance of scale model 
aircraft. Many individual commenters expressed concerns that the 
labeling requirement would raise the costs of building, owning, or 
operating UAS for recreational purposes. Commenters requested the final 
rule be revised so that the labeling requirement only applies to UAS 
used for commercial operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA is adopting the labeling requirement because 
there is a need for unmanned aircraft operators, FAA inspectors, 
investigators, and law enforcement to know the remote identification 
capabilities of a specific unmanned aircraft. The labeling requirement 
is necessary because it communicates information that would otherwise 
not be known by looking at the aircraft. A producer label enables the 
operator to determine what the operator can or cannot do with the 
unmanned aircraft. If the unmanned aircraft has no label, the 
presumption is that it has no remote identification capabilities, so 
the operator must either equip the unmanned aircraft with a remote 
identification broadcast module or operate the aircraft within an FAA-
recognized identification area. The costs related to the labeling 
requirement are justified by the benefits that will result from the 
rule, and both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the 
Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The FAA does not agree with commenters who believed the labeling 
requirement would impact performance and limit surface area 
availability for other sensors. This rule is performance-based and 
there is no prescriptive requirement for how the labeling must be done. 
There is no requirement on font type, size, or location of the label. 
The label will adjust to the size of the unmanned aircraft. Also, a 
standards body or any person may create a labeling standard to meet all 
labeling requirements with a single label (e.g., remote identification, 
registration, operations over people, etc.).
    Comments: Commenters including FPVFC and SenseFly asked the FAA to 
clarify how retrofitted UAS or UAS with remote identification add-on 
equipment would meet the labeling requirement. The Commercial Drone 
Alliance, FlyGuys, Inc., and ANRA Technologies suggested that if the 
rule allows for retrofit UAS or UAS with remote identification add-on 
equipment, then these aircraft would also have to meet all remote 
identification standards, including labeling.
    FAA Response: As previously discussed, the FAA modified this rule 
to allow for the production and use of remote identification broadcast 
modules to identify remotely. Section 89.525(b) establishes the 
labeling requirements for remote identification broadcast modules. The 
requirements are similar to those that apply to standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft.
    Comments: Wingcopter mentioned that the labeling requirements 
should be moved to part 21 for UAS with a type certificate or 
production certificate issued under part 21.
    FAA Response: The FAA revised subpart F to clarify which remote 
identification requirements apply to standard remote identification UAS 
produced under a design approval or production approval issued under 
part 21. While these aircraft are not subject to the labeling 
requirements in Sec.  89.525, they must be labeled in accordance with 
the applicable requirements of part 21.

E. Production Requirements

    This rule finalizes the design and production requirements in 
subpart F. These requirements apply to the production of new standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast modules. The FAA clarifies that a person must also follow 
these requirements to upgrade an unmanned aircraft to meet the remote 
identification requirements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or for unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast 
modules.
    The essence of subpart F remains the same but the Agency made a 
number of changes to eliminate the limited remote identification UAS 
concept and replace it with the remote identification broadcast module 
concept. The FAA also restructured the sections to clarify which 
production requirements apply to standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft produced under part 21, and which requirements apply 
to standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules produced under an FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance under subpart F.

[[Page 4455]]

1. Production Requirements: Standard Remote Identification Unmanned 
Aircraft Produced Under a Design or Production Approval Issued Under 
Part 21
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA added Sec.  89.510 and made various changes to subpart F to 
clarify the production requirements that apply to standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft produced under a design approval or 
production approval issued under part 21.
    First, type certificated unmanned aircraft must meet the serial 
number requirement in Sec.  89.505.
    Second, type certificated unmanned aircraft must meet the 
production requirements in Sec.  89.510. The unmanned aircraft must be 
designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft systems established in 
Sec.  89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; or 
be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
equipment that meets the requirements of Sec.  91.225. Nothing in the 
rule precludes producers from producing unmanned aircraft that have 
both the remote identification and ADS-B capabilities identified in the 
regulation.
    Lastly, type certificated unmanned aircraft must meet all 
applicable requirements of part 21, including but not limited to, any 
applicable labeling or record retention requirements. The minimum 
performance requirements for remote identification in subpart D of part 
89 will be addressed as part of the type certification process for 
unmanned aircraft.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters conflated the declaration of compliance 
process under part 89 with the FAA airworthiness certification process 
under part 21. They referred to the ``certification'' process as a 
rather burdensome approach to determine whether a UAS complies with the 
remote identification requirements.
    Some commenters asked the Agency to clarify whether the design and 
production requirements of subpart F apply to UAS certified under part 
21. Some commenters believed the requirements do not apply but felt the 
regulatory text was not sufficiently clear. The commenters mentioned 
that subpart F of part 89 includes requirements already covered by the 
part 21 certification process and indicated that the lack of clarity 
could cause confusion, could lead to additional administrative burdens, 
and could delay the airworthiness certification of UAS under part 21.
    UPS Flight Forward, United Parcel Service Co., and UPS Airlines 
indicated that the FAA should implement a technology-based solution 
that includes design requirements and a comprehensive system of 
oversight for the design and production of unmanned aircraft. UPSFF and 
UPS Airlines mentioned that the FAA should clarify how the requirements 
in the NPRM would affect or play into the approval of a type 
certificate for a UAS under part 21. UPSFF and UPS Airlines also 
requested clarification on whether all FAA-accepted means of compliance 
under subpart E were acceptable as part of the certification basis 
under 14 CFR 21.17.
    FAA Response: UAS certificated under part 21 do not have to meet 
all of the design and production requirements in subpart F of part 89 
because the requirements are redundant with some requirements that have 
to be met as part of the certification processes of part 21. Therefore, 
the FAA revised the subpart to clarify which requirements of subpart F 
apply to UAS certificated under part 21 and which apply to all other 
UAS produced under a declaration of compliance issued under part 89.
    The FAA clarifies that the minimum performance requirements in 
subpart D of part 89 (which can be met through an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance issued under subpart E) will be applied during the type or 
supplemental type certification process for standard remote 
identification UAS under part 21.
    The FAA also clarifies that the declaration of compliance process 
related to the production of all other UAS under subpart F is not a 
certification process. Therefore, an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance is not a type certificate or an airworthiness certificate.
2. Production Requirements: All Other Standard Remote Identification 
Unmanned Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA adopts the production requirements in Sec.  89.515 that 
apply to standard remote identification unmanned aircraft produced 
without a design approval or production approval issued under part 21. 
The essence of the requirements remains as proposed in the NPRM. The 
FAA made some changes for clarity and to remove the limited remote 
identification UAS concept from the regulation.
    According to Sec.  89.515, an unmanned aircraft produced under an 
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance under part 89 must be designed 
and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft systems established in Sec.  
89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
    The producer of the unmanned aircraft must meet certain inspection 
requirements for production of the unmanned aircraft; audit 
requirements; and product support and notification requirements.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Various commenters mentioned that the FAA should add 
detailed technical specifications (e.g., weight and the size of 
transmitters) to the design and production requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the commenters. This rule 
establishes minimum performance requirements for remote identification. 
It does not establish prescriptive production requirements on matters 
such as weight or size of the broadcast equipment, because the Agency 
wants producers to have the flexibility to adjust their designs based 
on the available technologies and market demand.
    Comments: ALPA, National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), 
CTIA--The Wireless Association, and other commenters expressed support 
for requiring remote identification UAS to meet the proposed minimum 
performance requirements. CTIA--The Wireless Association and NAAA, 
however, requested the FAA modify certain minimum performance 
requirements. NAAA asked the FAA to certify all UAS and UAS components. 
They believed that there should be prescriptive measures to determine 
whether a UAS is airworthy. For example, they mentioned that some of 
the requirements should include where to place the registration number 
and the need to equip the UAS with ADS-B In.
    FAA Response: The FAA promulgates this rule as a performance-based 
rule to grant producers flexibility to demonstrate that a standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module was designed and produced to meet the minimum 
performance requirements in subpart D to enable the unmanned aircraft 
or broadcast module to broadcast the required remote identification 
message elements.
    At this time, the FAA does not agree with commenters asking the 
Agency to certify all standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
and remote

[[Page 4456]]

identification components. As discussed in section XIV.E.1 of this 
preamble, the declaration of compliance process under subpart F is not 
a certification or airworthiness process and an FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance is not a type certificate or an airworthiness 
certificate. A different determination would be extremely burdensome 
(e.g., cost and time) for designers and producers. The FAA notes, 
however, that standard remote identification unmanned aircraft produced 
under a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 are 
subject to all applicable requirements and airworthiness determinations 
under part 21, as required in Sec.  89.510. The FAA also notes that if 
a manufacturer has been issued a production certificate or other 
approval to produce an unmanned aircraft, part 89 precludes production 
of that unmanned aircraft unless the unmanned aircraft complies with 
the minimum performance requirements for remote identification 
contained in that part or is subject to an exception from the 
requirements in subpart F (e.g., the unmanned aircraft is equipped with 
ADS-B Out equipment.)
    Comments: American Tower Corporation and others asked the FAA to 
permit UAS producers to set certain limits (AGL, Fly Zone, restriction 
areas) for the UAS they produce. The commenters believed this approach 
would grant flexibility to producers, would foster innovation, and 
would provide operators with greater options to meets their individual 
needs.
    FAA Response: As previously discussed, this rule is performance-
based and allows the production of unmanned aircraft that exceed the 
minimum performance requirements. While the operators must abide by the 
operating rules in subpart B, nothing in the rule precludes producers 
from implementing stricter standards or imposing additional equipment 
restrictions (e.g., geo-fencing technology).
    Comments: Some individuals recommended the FAA eliminate subpart F 
and limit the rule to operational requirements. Others asked the FAA to 
remove requirements related to producer certification and standards, 
and mentioned that the burden for complying with remote identification 
should rest on the operators of UAS instead of producers.
    FAA Response: The success of the remote identification frameworks 
rests on having both operational and production requirements. Producers 
must follow requirements to ensure that standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules meet the 
minimum performance requirements and broadcast the message elements 
required by this rule. Operators must use such unmanned aircraft or 
broadcast modules to ensure they identify remotely when operating in 
the airspace of the United States.
    Comments: Commenters recommended that the FAA align the production 
requirements and UAS designations with ICAO guidance, especially 
regarding the aircraft make, model, and serials taxonomy. Many 
commenters mentioned that the United States should strive for 
international harmonization of the remote identification requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA follows Order 8000.71 ``Aircraft Make, Model, 
and Series Taxonomy'' which establishes key definitions for the FAA's 
Make, Model, and Series (MMS) taxonomy and is based on the 
international standard taxonomy for MMS developed by the Commercial 
Aviation Safety Team/ICAO Common Taxonomy Team. The FAA recognizes that 
UAS technology is continually evolving, making it necessary to 
harmonize regulatory action with technological growth. The FAA 
regularly reaches out to its international partners on a bilateral and 
multilateral basis to harmonize regulations to the maximum extent 
possible. By establishing performance requirements, the FAA is 
promoting that harmonization and is providing a flexible regulation 
that allows persons to develop means of compliance that adjust to the 
fast pace of technological change, innovation, design, and development, 
and use them to design and produce unmanned aircraft that meet the 
remote identification requirements of this rule.
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns with the cost of 
complying with the design and production requirements. Commenters 
requested the FAA revise the requirements of subpart F to reduce the 
impact and burden on producers and recreational flyers. Some commenters 
believed the requirements would substantially increase the cost of 
production of UAS, and could impact innovation and the United States 
UAS market as a whole.
    FAA Response: Though the FAA does agree that the production 
requirements may impose additional burden on producers and increase 
production costs, the FAA is committed to the added safety and security 
benefits provided by remote identification and to the role it will play 
in the development of future UAS rules and concepts.
    The FAA has revised the design and production requirements under 
subpart F to allow for a simpler compliance process by introducing the 
remote identification broadcast module. Comments specific on the design 
and production of the remote identification broadcast module are 
discussed in section XIV.E.3 of this preamble. Based on comments 
received and information from unmanned aircraft producers, part of the 
existing fleet of unmanned aircraft could be modified to enable 
compliance with remote identification requirements with relative 
simplicity and minimal cost (e.g., by securing a remote identification 
broadcast module or doing a software upgrade through the internet).
    The Agency clarifies that subpart F applies to producers and not 
operators (e.g., recreational flyers). A recreational flyer who is also 
a producer of unmanned aircraft would be excepted from the design and 
production requirement in accordance with Sec.  89.501(c) if he or she 
is building a home-built unmanned aircraft. See section XIV.B.2 of this 
preamble for a discussion of the home-built exception.
    Comments: Many commenters argued against involving original 
equipment manufacturers (OEM) in the rule requirements. First Person 
View Freedom Coalition believed OEM should not be involved with the 
NPRM on remote identification; another commenter stated the FAA should 
eliminate all OEM requirements. One individual commenter suggested the 
FAA needs to create a system, create the standards, and allow producers 
of devices to choose to adopt and self-certify rather than requiring 
OEM to meet the production requirements. Kittyhawk.io, Inc. stated that 
OEM should not have that much responsibility for remote identification 
and control over its function, suggesting that the inclusion of OEM 
requirements and producers having a central role in access to the 
airspace presents not only complexity in execution, but also national 
security risks. WhiteFox Defense Technologies, Inc. added that the 
requirements should be revised to allow for UAS to be retrofitted with 
remote identification modules manufactured by third-parties other than 
the UAS OEM.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the arguments not to 
involve OEM in the development of the remote identification of unmanned 
aircraft. Partnering with the manufacturers or OEM is important to the 
success of unmanned aircraft remote identification. This will support 
the primary intent of this rule: To provide

[[Page 4457]]

a safe and secure airspace for manned and unmanned aircraft operations. 
OEMs are essential to the advancement and proliferation of the remote 
identification technology and incorporation into UAS products. Without 
the commitment and involvement of the UAS OEM, the safety and security 
benefits gained from remote identification will never fully develop or 
be implemented into the airspace of the United States. The FAA 
recognizes the need for the existing unmanned aircraft fleet to be able 
to comply with remote identification requirements and, to meet that 
need, this rule allows persons to retrofit unmanned aircraft with 
remote identification broadcast modules to allow them to identify 
remotely.
3. Production Requirements: Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    After considering public comments, the FAA decided to allow for the 
production and use of remote identification broadcast modules to enable 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification to comply with the 
remote identification requirements of part 89. Section 89.520 
establishes the production requirements for remote identification 
broadcast modules. This section prescribes that no person is allowed to 
produce a remote identification broadcast module unless it is designed 
and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for a remote 
identification broadcast module established in Sec.  89.320 using an 
FAA-accepted means of compliance.
    The producer of the remote identification broadcast modules must 
meet certain inspection requirements for production of the module; 
audit requirements; and product support and notification requirements. 
These requirements are aligned with similar requirements for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft. The FAA added an additional 
requirement for producers of remote identification broadcast modules in 
Sec.  89.520(b)(4). Producers must provide instructions for installing 
and operating the remote identification broadcast module to any person 
operating an unmanned aircraft with the remote identification broadcast 
module. The producer must also explain how the person would obtain the 
ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number assigned to the broadcast 
module. The instructions could be made available on a website or 
through any other venue, as long as the person installing and operating 
the remote identification broadcast module has access to the 
instructions. The FAA expects these instructions would provide details 
about how to ensure the remote identification broadcast module is 
correctly installed, secured, or upgraded into the unmanned aircraft, 
and details to prevent the broadcast module from interfering with the 
aircraft flight characteristics or flight controls, as applicable. The 
instructions must describe any limitations associated with use of the 
broadcast module, such as certain features or characteristics of an 
unmanned aircraft that would prevent the broadcast module from meeting 
the required minimum performance requirements.
    Persons producing remote identification broadcast modules must 
comply with the declaration of compliance process in subpart F. This is 
the same process that applies to the production of standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft without a design approval or 
production approval issued under part 21.
    The FAA envisions that some manufacturers would develop remote 
identification broadcast modules that can be installed on many 
different types of unmanned aircraft, whereas other manufacturers may 
produce broadcast modules that are compatible with only certain models 
of unmanned aircraft, either because of size, shape, power 
requirements, or other design features. The FAA does not require 
manufacturers to produce remote identification broadcast modules that 
work with all types of unmanned aircraft, but if the broadcast module 
is designed to meet the minimum performance requirements when installed 
on only certain models or types of unmanned aircraft, those limitations 
should be stated prominently in the installation instructions.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: A multitude of commenters indicated that the proposal 
precluded the production and use of add-on remote identification 
equipment and the retrofitting of older UAS with remote identification 
equipment. Some commenters believed the proposed requirements would 
make existing RC models, components, and electronics obsolete and un-
flyable. AiRXOS indicated that the proposal did not address owner-
initiated modifications, retrofits, compliance with maintenance 
schedules, and use of approved replacement parts.
    A significant number of commenters asked the FAA to incorporate 
requirements for the production of an add-on remote identification 
device that can be used to retrofit a UAS manufactured without remote 
identification equipment (e.g., existing UAS). FPVFC and others 
recommended allowing UAS to fly using add-on components or add-on 
subassemblies manufactured to perform in a manner consistent with the 
requirements and capabilities of remote identification. They mentioned 
that a single module should be allowed to be plugged into all of the 
owner's UAS, and meet the safety requirements by associating individual 
serial numbers with operators.
    Commenters provided a number of reasons in favor of the add-on 
equipment including, but not limited to, extending the life of the 
current UAS fleet, enhancing compliance with remote identification, and 
cost considerations. Some commenters mentioned that without the add-on 
equipment, operators would likely have to buy new UAS and producers 
would spend additional resources developing and producing complete UAS 
rather than the add-on equipment and component pieces.
    Various commenters mentioned that some UAS might not be able to be 
retrofitted with remote identification equipment. For example, certain 
small UAS might exceed the weight limitations after retrofitting while 
others might not have sufficient space to install the remote 
identification equipment. Commenters also mentioned that adding remote 
identification equipment to UAS, particularly certain small UAS, could 
impact the performance of the unmanned aircraft and reduce its flight 
capacity or capabilities (e.g., duration and distance).
    One commenter expressed concerns that the design and production 
requirements would preclude owners from upgrading the remote 
identification electronics. This commenter, along with many others, 
mentioned that the requirements would preclude a party from installing 
remote identification electronics into a third-party airframe. This 
commenter stated that, as proposed, the rule does not support the 
development and growth of an FAA-certified avionics equipment industry.
    Many commenters mentioned the lack of a retrofit option could price 
many hobbyists out of the hobby. Commenters said the rule would require 
almost every RC enthusiast to register as a manufacturer or to buy new 
UAS.
    FAA Response: After reviewing public comments and giving further 
consideration, the FAA has decided to incorporate the remote 
identification broadcast module concept into this rule. See section 
VII.D of this preamble for a

[[Page 4458]]

discussion on the operating requirements for unmanned aircraft equipped 
with remote identification broadcast modules. Accordingly, the FAA 
adopts the production requirements for broadcast modules in Sec.  
89.520. While these requirements are new, they are mostly identical to 
the production requirements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft. The main differences are that the remote identification 
broadcast module must be designed and produced to meet the minimum 
performance requirements established in Sec.  89.320 and that the 
producer must provide instructions for the installation and operation 
of the broadcast modules. All requirements for remote identification 
broadcast modules, including but not limited to the instruction 
requirements, apply to both remote identification broadcast modules 
secured to the unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast 
modules implemented through a software upgrade using existing equipment 
on the unmanned aircraft. See section IX of this preamble for a 
discussion of the minimum performance requirements for remote 
identification modules.
    Comments: The Consumer Technology Association and other commenters 
mentioned that the FAA should permit producers to continue selling non-
compliant UAS if retrofit modules were available to bring the aircraft 
into compliance with the remote identification requirements.
    FAA Response: As stated earlier, this rule only applies to the 
design and production of standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. The FAA clarifies 
that the Agency does not regulate the importation or sale of unmanned 
aircraft.
    Comments: Commenters, including senseFly, Recreational consumers, 
National Association of State Aviation Officials, National Alliance of 
Forest Owners, and many individuals indicated it would still be 
expensive to retrofit existing UAS with remote identification 
equipment. Theia stated the costs needed to obtain a declaration of 
compliance are unknown but could be substantial depending on final 
requirements; they urged the FAA to provide reduced cost declaration of 
compliance for entities that build, operate, and insure their own 
airframes.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that this rule imposes certain 
costs on the designers and producers of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. These 
costs are justified by the benefits that will result from the rule, and 
both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the Regulatory 
Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. Product Support and Notification for Standard Remote Identification 
Unmanned Aircraft and Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
    This rule finalizes the requirement that persons responsible for 
the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
remote identification broadcast modules must maintain product support 
and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any 
defect or condition that causes the unmanned aircraft or broadcast 
module to no longer meet the requirements of subpart F within 15 
calendar days of becoming aware of the defect or condition, as stated 
in paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  89.515 and paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  
89.520.
    The FAA specifically sought comments on whether it should require 
producers to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition 
that causes the unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of 
subpart F within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes aware 
of the defect or condition.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for 
Public Safety and Justice expressed its support for a 15 calendar day 
notice period. AiRXOS recommended the requirement be ``as soon as 
possible based on the assessment of the increased level of risk but no 
later than 15 days,'' and for the FAA to establish a formal 
notification process similar to Airworthiness Directives.
    Airlines for America (A4A) recommended a shorter period of 3 
calendar days to notify the FAA and the public if a defect or condition 
might create an immediate safety or security issue. In contrast, 
Droneport Texas LLC proposed a 60-calendar day notice period, and some 
individuals proposed a 90-calendar day term.
    FAA Response: The FAA received a wide range of comments suggesting 
notification periods ranging from 3 to 90 days. Given the lack of 
agreement on a time frame, the FAA is adopting the notification period 
to be within 15 calendar days, as proposed. The FAA is requiring 
producers to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition 
that causes the unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of 
subpart F within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes aware 
of the defect or condition. The FAA looked at overall impact to 
security, safety and cost and has determined that 15 calendar days 
provides a reasonable time for the producers to evaluate and confirm 
the presence of a defect that requires public notification.

F. Accountability

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    In addition to the audit requirements prescribed in Sec.  89.515 
for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and Sec.  89.520 
for remote identification broadcast modules, the FAA requested comments 
regarding the appropriate time intervals for conducting independent 
audits, including any time intervals specified in industry standards 
related to independent audits of aviation systems as part of the design 
and production requirements.
    The FAA is adopting the audit requirements because the Agency has 
determined it is necessary for producers to maintain product support 
and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any 
defect or condition that causes the remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or broadcast module to no longer meet the requirements of 
subpart F.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters opposed including a requirement for 
audits or FAA facility inspections and argued they are unnecessary and 
burdensome for the industry. The Alliance for Drone Innovation, DJI 
Technology, Inc., and others recommended the FAA undertake random spot 
compliance checks by purchasing and testing products on the market to 
determine whether these products comply with the requirements rather 
than having to perform the proposed compliance audits. Some commenters 
believe that competitors, product reviewers, and safety watchdogs would 
also check product compliance independently and report non-compliance 
or deviations to the FAA. Others mentioned that the requirements are 
unnecessary because the FAA, law enforcement, and the public can assess 
compliance by analyzing the broadcast and transmitted data because it 
would be accessible by the public. Other comments mentioned that the 
requirements would burden smaller producers and, in particular, 
individual UAS builders.

[[Page 4459]]

    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that there is no need for 
audits or inspections. The FAA also does not agree with the 
recommendation of using spot testing, product reviews, or public 
assessment for compliance in lieu of auditing requirement. Producer 
audits and inspections help ensure continued compliance with applicable 
requirements and are consistent with other types of producer 
inspections performed by the Agency and its authorized representatives. 
These inspections assist the FAA validation procedures, processes, and 
methods used to demonstrate that the designers and producers of 
unmanned aircraft and their produced remote identification unmanned 
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules meet the 
requirements of subpart F.
    Comments: AiRXOS and many individuals believed that the audit 
requirement is unnecessary and difficult to enforce, particularly with 
regards to the production of UAS used for research and development and 
home-built UAS. AiRXOS and others asked the FAA to impose the audit and 
inspection requirement only on commercial manufacturers. Some 
commenters asked the FAA to conduct independent audits of all original 
equipment manufacturers within the first 12 months of operation.
    The FPVFC, multiple commercial UAS manufacturers, and a number of 
persons identifying as homebuilders opposed the requirement to allow 
the FAA to inspect facilities and witness any test necessary to 
determine compliance with subpart F of part 89. Many commenters 
mentioned that the FAA has no authority to enter facilities or 
individuals' homes and argued that the requirement is unenforceable. 
FPVFC specifically challenged the FAA to articulate any other lawful 
recreational activity that would permit the government's inspection of 
a participating civilian's home or places, papers, etcetera, without a 
warrant, even if the activity were otherwise federally regulated. FPVFC 
believed the requirement is beyond the FAA's authority, that it raises 
4th Amendment issues, and detracts from the FAA's goals of regulating 
the national airspace.
    FAA Response: In accordance with Sec.  89.501(c), the requirements 
of subpart F of this rule do not apply to home-built unmanned aircraft 
or unmanned aircraft designed or produced exclusively for the purpose 
of aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations. This 
means that persons producing such unmanned aircraft are not subject to 
the requirements unless they voluntarily opt into subpart F.
    The FAA considers the audit and inspection requirements to be 
essential elements of the declaration of compliance process. Standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft produced in accordance with 
Sec.  89.515 and remote identification broadcast modules produced in 
accordance with Sec.  89.520 do not undergo part 21 certification. The 
requirements of the declaration of compliance process, including the 
audits, are meant to foster accountability and to ensure that the 
unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules meet the requirements of 
subpart F.
    The audits are also necessary because this rule requires producers 
to maintain a product support and notification system and procedures to 
notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that may cause 
a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module to no longer comply with the 
requirements of this rule. To satisfy these obligations, persons 
responsible for the production of unmanned aircraft would have to 
monitor their manufacturing processes, unmanned aircraft operational 
usage (to the extent the producer has access to such information), and 
collection of accident and incident data.
    As for inspections, the FAA has determined whenever the Agency 
identifies a safety issue that warrants review of a producer's data, 
records, or facilities, it is in the interest of safety and security of 
the airspace of the United States for producers subject to subpart F to 
grant the FAA access to such data, records, or facilities and all data 
and reports from the audits and investigations.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined the audit and inspection 
requirements are integral to ensuring compliance and conducting 
oversight of the production. Since most unmanned aircraft can be used 
for a number of purposes, the FAA has determined these requirements 
apply to all designers and producers of remote identification unmanned 
aircraft subject to subpart F.
    Comments: Commenters expressed concerns that certain producers--
particularly foreign--might not share certain information with the FAA 
or comply with certain requirements of the final rule.
    FAA Response: No person may produce a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module unless the person complies with all of the design and production 
requirements of subpart F and obtains an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance authorizing the production of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules for use in 
the airspace of the United States. Failure to comply with any of the 
requirements--including the audit or inspection requirements--
constitutes grounds for the FAA to rescind its acceptance of a 
declaration of compliance. Any standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or a remote identification broadcast module listed under the 
rescinded declaration of compliance would not be able to operate 
outside of an FAA-recognized identification area.
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns that the auditing 
requirement could place a burden on UAS producers, particularly small 
and new producers.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that this rule imposes costs on 
the designers and producers of unmanned aircraft. These costs are 
justified by the benefits that will result from the rule, and both 
costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the Regulatory 
Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Comments: Wingcopter suggested that the FAA should exclude the 
manufacturers of UAS produced under a design approval or production 
approval issued under part 21 from having to comply with the audit 
requirements under part 89 because part 21 already includes 
requirements for audits and control of the quality system and 
production system.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with Wingcopter; as previously 
discussed, the FAA has modified the rule to clarify which requirements 
of subpart F apply to unmanned aircraft produced under a design 
approval or production approval issued under part 21. The audit and 
inspection requirements in subpart F do not apply to aircraft certified 
under part 21 because they are subject to their own audits for quality 
system and production system controls under part 21.
    Comments: Droneport Texas LLC, Watts Innovations LLC, and others 
believed the audits should be risk-based, and the frequency should be 
determined by each UAS manufacturer-based on the complexity of the UAS 
produced. A commenter mentioned that, unless an audit by the FAA is 
being conducted for cause and in agreement with the host nation (if 
required), a regular audit not being conducted at the request of 
manufacturers should be scheduled no sooner than 2 calendar years from 
the

[[Page 4460]]

date of the previous audit. The first audit should require a minimum of 
60 calendar days prior notice from the inspecting organization. The 
commenter mentioned that an audit for legal cause should be conducted 
using best practices from the United States Department of Justice and 
the justice agency of the host nation (if required).
    FAA Response: The audit requirements in subpart F apply to 
designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft. As 
previously stated, this includes any local or foreign producers or 
designers that intends to produce unmanned aircraft for use in the 
airspace of the United States. The FAA does not agree with the 
suggestion for setting audit frequency. The FAA did not impose a 
timeframe for the independent audits. It expects the person responsible 
for the production of the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module to apply industry 
best practices to determine when and how often independent audits are 
needed. The FAA has determined the audits should occur on a regular 
basis and as many times as necessary. This grants flexibility to the 
producer to adjust the recurrence of the audits, based on the 
circumstances to ensure continuous compliance with the requirements of 
this rule.

G. Filing a Declaration of Compliance

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    As discussed in section V.E of this preamble, the FAA is adding a 
new definition in Sec.  89.1 to ensure clarity regarding the meaning of 
a ``declaration of compliance.''
    In addition, Sec.  89.530 prescribes the requirements for 
submitting a declaration of compliance for FAA acceptance. Section 
89.530 prescribes the eligibility requirements for submitting a 
declaration of compliance, and details the information required in that 
submission, whether for a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or a remote identification broadcast module. The FAA has 
updated the information required in Sec.  89.530 to include the FCC 
Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency equipment 
used and integrated into the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module.
    In this rule, the FAA has revised the section to eliminate all 
references to limited remote identification UAS and incorporate the 
remote identification broadcast module concept. Section 89.530(c) 
prescribes the information that must be submitted in a declaration of 
compliance for remote identification broadcast modules.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. Submission
    Comments: Various commenters questioned the purpose and use of a 
declaration of compliance. Some believed that the declaration of 
compliance process is complex and that it makes it difficult for 
persons to determine whether an unmanned aircraft complies with the 
remote identification requirements. Commenters mentioned that the 
requirements of subpart F should be simple and easy to follow, should 
not deter potential producers from venturing into the market, and 
should not stifle innovation.
    FAA Response: The FAA believes a declaration of compliance is an 
essential part of the remote identification framework. An FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance allows a person to produce standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
modules. It serves as an assurance that producers are using an FAA-
accepted means of compliance for the production of the unmanned 
aircraft or broadcast module to meet the minimum performance 
requirements of this rule and are complying with all other design and 
production requirements of subpart F. Various commenters questioned the 
use of the audit requirement and mentioned that the FAA could have 
difficulties inspecting producers and ensuring the audits are 
performed.
    The FAA has determined that the audit requirement is necessary, 
similar to the audit requirement under part 21, to ensure continued 
compliance with remote identification requirements. The FAA believes 
the audits would have to occur on a recurrent basis (as many times as 
necessary), and whenever the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or of 
potential noncompliance, to ensure and demonstrate the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or the remote identification broadcast 
module meets the requirements of subpart F. A producer submitting a 
declaration of compliance for FAA acceptance must make certain 
assurances and meet certain requirements regarding inspections, audits, 
product support and notification, and instructions. Failure to comply 
with any of these requirements is grounds for rescission of the FAA's 
acceptance of the declaration of compliance, which directly impacts 
where the unmanned aircraft can be operated. An unmanned aircraft 
listed under a declaration of compliance that has been rescinded is 
only able to operate at an FAA-recognized identification area. 
Similarly, a remote identification broadcast module listed under a 
declaration of compliance that has been rescinded cannot be used to 
meet the remote identification requirements.
    Comments: Various commenters questioned the ability of the FAA to 
enforce the requirements of subpart F, especially when anyone can 
modify a UAS after it has been produced.
    FAA Response: The production requirements of subpart F apply when a 
person produces a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
remote identification broadcast modules. The production requirements do 
not apply to third parties who subsequently modify the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or the remote identification broadcast 
module. However, these modifications could render the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module non-compliant for purposes of meeting the requirements of 
subpart B.
    Comments: The NTSB expressed concerns with the declaration of 
compliance process and mentioned that it would be unlikely for 
producers under subpart F to conduct robust failure analysis equal to 
the level required for certified aircraft under part 21. The NTSB 
mentioned that an unforeseen combination of factors could affect an 
aircraft in flight and cause a fly-away or other hazardous events. The 
NTSB urged the FAA to consider potential unintended consequences of the 
proposed requirements.
    FAA Response: As stated earlier, the FAA adopts the regulatory 
framework for remote identification with performance-based requirements 
rather than prescriptive ones to provide a flexible regulation The FAA 
appreciates the NTSB's concerns but believes they are addressed because 
the minimum performance requirements include a specific requirement 
that the remote identification equipment must not interfere with any 
other system or equipment installed on the unmanned aircraft, and must 
not interfere with the remote identification equipment. In addition, 
though the declaration of compliance process is simpler than the 
aircraft certification process of part 21, it provides the basic 
information necessary for the FAA to determine that a producer has 
complied with all applicable requirements and can produce standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification 
broadcast modules that

[[Page 4461]]

meet all of the minimum performance and production requirements for 
remote identification.
    Comments: Multiple commenters asked the FAA to adopt a risk-based 
approach to certification where the type of certification required 
(e.g., self-certification, partial certification, full certification) 
is based on the risk of the operations conducted. The American 
Petroleum Institute and other commenters believed the declaration of 
compliance process amounts to self-certification and might not provide 
appropriate rigor and oversight.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with proposed risk-based 
approach for certification because the remote identification 
requirements are operational requirements and applicable to all 
unmanned aircraft irrespective of risk of the operation.
    The FAA clarifies that the declaration of compliance process is not 
a self-certification process and does not confer airworthiness. An FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance is not a type certificate or an 
airworthiness certificate. The process is simpler than the aircraft 
certification process of part 21 because it provides the basic 
information necessary for the FAA to determine that a producer has 
complied with all applicable requirements and can produce standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification 
broadcast modules that meet all of the minimum performance and 
production requirements for remote identification.
    Comments: The NAAA and others indicated that all UAS with remote 
identification and component pieces should be subject to the 
airworthiness certification process. Wingcopter indicated that part 21 
includes design and production requirements for certificated aircraft. 
They asked the FAA to clarify whether subpart F applies to all UAS or 
only those produced without design approval or production approval 
issued under part 21. The commenter also suggested that the FAA should 
revise part 21 to include remote identification requirements and 
mentioned that UAS certificated under part 21 should not be subject to 
the declaration of compliance process in subpart F.
    FAA Response: The production of unmanned aircraft under the part 89 
declaration of compliance process is not a type certification or 
airworthiness certification process. The FAA considered Wingcopter's 
request to add remote identification requirements to part 21 and to 
clarify that unmanned aircraft certificated under part 21 are not 
subject to the declaration of compliance process in subpart F of part 
89. The FAA has determined that it does not need to add remote 
identification requirements to part 21. Remote identification 
requirements are included in part 89. As previously discussed, the 
Agency revised subpart F of part 89 of this rule to clarify which 
design and production requirements apply to unmanned aircraft under a 
design approval or production approval issued under part 21. The 
revisions also clarify that the requirements in Sec. Sec.  89.525 
through 89.545 for labeling and for the processes related to the 
submission, acceptance, rescission, reconsideration, and record 
retention of declarations of compliance only apply to unmanned aircraft 
produced without a design approval or production approval issued under 
part 21 and for remote identification broadcast modules. Unmanned 
aircraft undergoing certification under part 21 must meet the 
certification processes and requirements of part 21 and the 
requirements in Sec.  89.510.
    Comments: A number of comments asked the FAA to modify the 
production requirements to allow persons to file declarations of 
compliance for the production of remote identification add-on equipment 
that can be installed on UAS manufactured without remote identification 
capabilities. Commenters indicated that not doing so would place a 
significant burden on small and new producers.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters and has modified this 
rule by incorporating the remote identification broadcast module 
concept. The production requirements for remote identification 
broadcast modules are included in Sec.  89.520 of this rule. Remote 
identification broadcast modules must also comply with the serial 
number, labeling, and record retention requirements in subpart F. The 
processes related to the submission, rescission, reconsideration, and 
record retention in subpart F also apply to the remote identification 
broadcast module. The costs related to the incorporation of the remote 
identification broadcast module are justified by the benefits that will 
result from the rule, and both costs and benefits are discussed in the 
Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
ii. Information Required for a Declaration of Compliance
    Comments: Northeast UAS Airspace recommended that producers list 
the UAS model number in the declaration of compliance along with the 
compliant firmware or software version instead of the serial number.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the recommendation to 
revise the requirements so that producers have to list the unmanned 
aircraft model number in the declaration of compliance along with the 
compliant firmware or software version instead of the serial number. 
Besides the make and model, a producer must list in the declaration of 
compliance all of the serial numbers that will be assigned to standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast modules under the declaration of compliance. Each standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module produced under a declaration of compliance must be 
assigned a unique serial number to allow it to be distinguished from 
other standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast modules.
    Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, senseFly, DJI Technology, Inc. 
and many individuals indicated that the requirement to list the serial 
number of every UAS produced under a declaration of compliance is 
overly restrictive. DJI Technology, Inc. believed the requirement for 
the producer to list the serial numbers of all UAS manufactured under a 
declaration of compliance is unnecessary because under the proposed 
revisions to the registration requirements, the owner of a UAS would 
have to include the serial number when registering the unmanned 
aircraft. Some commenters mentioned that for foreign manufactured UAS, 
the serial numbers should be provided at the time the UAS are declared 
in a customs form by an import agent rather than at the time of 
production.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the commenters. The 
Agency has determined the serial number is necessary to establish the 
unique identity of the unmanned aircraft. Because the declaration of 
compliance establishes that the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module meets the 
minimum performance requirements, the consolidated list of all standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast modules produced under a declaration of compliance is 
necessary to facilitate recognition of unmanned aircraft and broadcast 
modules that meet the requirements. Lastly, the serial numbers must be 
listed because under the operating requirements in subpart B, an

[[Page 4462]]

operator may only operate a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module outside an FAA-
recognized identification area if its serial number is listed under an 
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance.
    Comments: Unifly and other commenters believe a manufacturer should 
be able to update the list of serial numbers listed under an FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance without it being considered a change 
to the declaration of compliance. Some commenters suggested that UAS 
serial numbers be ``submitted to the FAA by the customs agent upon 
entry into the United States'' and noted that listing all relevant 
serial numbers in the declaration of compliance will increase the cost 
of production management because the serial number is generated and 
introduced to the UAS flight controller during the factory production 
process, and therefore UAS meant to be sold in the United States would 
have to be identified and distinguished from UAS meant to be sold in 
other jurisdictions. Commenters suggested that an alternate method to 
address this issue would be to submit the declaration of compliance 
after production is complete and the UAS that are going to be sent to 
the United States for sale have been identified. Commenters mentioned 
that this alternative could create a delay in delivering UAS because 
the UAS could not be sent to the United States until after the 
declaration of compliance has been accepted by the FAA.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with these comments. The 
producer is the party responsible for designing and producing standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification 
broadcast modules for operation in the United States and ensuring they 
meet the remote identification requirements of part 89. Therefore, the 
FAA has determined that the producer is responsible for all 
requirements under subpart F, including the filing and amendment of 
serial numbers.
    The FAA does not agree with the request to allow designers and 
producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft to be able to 
update the list of serial numbers listed under an FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance without following the amendment process for a 
declaration of compliance. An amendment is submitted to modify any 
aspect of an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance. Reasons for 
submitting an amendment include, but are not limited to: Resolving a 
safety or non-compliance issue (e.g., replacing a means of compliance); 
updating or correcting information (e.g., the name of the responsible 
person or contact information); or including new serial numbers.
    Comments: One commenter asked how the FAA intends to enforce the 
requirements, particularly with regards to international manufacturers 
of pre-fabricated racing UAS, which do not have GPS, barometers, or 
broadcast telemetry. Commenters mentioned the requirements would 
potentially impact the sport of UAS racing. Other commenters suggested 
people may resort to importing UAS from outside the UAS or overriding 
their UAS systems to circumvent these regulations.
    FAA Response: No person may produce a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module unless the person complies with all of the design and production 
requirements of subpart F, and obtains an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance authorizing the production of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules for use in 
the airspace of the United States. Failure to comply with any of the 
requirements constitutes grounds for the FAA to rescind its acceptance 
of a declaration of compliance. Any standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed 
under the rescinded declaration of compliance would not be able to 
operate outside of an FAA-recognized identification area.
    This rule establishes production and operating requirements for 
remote identification. The rule does not preclude the sale of unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification nor does it prohibit someone 
from buying and importing foreign-made unmanned aircraft. However, the 
operating rules of part 89 continue to apply to all persons operating 
unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States, including 
persons operating foreign-made unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 
without remote identification.
    Comments: Many commenters asked the FAA to revise the regulation so 
that the producers of UAS do not have to file declarations of 
compliance.
    FAA Response: As previously mentioned, the producer is the party 
responsible for designing and producing unmanned aircraft and broadcast 
modules for operation in the airspace of the United States and ensuring 
the unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules meet the remote 
identification requirements of subpart F. The FAA has determined the 
declaration of compliance must be submitted by the producers because it 
is a condition precedent to being able to produce unmanned aircraft and 
broadcast modules used in the airspace of the United States.

H. Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Section 89.535 prescribes the requirements for the acceptance of 
declarations of compliance. The Administrator will evaluate a 
declaration of compliance that is submitted to the FAA and may request 
additional information or documentation, as needed, to supplement the 
declaration of compliance. If the Administrator determines that the 
submitter has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this 
subpart, the FAA will notify the submitter that the Administrator has 
accepted the declaration of compliance.
    The FAA adopts the requirements for the acceptance of a declaration 
of compliance as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, AiRXOS, and numerous others asked 
the FAA to provide more information about the design and production 
requirements, and how the Agency would assess compliance to issue an 
acceptance of a declaration of compliance. For example, they asked the 
Agency to define routine maintenance and to list all requirements that 
must be met to obtain the FAA's approval of a declaration of 
compliance. They also asked if FAA will require validation for each 
producer. Various commenters asked the FAA to provide a list of all 
FAA-accepted declarations of compliance on the FAA website to notify 
the public of which declarations of compliance are valid.
    FAA Response: The design and production requirements for remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft are covered in subpart F. Any 
person, whether in the United States or a foreign country, producing 
such unmanned aircraft or broadcast module must file a declaration of 
compliance, provide certain information, and agree to abide by the 
production requirements and certain terms and conditions (e.g., 
inspection, audit, product support and notification, instructions). The 
FAA will evaluate a declaration of compliance that is submitted to the 
FAA to determine that the submitter has demonstrated compliance with 
the requirements of this subpart, the FAA

[[Page 4463]]

will notify the submitter that the Administrator has accepted the 
declaration of compliance. With the exception of including the FCC 
identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency equipment 
used and integrated into the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module, the FAA adopts 
Sec.  89.530, the required information for submitting a declaration of 
compliance for FAA acceptance, as proposed. The FAA will publish the 
list of FAA-accepted declarations of compliance at https://www.faa.gov.
    The FAA is establishing an advisory circular on the declaration of 
compliance process for remote identification of unmanned aircraft. This 
advisory circular provides guidance on the declaration of compliance 
process described in part 89, and outlines the required information for 
submitting a declaration of compliance. This guidance material is also 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Comments: Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and many other 
commenters questioned whether the Agency had the necessary resources to 
process all declarations of compliance submitted for acceptance in a 
timely manner. The commenters also questioned whether the FAA had the 
proper oversight and enforcement mechanisms. This commenter added that 
as the UAS industry continues to grow, there will be an increase in 
declaration of compliance submissions, which would require a huge 
investment from the FAA, and other governmental stakeholders, to keep 
up with the demand. Various commenters asked the Agency to commit to a 
timeline for review of a declaration of compliance. For example, DJI 
proposed a 30-day review period; Skydio proposed a 90-day period to 
provide a decision to the producers.
    FAA Response: The FAA is committed to the implementation of this 
rule and is developing internal processes and identifying and 
allocating the appropriate resources to facilitate all processes 
required under subpart F of part 89. The FAA is committed to working 
with internal and external stakeholders to ensure that the process of 
submitting and obtaining FAA-acceptance of a declaration of compliance 
is implemented in an effective and timely manner. That being said, the 
FAA cannot commit to a specific timeline to review and approve the 
declarations of compliance because the response time will vary based on 
the complexity of the application, the technology, and a wide variety 
of use cases. The Administrator might have a need to request additional 
information (e.g., test results, etc.) or documentation, as needed, to 
supplement the declaration of compliance and to ensure completeness and 
compliance with the requirements of Sec.  89.530 of this rule.
    Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, senseFly, DJI Technology, Inc., 
and many individuals believe that the process would increase the 
administrative and compliance burden for manufacturers, operators, and 
the FAA. They also said the process would delay the introduction of new 
UAS into the market because producers would have to wait for the FAA to 
accept their declarations of compliance. They believe the acceptance 
process will likely create a backlog.
    FAA Response: The declaration of compliance process does not impose 
a burden on operators of unmanned aircraft because the requirements of 
subpart F only apply to producers of unmanned aircraft. As previously 
explained, the declaration of compliance process is an essential part 
of the remote identification framework and is a condition precedent for 
someone to be able to produce standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules. The FAA has 
determined the process is in the interest of safety and security of the 
airspace of the United States because it ensures that producers produce 
unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules that meet the minimum 
performance requirements for remote identification in the United 
States. The costs related to the process are justified by the benefits 
that will result from the rule, and both costs and benefits are 
discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Comments: Theia and other commenters asked the FAA to provide a 
streamlined declaration of compliance process with lower costs and less 
stringent requirements for persons or entities that build, operate, and 
insure their own UAS. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems 
International (AUVSI), Skydio, DJI Technology Inc., and other 
commenters asked the FAA to allow a producer to file a single 
declaration of compliance that covers multiple makes and models of UAS, 
rather than have to file an individual declaration of compliance for 
each make and model.
    FAA Response: The FAA determined that the declaration of compliance 
process is simple, straightforward, and applies to all designers or 
producers of non-certificated unmanned aircraft. The FAA also 
determined that the declaration of compliance process provides the 
basic information necessary to assess compliance with the remote 
identification requirements. The information and assessment is 
necessary for all aircraft, and the FAA has determined it should not 
vary based on the number of aircraft manufactured by a person or the 
fact that person manufactures the unmanned aircraft for his or her own 
use.
    A declaration of compliance needs to contain a single producer, 
make, and model and serial number(s) to uniquely identify the standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module.

I. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Section 89.540 establishes the grounds and procedures related to 
the rescission of the FAA's acceptance of a declaration of compliance 
and a petition for reconsideration of such decision. The Administrator 
may rescind an accepted declaration of compliance if a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module listed under the declaration of compliance does not meet the 
minimum performance requirements of the rule; if the declaration of 
compliance does not meet a requirement of subpart F; or if the FAA 
rescinds acceptance of the means of compliance listed in the 
declaration of compliance.
    The Administrator may provide a reasonable period of time for the 
person who submitted the declaration of compliance to remediate the 
noncompliance.
    Notice of a rescission will be published in the Federal Register.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. Rescission of a Declaration of Compliance
    Comments: Commenters asked the FAA to publish a list of 
declarations of compliance that have been rescinded to notify the 
public of which declarations of compliance are no longer valid.
    FAA Response: As explained in the NPRM and adopted in this rule, 
the FAA will notify the submitter of its rescission and will publish a 
list of declarations of compliance that are no longer accepted at 
https://www.faa.gov.

[[Page 4464]]

ii. Petition To Reconsider the Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a 
Declaration of Compliance
    Comments: PRENAV and multiple individuals asked the FAA to remove 
the 60-day limit to petition the Agency to reconsider its decision to 
rescind a previously accepted declaration of compliance because, they 
argued, issues typically take time to identify and resolve. Therefore, 
they believed there should be no time limit on a manufacturer's ability 
to petition for reconsideration of the rescission of the FAA's 
acceptance of a declaration of compliance.
    FAA Response: If the FAA determines it is in the public interest, 
prior to rescission, it will provide a reasonable period of time for 
the person holding the declaration of compliance to remediate the issue 
of non-compliance. If the person does not take appropriate action to 
resolve the issue promptly, the Agency would proceed with the 
rescission. The FAA has determined the term is appropriate because it 
grants sufficient time after the rescission for the producer to request 
for reconsideration of the decision. Prior to the rescission, the FAA 
would grant producers reasonable time to take action to resolve the 
defects or conditions. The FAA would proceed with the rescission after 
it has determined that no action can be taken, that the producer did 
not act within a reasonable time, or that the producer is unwilling or 
unable to resolve the defect or condition.

J. Record Retention

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA adopts Sec.  89.545 as proposed, except that it is deleting 
references to the limited remote identification UAS concept and 
replacing them with the remote identification broadcast module concept. 
According to the requirements, a person must retain the following 
information for as long as the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed on that 
declaration of compliance is produced plus an additional 24 calendar 
months, and must make it available for inspection by the Administrator: 
(a) The means of compliance, all documentation, and substantiating data 
related to the means of compliance used; (b) records of all test 
results; and (c) any other information necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the means of compliance so that the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module meets the remote identification requirements and the design and 
production requirements of part 89.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Some commenters mentioned that UAS manufacturers could 
have difficulties complying with the record retention requirements 
because certain components of the UAS (e.g., beacons or transmitters), 
could be procured from other persons (e.g., component manufacturers) 
and used in the UAS produced by the manufacturer.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with these commenters. The 
unmanned aircraft producer can obtain the data and documentation 
necessary for compliance as a part of its procurement process.
    Comments: The Small UAV Coalition and others expressed concerns 
about the proposed requirement to retain ``all test results'' and 
requested clarification of what tests were covered by the requirement.
    FAA Response: The record retention requirements in Sec.  89.545 of 
this rule apply to the production of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. 
Designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft must 
retain records of all test results showing that the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or the remote identification broadcast 
module meet the minimum performance requirements in subpart D of part 
89 and all production and design requirements in subpart F of part 89.
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that a person who 
does not comply with the requirements of subpart F could face legal 
liability.
    FAA Response: No person may produce a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module unless the person complies with all design and production 
requirements in subpart F and obtains the FAA's acceptance of a 
declaration of compliance. Failure to comply with any of the 
requirements--including the record keeping requirements--constitutes a 
ground for the FAA to rescind its acceptance of a declaration of 
compliance. The rescission would mean that the person would not be 
authorized, under that declaration of compliance, to produce standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast modules for use in the airspace of the United States. Any 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 
with a remote identification broadcast module listed in a rescinded 
declaration of compliance would be restricted to operating in an FAA-
recognized identification area.
    Comments: Various individuals expressed concerns that the record 
retention requirements could prove costly for manufacturers. Western 
Michigan University, Drone Delivery Systems, and others indicated that 
the administrative costs and record keeping requirements might prevent 
the home building of recreational UAS.
    FAA Response: In accordance with Sec.  89.501(c), the requirements 
of subpart F of this rule do not apply to home-built unmanned aircraft. 
This means that persons producing home-built unmanned aircraft are not 
subject to the record retention requirements unless they voluntarily 
opt into subpart F by producing home-built standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft.
    The FAA acknowledges that the record retention requirements in 
Sec.  89.545 of this rule will impose certain costs to producers of 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules. The costs are justified by the 
benefits that will result from the rule, and both costs and benefits 
are discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this 
rulemaking. The Agency has determined that the requirement is necessary 
to verify demonstration of compliance with the minimum performance 
requirements in subpart D of part 89, and all production and design 
requirements in subpart F of part 89. In the event of an FAA 
investigation or analysis, the Administrator needs to obtain data 
necessary to reassess the acceptability of the declaration of 
compliance. The additional 24 calendar months would ensure that the 
data is still readily available while any FAA actions are being taken. 
If the FAA requests the data, and the submitter did not retain the data 
in accordance with this requirement, then the Administrator may choose 
to rescind acceptance of the declaration of compliance.

XV. Registration

    The FAA proposed that persons operating unmanned aircraft 
registered or required to be registered under part 47 or 48 would have 
to comply with the remote identification requirements of proposed part 
89. The FAA proposed to tie the remote identification requirements to 
the registration of unmanned aircraft because the FAA and law 
enforcement agencies need the ability to correlate remote 
identification information with registration data to

[[Page 4465]]

obtain more complete information regarding the ownership of unmanned 
aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States.
    Aircraft registration requirements serve the dual purposes of both 
identifying aircraft and promoting accountability and the safe and 
efficient use of the airspace of the United States by both manned and 
unmanned aircraft. With limited exceptions, most unmanned aircraft are 
required to be registered under part 47 or 48; therefore, nearly all 
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States will 
have to comply with the remote identification requirements. Foreign 
civil unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States 
will also be required to comply with the remote identification 
requirements. This will enhance the overall safety and efficiency of 
the airspace of the United States.
    Under the current registration requirements, no person may operate 
an unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States unless the 
unmanned aircraft has been registered by its owner under part 47 or 48, 
or unless the aircraft is excepted from registration. There are two 
exceptions to the registration requirements for unmanned aircraft: (1) 
Unmanned aircraft of the Armed Forces of the United States; and (2) 
most unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, 
including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the 
aircraft. Small unmanned aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 91, 107, 
or 135, or any other operating part are required to register under part 
47 or 48 regardless of weight.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Foreign civil aircraft remain subject to the requirements 
of 14 CFR part 375 and, to the extent applicable, 14 CFR 48.125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. owners of small unmanned aircraft used in civil operations 
(including commercial operations), limited recreational operations, or 
public aircraft operations, among others, are eligible to register the 
unmanned aircraft under part 48 in one of two ways: (1) Under an 
individual registration number issued to each unmanned aircraft; or (2) 
under a single registration number issued to an owner of multiple 
unmanned aircraft used exclusively for limited recreational operations. 
The FAA's existing registration requirements were implemented through 
the Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft 
interim final rule (Registration Rule), published on December 15, 2016.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed changes to those registration 
requirements to meet the objectives and intent of remote identification 
of UAS. Specifically, the FAA proposed to require all unmanned 
aircraft, including those used for limited recreational operations, to 
obtain a unique registration number. The FAA also proposed requiring 
owners to submit the unmanned aircraft's serial number and other 
information as a part of the application process.
    The FAA adopts the requirement tying remote identification 
requirements to registration requirements and the requirements to 
submit the unmanned aircraft's serial number and other information. 
After reviewing comments and further consideration, the FAA decided not 
to adopt the requirement that all unmanned aircraft, including those 
used for limited recreational operations, obtain a unique registration 
number. Those changes are described in the sections that follow.

A. Aircraft Registration Requirements

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The Registration Rule implemented separate registration 
requirements for ``small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model 
aircraft'' and ``small unmanned aircraft used as other than model 
aircraft.'' The Registration Rule required small unmanned aircraft used 
as other than model aircraft to be registered with a separate 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued for each individual 
aircraft. The Registration Rule required small unmanned aircraft used 
exclusively as model aircraft to be registered with a single 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued to the aircraft owner for 
all aircraft owned by that person.
    In the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM, the 
FAA explained that the lack of aircraft-specific data for unmanned 
aircraft registered under part 48 could inhibit the FAA and law 
enforcement agencies from correlating the remote identification data 
with data stored in the Aircraft Registry. Thus, the FAA proposed to 
revise part 48 to require the individual registration of all small 
unmanned aircraft and the provision of additional aircraft-specific 
data. The FAA proposed that owners of small unmanned aircraft would 
have to complete the registration application by providing aircraft-
specific information in addition to basic contact information.
    After reviewing comments submitted in response to both the 
Registration Rule and the Remote Identification NPRM, and after further 
consideration, the FAA decided not to adopt this proposed change to 
part 48. The FAA will maintain the current registration options and 
will no longer revise part 48 to require the individual registration of 
all small unmanned aircraft. Owners intending to operate all their 
small unmanned aircraft exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 
may register once for all unmanned aircraft meeting that 
description.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The registration is based on the intended use of the 
unmanned aircraft. An operator would violate FAA regulations if he 
or she uses any of such aircraft for any purpose other than for 
limited recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA proposed to revise the registration framework to require 
each unmanned aircraft to be registered under part 48. However, after 
considering comments and incorporating the remote identification 
broadcast module concept, the FAA determined that the current framework 
for small unmanned aircraft registration in part 48 is sufficient for 
remote identification and for statutory compliance with the FAA's 
authority for aircraft registration. By maintaining the current 
framework, the intent of the statutory requirement for aircraft 
registration is achieved without being overly burdensome, particularly 
considering the mitigation of cost for those individuals specifically 
flying multiple aircraft exclusively in compliance with section 44809. 
The FAA therefore will retain the current part 48 registration 
framework.
    Corresponding updates are applied to part 48 to reflect the 
inclusion of the current statutory requirement for limited recreational 
operations and to incorporate information relevant to remote 
identification. Owners registering as exclusively compliant with 
section 44809 will be required to submit the aircraft manufacturer and 
model name of small unmanned aircraft associated with the registration 
number provided by the Registry. Owners of aircraft operated 
exclusively in compliance with section 44809 would be required to 
obtain unique certificates of aircraft registration for any aircraft 
that are ever operated outside of the statutory framework set forth in 
section 44809, such as under part 107.
    The FAA is clarifying that owners registering as exclusively 
compliant with section 44809 may include more than one serial number--
of either a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a 
remote identification broadcast module--on a single Certificate of 
Aircraft Registration. Serial numbers of both standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft and remote

[[Page 4466]]

identification broadcast modules may be included on a single 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration for owners registering as 
exclusively compliant under section 44809.
    The FAA reorders Sec. Sec.  48.100 through 48.115 to maximize 
regulatory clarity and also revises Sec. Sec.  48.100 through 48.110 to 
amend statutory references for 49 U.S.C. 44809 and to reflect the 
inclusion of remote identification broadcast module serial number 
information in the registration application.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Registration Rule Comments: The FAA received a comment from the 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which urged the FAA to 
utilize the same system for recreational and commercial UAS, contending 
that there are no mechanical differences between the two groups and 
that having separate systems would likely lead to confusion. ALPA 
supported the efforts to minimize the burden of registering multiple 
small unmanned aircraft that are operated for hobby or recreational 
purposes. Some commenters supported registration of remote pilots 
instead of individual aircraft. Several commenters suggested that 
though the FAA has the authority to register aircraft, it does not have 
the authority to register pilots. A few individual commenters raised 
concerns about a single Certificate of Registration for multiple small 
unmanned aircraft owned by one operator.
    Remote Identification NPRM Comments: A number of organizations 
supported the FAA's proposal that all aircraft, regardless of use, must 
be individually registered. The National Association of Tower Erectors 
stated its belief that public safety demands that recreational users be 
subject to the same remote identification requirements as commercial 
users. A number of commenters supported unique registration of each 
unmanned aircraft in the interest of safety and accountability and 
because it is more consistent with other aviation registration 
requirements. The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) 
supported the proposal to require unique registration for each unmanned 
aircraft because it would enable the FAA to trace each unmanned 
aircraft back to its owner while also helping the FAA and industry to 
assess the total number of unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the 
United States.
    In contrast, a significant number of organizations and numerous 
individual commenters noted that many owners of aircraft used for 
limited recreational operations have large numbers of fixed wing model 
aircraft. The Chairperson of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) 
Advanced Flight System Committee proposed instead that remote 
identification modules be movable from aircraft to aircraft and that 
the modules themselves be registered instead of the aircraft. Many 
commenters mentioned that requiring pilots to register may be a better 
option than requiring every aircraft to register, particularly with 
regard to the hobby class of UAS because students and young persons 
could freely fly various models. Other commenters stated the FAA 
presented no evidence that requiring registration of each unmanned 
aircraft would result in lower risk than applying one registration 
number to multiple aircraft. The New Hampshire Department of 
Transportation (NHDOT) suggested instead that UAS owners be allowed to 
submit to the FAA a list of the unmanned aircraft that they own. NHDOT 
added that the proposed changes to registration requirements do not 
address current non-compliance with registration requirements, and that 
the FAA should focus instead on increasing compliance. Numerous 
commenters stated they own dozens of aircraft and requiring them to 
register each one separately would be economically burdensome. Some of 
the commenters who own aircraft used for limited recreational 
operations noted they build the aircraft but rarely--if ever--fly them. 
Other commenters discussed that owners of these aircraft frequently 
disassemble these aircraft and switch out aircraft parts, creating 
several new combinations of aircraft, and asked which specific 
component of the aircraft needs to be registered. Another commenter 
expressed concern about the costs to FAA of keeping track of ``hundreds 
of millions'' of registrations and serial numbers.
    Several commenters suggested that the requirement to register each 
unmanned aircraft is discriminatory against modelers because some 
manned aircraft such as ultralights are not required to be registered. 
Many commenters objected to the proposal on the grounds that it is 
impracticable and costly for hobbyists, especially for handmade and 
kit-built aircraft, and that adopting the proposed rule will ``destroy 
the RC aircraft hobby.''
    Other commenters believed that registering every unmanned aircraft 
is redundant and unnecessary, asserting that only one aircraft can be 
in the air at one time. Commenters also mentioned that if an unmanned 
aircraft is flown exclusively at an FAA-recognized identification area, 
the aircraft should not be required to be registered because 
information gathered from the registration process would serve no 
purpose for remote identification. Several commenters suggested the FAA 
should make a distinction between those operating commercially and 
those operating recreationally.
    The AMA stated that registration is unnecessary for operators 
flying within visual line of sight because the operators are not far 
from the aircraft and can easily be located. The AMA objected to what 
they estimated would be a total collective burden of $8.1 million in 
registration costs borne by their members. The AMA added that its 
calculation of $8.1 million should be included in FAA's economic burden 
estimates and that the Regulatory Impact Assessment should be updated 
accordingly. Multiple individual commenters cited this same figure 
($8.1 million), and asserted that it is excessively burdensome on AMA 
members and other hobbyists. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 
(AOPA) echoed the AMA's $8.1 million estimate, and opposed the proposal 
to require registration of each small unmanned aircraft. In addition, 
AOPA expressed its opposition to registration requirements for aircraft 
that will operate exclusively in FAA-recognized identification areas.
    One commenter asked whether the FAA was prepared to certify 
hundreds of thousands of UAS annually as may be required given the 
current market for home-built and out-of-the-box UAS. One commenter 
supported registering both commercial unmanned aircraft operating 
within the UTM and unmanned aircraft flown BVLOS with the serial number 
of each UAS, because the owner and UAS may be widely separated from one 
another at the time of an incident.
    Many commenters believed that only certain types of aircraft should 
be required to be registered. Some of these commenters believed that 
only rotorcraft, including ``quadcopters'' and other ``drones'' should 
be required to register. Other commenters emphasized their use of 
sailplanes and stated their belief that those aircraft should not be 
required to register. Still other commenters believed that only those 
aircraft used for commercial purposes should be required to register.
    The FAA received several comments regarding the weight requirement 
for small unmanned aircraft as it relates to registration. Commenters 
expressed support for removing a weight requirement entirely, rewriting 
the registration weight thresholds, and

[[Page 4467]]

maintaining the current exclusion for aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or 
less used for limited recreational operations under section 44809. The 
Small UAV Coalition supported exempting unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 
pounds or less from registration requirements, unless those UAS are 
used for commercial purposes or BVLOS.
    Digital Aerolus, Inc. suggested that the FAA clarify that 
registration and identification requirements are not applicable below 
ground or indoors.
    ALPA, along with numerous individuals, suggested that the FAA 
should require registration at the point-of-sale. In the case of home-
made models, ALPA recommended that the FAA require that such aircraft 
be registered prior to its first use outdoors.
    Numerous commenters suggested that the FAA facilitate the 
deregistration of UAS, in the case of destruction or theft, and clarify 
the registration requirements when a UAS is sold or transferred. The 
Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office suggested that the FAA 
make the UAS aircraft registration database searchable, like the 
current aircraft registry. ALPA commented that the rule should clarify 
that registration information will be available only to law enforcement 
or the FAA.
    FAA Response: For the reasons described above, the FAA agrees with 
the commenters who suggested that it was not necessary to register each 
individual unmanned aircraft operated for limited recreational purposes 
and does not adopt the proposed change in this rule.
    In addition, as the FAA discussed in the Registration Rule, the FAA 
has consistently recognized that the term ``small unmanned aircraft'' 
includes both fixed wing and rotary aircraft, and has the same 
definition as the colloquial term ``drone.'' The same is true for all 
unmanned aircraft. All unmanned aircraft that fall within the 
applicability of this regulation, not just those popularly referred to 
as ``drones,'' are required to register.
    With respect to comments regarding the minimum weight for small 
unmanned aircraft registration, this rulemaking clarifies the 
regulatory requirement with respect to operations under part 107. That 
threshold was not at issue in this rulemaking, and accordingly, 
comments requesting a change to the weight threshold are out of scope 
of this rule.
    The FAA clarifies, as it did in the Registration Rule, that 
operations in the airspace of the United States only include operations 
out-of-doors and above the surface of the Earth. With respect to 
comments regarding point-of-sale registration, the FAA has statutory 
authority that is limited to requiring registration prior to operation. 
The FAA considered point-of-sale registration as an option, but it 
presented difficulties for the Agency to overcome, including that the 
individual purchasing the unmanned aircraft may not be the owner of the 
unmanned aircraft. At this time, the FAA has declined to make the part 
48 registry publicly available, though it reserves the ability to do so 
in the System of Records Notice (SORN) 801 for this database. The 
Agency is balancing the sensitive nature of the personal information 
provided to the Agency by owners of small unmanned aircraft with the 
public availability of the information.

B. Registration Fees for the Registration of Individual Aircraft

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Noting the FAA is required by statute to charge a fee for 
registration services, the Registration Rule imposed a $5 fee for 
registration and a $5 fee for registration renewal. The registration 
system permits the use of any credit, debit, gift, or prepaid card. If 
none of these methods of payment is available to the registrant, the 
Registration Rule noted that the registrant may register using the 
existing paper-based system under part 47, which allows payment by 
check or money order. The FAA also assesses a fee of $5 for a 
Certificate of Registration for each manned aircraft.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 14 CFR 47.17(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ease the financial burden on operators who previously registered 
multiple model aircraft under a single registration number, in the 
Remote Identification NPRM the FAA indicated it would explore ways to 
minimize the registration fee when multiple aircraft are registered at 
the same time and solicited comment.
    After review of public comments and further consideration, the FAA 
retains the requirement for small unmanned aircraft owners to pay a $5 
registration fee and a $5 renewal fee, though this rule differs from 
the proposal. As a result of the FAA's decision to maintain the current 
registration framework, owners of aircraft operated exclusively in 
compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must only register once for all 
aircraft meeting that description. Therefore, those owners would pay 
the $5 fee one time every 3 years. As noted in the Registration Rule, 
though the Task Force and some commenters recommended no fee for small 
unmanned aircraft registration for varying reasons, the FAA is required 
by statute to charge a fee for registration services.\31\ Accordingly, 
the revenue stream generated by the fees collected under this rule 
supports the development, maintenance, and operation of the Registry. 
The payment system used by the Registry complies with all Federal laws 
for online transactions, as discussed in the Registration Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Section 45305 of title 49 U.S.C. directs the FAA to 
establish and collect fees for aircraft registration and airman 
certification activities to recover the cost of providing those 
services and to adjust these fees when the Administrator determines 
that the cost of the service has changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicability of the part 48 registration fee to public 
aircraft operations is consistent with the requirement set forth in 
part 47. Under 49 U.S.C. 44101, only certain foreign aircraft and 
aircraft of the national defense forces of the United States are 
eligible to operate unregistered aircraft in the United States. Small 
unmanned aircraft used in non-military public aircraft operations are 
subject to the registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44101 and, as 
such, must complete the registration process provided in part 47 or 48, 
which includes payment of the fee. The fee for small unmanned aircraft 
registration under part 48 must be submitted through the web-based 
registration application process.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Registration Rule Comments: The Small UAV Coalition and a number of 
individual commenters objected to the imposition of a registration fee. 
The Small UAV Coalition said the FAA should not impose a registration 
fee of any amount for small unmanned aircraft ``to promote broad 
participation in the program.'' Some commenters referred to the $5 fee 
as a ``tax.''
    A number of commenters objected to the requirement to pay the 
registration fee via the web-based system using credit or debit cards 
due to perceived privacy and security implications. Another questioned 
why the registration system requires a renewal fee every 3 years, when 
small manned-aircraft pilots are only charged a one-time fee.
    Remote Identification NPRM Comments: A number of commenters 
objected to the size of the fee, as well as the requirement to pay to 
register each aircraft individually. DJI and many other commenters 
suggested that the $5 fee per aircraft is too high, and that the FAA 
should maintain the current $5-per-three-year fee per registrant, not 
per aircraft.
    The District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for Public 
Safety and Justice recommended imposing a

[[Page 4468]]

discounted registration fee for those who comply prior to the proposed 
regulatory deadline. Motorola Solutions, Inc., and one individual 
argued that public aircraft operations such as those involving law 
enforcement and search-and-rescue operations be exempt from the 
proposed registration fee.
    One commenter noted that a registration fee could cause a lower 
level of overall compliance, added expense, and negative privacy 
implications, while adding that charging more than $5 per person 
contradicts the FAA's 2015 Registration Task Force recommendations.
    FAA Response: As a result of the FAA's decision to maintain the 
current registration framework, owners of aircraft operated exclusively 
in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must only create one registration 
for all aircraft meeting that description. Comments received on the use 
of credit card payment are not within the scope of this rule. See the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for more information 
on the costs associated with the registration framework for this rule.

C. Information Included in the Application for Registration

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    In the Registration Rule, the FAA amended 14 CFR part 47 and 
created part 48 to require individuals intending to use a small 
unmanned aircraft exclusively as model aircraft to provide only basic 
contact information (name, address, and email address) for the small 
unmanned aircraft owner. For individuals intending to use a small 
unmanned aircraft as other than a model aircraft, in addition to the 
same basic contact information required for model aircraft, the 
Registration Rule also required the individual to provide aircraft-
specific information (manufacturer and model name, and a serial number 
for each aircraft being registered).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The FAA notes that, currently, serial numbers may be 
repeated because there is no mechanism in place for manufacturers to 
ensure that a given serial number is unique to a specific aircraft. 
However, the FAA supports any efforts by small UAS manufacturers 
collectively to standardize aircraft serial numbers, such that each 
small unmanned aircraft will receive a unique serial number in 
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA adopts these requirements with one change. Applicants 
registering aircraft as limited recreational operations under 44809 
must provide manufacturer and model information but not a unique serial 
number for each aircraft being registered.
    In addition, the FAA proposed to update registration information 
requirements to require one or more telephone number(s) for the 
applicant. As the FAA explained in the NPRM, requiring owners of 
unmanned aircraft to provide their telephone number(s) as part of the 
registration process would assist FAA and law enforcement to 
disseminate safety and security-related information to the registrant 
in near real-time. This additional information will be retained by the 
FAA and only disclosed as needed to authorized law enforcement or 
Federal agencies. The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Registration Rule Comments: The Small UAV Coalition recommended 
that the information the FAA requires of registrants ``be no more than 
is necessary to provide the FAA and law enforcement and national 
security agencies with the ability to ensure proper and prompt 
accountability in the event of an accident or incident.'' The Small UAV 
Coalition also said that the regulatory responsibility to register an 
unmanned aircraft should rest with the owner of the aircraft, as it is 
with the current FAA Aircraft Registry, and as set forth in Chapter 441 
of 49 U.S.C. and part 47 of 14 CFR. The Small UAV Coalition noted that 
in most instances the owner and operator will be the same person, but 
if the unmanned aircraft is leased to another person, then the owner-
lessor should remain the registrant.
    A few individual commenters said that for registration to be 
useful, the FAA should require additional information about the 
individual aircraft; specifically, to include the serial number of 
ready-to-fly aircraft and the serial number of electronic components 
used to construct home-built aircraft.
    Remote Identification NPRM Comments: The Southern Company, along 
with Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, 
and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, commenting 
jointly, supported the proposal to require telephone numbers to be 
included as part of the registration process. However, both commenters 
suggested that only a company telephone should be required for 
commercial operations, rather than individual telephone numbers for 
company operations. Both commenters sought clarification of this point 
in the final rule.
    McInflight Aerospace, LLC, supported the proposed requirement, as 
it would permit an operator to be contacted immediately if an unmanned 
aircraft entered restricted airspace.
    One commenter worried that registrants' phone numbers might be made 
available to bad actors if there is a failure in data security.
    FAA Response: As discussed in the Registration Rule, the 
registration database complies with all Federal requirements for data 
security. The FAA does not specify what sort of telephone number must 
be included, beyond that it must be a way that the applicant can be 
reached. The FAA considered all comments received and believes the 
information required is the minimum information required to ensure 
accountability from the aircraft owner.

D. Proposed Changes to the Registration Requirements To Require a 
Serial Number as Part of the Registration Process

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed to require a unique identifier as part of the 
message elements used to identify remotely UAS. The proposed revision 
of part 48 would require the provision of an unmanned aircraft's serial 
number at the time of registration.
    As the FAA explained in the NPRM, the serial number requirement 
enables the FAA to correlate the data broadcast or transmitted by the 
UAS with the registration data in the Aircraft Registry to associate an 
unmanned aircraft with its registered owner. The requirement also 
allows the FAA to associate an aircraft with its owner while operating 
in the airspace of the United States and facilitates the identification 
of non-registered unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the 
United States, which may warrant additional oversight or action by the 
FAA, national security agencies, or law enforcement agencies.
    The FAA proposed to add a new Sec.  47.14 to require the owners of 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft 
using a broadcast module registered under part 47 to list in the 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration the serial number issued by the 
manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft or the manufacturer of the 
broadcast module in accordance with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number 
standard.
    The FAA also proposed to revise Sec.  48.100(a) to require a serial 
number for every small unmanned aircraft. Consistent with the proposed 
changes in part 47, Sec.  48.100(a)(5) would have required the owner of 
any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or limited remote 
identification

[[Page 4469]]

unmanned aircraft to list in the Certificate of Aircraft Registration 
the serial number issued by the producer of the unmanned aircraft in 
accordance with the production requirements of part 89. Per the 
production requirements in proposed Sec.  89.505, such serial number 
would have to comply with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number standard.
    In the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged that some unmanned aircraft may 
not have serial numbers that comply with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial 
number standard. Some examples include unmanned aircraft manufactured 
prior to the compliance date of a final rule (assuming the producer of 
the unmanned aircraft is unable to modify the aircraft or upgrade the 
software to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number), some 
amateur-built unmanned aircraft, and foreign-built unmanned aircraft 
with no serial numbers or with serial numbers that do not comply with 
ANSI/CTA-2063-A. Since these unmanned aircraft would not comply with 
the remote identification requirements for standard remote 
identification UAS or limited remote identification UAS, the FAA 
proposed to restrict their operation to FAA-recognized identification 
areas. Accordingly, the FAA did not impose a requirement for the owners 
of such unmanned aircraft to obtain an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial 
number and to list it in the application for a Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration or the notice of identification. The FAA sought detailed 
comments on whether and why it should require the owners of UAS without 
remote identification to obtain an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial 
number and to list it in the application for a Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration or the notice of identification and whether there would be 
any costs associated with obtaining a compliant serial number. The FAA 
also sought comments on whether the Agency should issue ANSI/CTA-2063-A 
compliant serial numbers to such aircraft when registered or re-
registered by their owners.
    The FAA adopts the requirement that owners of standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast 
modules must provide an ANSI/CTA-2063A compliant serial number on their 
application for registration. After review of comments and further 
consideration, the FAA determined not to require owners of unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification to provide a serial number 
during registration.
    For unmanned aircraft registered individually and operated under 
part 91, 107, or 135, or any other operating part, the FAA clarifies 
that the serial number used to register a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module may only be associated with one registration application. The 
FAA will not accept duplicate submissions of serial numbers under part 
47 or 48. This means that a person may not move the remote 
identification broadcast module amongst aircraft required to be 
registered individually without removing the serial number from one 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration before adding it to another. 
Alternatively, the owner of such aircraft may obtain a unique remote 
identification broadcast module (with a unique serial number that 
complies with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number standard) and include 
it with the registration of each unmanned aircraft registered 
individually and operated under part 91, 107, or 135, or any other 
operating part.
    For owners operating exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 
44809, the remote identification broadcast module may be used for all 
unmanned aircraft for which the owner is registered, but only one of 
those aircraft may be operated at a time. An owner may submit multiple 
remote identification broadcast module serial numbers for operation of 
multiple aircraft simultaneously at a one-to-one aircraft-to-operator 
ratio, as long as those operations would be compliant with section 
44809. If an owner includes a serial number associated with a standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft in the registration application 
for operations exclusively in compliance with section 44809, he or she 
may also include a serial number for a remote identification broadcast 
module linked to other unmanned aircraft registered under his or her 
registration for operations exclusively in compliance with section 
44809.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: A number of commenters believed that requiring an 
individual to obtain and assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number 
imposed an unreasonable burden. Many stated that it would be impossible 
for those with amateur-built aircraft to comply with this requirement, 
as those aircraft do not come with serial numbers.
    FAA Response: In response to comments regarding whether compliance 
with the serial number requirements is too burdensome for owners of 
model aircraft, the FAA notes that the revised requirements for remote 
identification offer increased flexibility for individuals who are 
equipping their unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast 
modules or operating exclusively in FAA-recognized identification 
areas.
    The FAA determined that the serial number requirement is an 
important element of the remote identification framework. Serial 
numbers are used to provide a unique identity to unmanned aircraft 
operating in the airspace of the United States. The requirement is 
particularly necessary to identify unmanned aircraft operated for 
recreational purposes when multiple unmanned aircraft are registered 
under a single registration. The unique serial number of each standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module allows the Agency and law enforcement to distinguish 
among unmanned aircraft with the same registration number that are 
flying outside of FAA-recognized identification areas.
    Also, the FAA reaffirms that subpart F of this rule does not apply 
to the production of home-built unmanned aircraft. As explained in 
section XIV.A of this preamble, the FAA excepts producers of home-built 
unmanned aircraft from the design and production requirements, 
therefore home-built unmanned aircraft need not comply with the serial 
number requirements as prescribed in Sec.  89.505. If a person intends 
to produce a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, or a 
remote identification broadcast module to equip their unmanned aircraft 
to comply with the remote identification requirements, then that person 
would have to comply with the design and production requirements under 
subpart F of part 89, which includes the requirement to issue a serial 
number that conforms to the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard.
    Comments: Several commenters stated this requirement would make it 
impossible to salvage parts from damaged aircraft for reuse, thus 
rendering every accident or crash a total loss. Others, in a similar 
vein, stated that this requirement would end the tradition of swapping 
or exchanging modular parts from model to model.
    A commenter suggested that because model aircraft are often unique, 
the validity of their serial numbers would be unknowable to the FAA and 
a modeler could swap serial number plates undetected. Another commenter 
asked if the intent of the Agency is that the serial number is 
associated with the air frame alone, and that the electronics can be 
swapped between air frames. Another suggested that the FAA require

[[Page 4470]]

reporting of each aircraft's radio control receiver, not the aircraft 
itself.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters who believe 
that the requirement to obtain a serial number to then use for aircraft 
registration would render parts swapping obsolete. The FAA explains in 
section XVIII.A of this preamble that discarded unmanned aircraft can 
be disassembled into the following parts: Carbon (frame, frame parts), 
plastic, metal parts (screws, standoffs), wire, electronics (flight 
controller, ESC, motors, camera, VTX, RX), and batteries. Those parts 
can be reused, especially if they remain in good condition. In 
addition, home-built unmanned aircraft are excepted from the production 
requirements of this rule including the requirement for a serial 
number.
    Comments: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Technology Engagement Center 
supported the proposed requirement, as it would lead to greater 
standardization. ALPA, in comments echoed by AAAE, supported the 
proposed requirement as ``a fundamental necessity and fail-safe method 
of connecting each owner with the specific UAS being operated, thus 
allowing the fulfillment of the central purpose of [proposed 14 CFR 
part 89].''
    One commenter suggested the serial-number requirement apply just to 
a remote identification module, rather than the entire aircraft. 
Another commenter predicted that ``hobby companies'' would be unable to 
afford to submit declarations of compliance that contain compliant 
serial numbers. A commenter suggested the FAA implement a waiver 
process for the operation of model aircraft outside of FAA-recognized 
identification areas.
    The Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power 
Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 
commenting jointly, supported the serial-number requirement, adding 
that aircraft registration requirements are the foundation for both 
identifying aircraft and promoting accountability. One commenter stated 
the serial number requirement, along with other changes proposed in the 
NPRM, is reasonable and would not pose an undue burden. Another agreed 
and added the inclusion of a serial number could aid first responders 
in the event of an accident. The District of Columbia office of the 
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice also supported the 
requirement, as it would aid in law enforcement and in determining 
whether or not a UAS is operating in restricted airspace. However, the 
District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and 
Justice added that the serial number should be issued by the FAA, to 
reduce costs to users.
    FAA Response: With respect to comments agreeing with the FAA's 
proposed approach, the FAA believes that the revised final rule 
requirement still provides sufficient information to ensure 
accountability of unmanned aircraft owners operating in the airspace of 
the United States. As of the publication of this rule, the ANSI/CTA-
2063-A standard is available for viewing and download free of charge. 
While ANSI/CTA-2063-A was specifically developed to provide a serial 
number format for small UAS serial numbers, the FAA has determined that 
ANSI/CTA-2063-A is appropriate to issue serial numbers under this rule 
regardless of the size of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module 
because it enables the issuance of unique serial numbers, and promotes 
worldwide standardization of unmanned aircraft remote identification 
requirements. The use of ANSI/CTA-2063-A would provide a single 
accepted format for serial numbers, helping to ensure consistency in 
the transmission of this message element.
    Subpart F of part 89 does not apply to unmanned aircraft without 
remote identification manufactured prior to the compliance date of the 
production requirement of this rule. The serial number requirement in 
Sec.  89.505 applies to standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules produced after the 
effective date of this rule. This rule does not require producers to 
assign a serial number to any unmanned aircraft without remote 
identification produced prior to the compliance date of the design and 
production requirements.\33\ The requirements also do not make the 
existing unmanned aircraft fleet obsolete because operators can 
continue to operate existing unmanned aircraft subject to the operating 
rules in subpart B of this rule. This means that operators may fly 
existing unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment at 
FAA-recognized identification areas or may equip existing unmanned 
aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to meet the 
operating requirements of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Producers may choose to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant 
serial number to an unmanned aircraft produced prior to the 
compliance date of the design and production requirements of this 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Serial Number Marking

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Small unmanned aircraft registered under part 48 may not operate 
unless they display a unique identifier in a way that is readily 
accessible and visible upon inspection of the aircraft. The unique 
identifier must be either: (1) The registration number issued to an 
individual or the registration number issued to the aircraft by the 
Registry upon completion of the registration process; or (2) the small 
unmanned aircraft serial number, if authorized by the Administrator and 
provided with the application for Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
    In the NPRM, the FAA emphasized that small unmanned aircraft owners 
are not required to affix the serial number to the exterior of the 
aircraft, though nothing would preclude them from doing so. The FAA 
sought specific comments on whether UAS producers should be required to 
affix the serial number to the exterior of all standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft and limited remote identification 
unmanned aircraft.
    After review of comments and further consideration, the FAA decided 
not to impose such a requirement. The current registration marking 
requirements already require the registration number be marked on an 
external surface of the unmanned aircraft; this information allows the 
FAA to tie the aircraft to the FAA registration information including 
the serial number of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module.
    See section XIV.C of this preamble for a discussion of the serial 
number requirements of this rule.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Many commenters did not think it is necessary to display 
the serial number on the exterior of the unmanned aircraft, and many 
noted that the current requirement to display the registration number 
is sufficient. Some commenters, including Wingcopter, mentioned their 
support for external marking of unmanned aircraft with a serial number.
    FAA Response: The FAA considered the above comments and is not 
prepared to permit serial number marking in lieu of registration 
identifier marking at this time. The NPRM proposal remains unchanged. 
The Administrator reserves the ability to permit serial number marking 
in the future. Comments regarding the external marking requirement are 
out of scope of this rulemaking.

[[Page 4471]]

F. Compliance Dates

    As discussed in section XV.A of this preamble, the FAA proposed 
that all unmanned aircraft be required to register individually. In 
light of that change, the FAA proposed that Sec.  48.5 be amended to 
establish new compliance dates for updating registrations to meet that 
requirement. Because this rule will not adopt those changes, there is 
no longer a need to establish new compliance dates.
    This rule therefore removes and reserves Sec.  48.5. Existing Sec.  
48.5 established the initial compliance time periods for registration 
which expired in 2016. Because this provision is no longer necessary 
and the existing Sec.  48.5 includes terminology that is outdated 
following the 2018 FAA Reauthorization, the FAA is removing and 
reserving Sec.  48.5 in this rule.

XVI. Foreign Registered Civil Unmanned Aircraft Operated in the United 
States

A. Discussion of the Final Rule

    In the NPRM, the FAA explained the need to correlate the remote 
identification message elements transmitted or broadcast by foreign 
civil unmanned aircraft operated in the United States against 
information that helps FAA and law enforcement identify a person 
responsible for the operation of the foreign civil unmanned aircraft. 
Where unmanned aircraft are registered in a foreign jurisdiction, the 
FAA may not have access to information regarding the unmanned aircraft 
or its registered owner. The FAA proposed to allow a person to operate 
foreign-registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States only if 
the person submits a notice of identification to the Administrator that 
includes certain information that allows the FAA to associate the 
foreign civil unmanned aircraft to a responsible person. The FAA 
explained that after a person submits a notice of identification, the 
Agency would issue a confirmation of identification. The Agency also 
clarified that the notice of identification and the confirmation of 
identification did not constitute, nor had the effect of, a United 
States aircraft registration.
    After review of comments and further consideration, the FAA revised 
Sec.  89.130(a) to clarify that the requirement to file a notice of 
identification applies to persons operating foreign-registered civil 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the airspace of the 
United States. These are persons operating foreign-registered unmanned 
aircraft that meet the remote identification requirements of part 89 
(i.e., a foreign-registered standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or a foreign-registered unmanned aircraft with a remote 
identification broadcast module). Foreign-registered unmanned aircraft 
that do not meet the remote identification requirements of part 89 may 
only operate in the United States in an FAA-recognized identification 
area.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Foreign civil unmanned aircraft that are not registered in 
their home country are not eligible to file a notice of 
identification. Because such aircraft may not be able to register 
under part 47 or 48 and cannot file a notice of identification, they 
may be unable to meet the operating requirements of Sec. Sec.  
89.110 and 89.115(a). Therefore, unregistered foreign civil unmanned 
aircraft would be required to fly at an FAA-recognized 
identification area. These requirements are in addition to any other 
applicable requirements under 14 CFR part 375.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments noting that some countries register 
operators instead of aircraft, the FAA is revising Sec.  89.130(a)(8) 
by deleting the phrase ``of the aircraft'' so that the requirement for 
the filing of the notice of identification allows the operator to 
provide the registration number of the unmanned aircraft issued by the 
country of registry or the registration number issued to the operator 
of the unmanned aircraft by the country of registry, as applicable.
    In light of the revisions addressed above, as of the effective date 
of this rule, no person will be permitted to operate a foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the 
airspace of the United States unless, prior to the operation, the 
person submits a notice of identification that includes:
    (1) The name of the person operating the foreign registered civil 
unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the 
person's authorized representative.
    (2) The physical address of the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the physical address for the person's authorized 
representative. If the operator or authorized representative does not 
receive mail at the physical address, a mailing address must also be 
provided.
    (3) The telephone number(s) where the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the person's authorized representative can be reached while 
in the United States.
    (4) The email address of the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the email address of the person's authorized 
representative.
    (5) The unmanned aircraft manufacturer and model name.
    (6) The serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module.
    (7) The country of registration of the unmanned aircraft.
    (8) The registration number.
    Once the notice is submitted, the FAA will issue a confirmation of 
identification. In accordance with Sec.  89.130(c), a person operating 
a foreign-registered unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United 
States has to maintain the confirmation of identification at the 
unmanned aircraft control station, and has to produce it when requested 
by the FAA or a law enforcement officer. The holder of a confirmation 
of identification must ensure that the information provided remains 
accurate and must update the information prior to operating a foreign-
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United 
States.
    As specified in Sec.  89.130(b)(2), the filing of the notice of 
identification and the issuance of a confirmation of identification 
under this rule do not have the effect of United States aircraft 
registration.

B. Public Comments and FAA Response

    Comments: The Small UAV Coalition supported the proposed notice of 
identification and confirmation of identification requirement for 
foreign-registered civil UAS with remote identification operating in 
the airspace of the United States.
    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) noted that in the 
European Union, it is the operator who is required to be registered and 
not the unmanned aircraft (unless the unmanned aircraft is certified). 
EASA mentioned the requirement to include the registration number of 
the aircraft in the notice of identification would be burdensome 
because it would entail an obligation for operators registered in the 
European Union to register their unmanned aircraft in the United States 
as well.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges EASA's comments with respect to 
differences in the unmanned aircraft registration regimes. For example, 
some jurisdictions require the registration of all unmanned aircraft, 
some jurisdictions require the registration of certificated unmanned 
aircraft, some jurisdictions require the registration of the operator 
of uncertificated unmanned aircraft, and some jurisdictions have not 
implemented a registration system for unmanned aircraft. Section 
89.130(a) is meant to assist the Administrator in obtaining certain 
information that allows the FAA to associate the foreign-

[[Page 4472]]

registered civil unmanned aircraft to the operator, as the responsible 
person for the operation of the unmanned aircraft. Recognizing the 
differences in registration regimes, the FAA is revising Sec.  
89.130(a)(8) by deleting the phrase ``of the aircraft'' so that the 
requirement for the filing of the notice of identification allows the 
operator to provide the registration number of the unmanned aircraft 
issued by the country of registry or the registration number issued to 
the operator of the unmanned aircraft by the country of registry, as 
applicable.
    Comments: Wing Aviation recommended removing the requirement to 
provide a physical address for the foreign operator in the United 
States as part of the process for the confirmation of identification 
and indicated that a physical address, a mailing address, and an 
authorized representative should be sufficient to support oversight and 
enforcement action. The commenter suggested the rule should not assume 
operators will be, or need to be, collocated with the aircraft or 
flight area to ensure safe and compliant operations. According to Wing, 
this rule will set a global precedent for the implementation of remote 
identification and such a requirement, if followed by other 
jurisdictions, would significantly limit the ability of United States 
companies to scale competitively across international markets.
    FAA Response: While operators have to submit their physical address 
under Sec.  89.130(a)(2), such address is not necessarily required to 
be in the United States. The FAA and law enforcement have a need to 
locate the operator, as the responsible party, when physically located 
in the United States for oversight and enforcement purposes. The FAA 
also believes that providing the operator's physical address in the 
United States fosters accountability. Therefore, the FAA will finalize 
the requirement as proposed.
    Comments: A few commenters expressed their concerns about this rule 
imposing operational limitations on persons operating foreign UAS in 
the airspace of the United States. Another commenter asked whether 
foreign-registered UAS had to re-register in the United States to be 
eligible to operate in the United States. The commenter asked whether 
the United States would recognize foreign certification and 
registration of UAS. Various commenters noted that foreign UAS may not 
have an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number and might not comply 
with the remote identification requirements of this rule. The 
commenters sought clarification of whether such aircraft could operate 
in the United States and whether the FAA is prohibiting their sale in 
the United States.
    FAA Response: While this rule does require all persons operating 
foreign unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States to 
comply with the remote identification operating requirements of part 
89, it does not alter the operating rules for UAS operating in the 
airspace of the United States. This means that the operation of foreign 
unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States--just as with 
the operation of U.S.-registered unmanned aircraft--will continue to be 
subject to the UAS operating rules in effect in the United States 
(e.g., part 91, part 107, 49 U.S.C. 44809, part 375). Foreign-
registered unmanned aircraft do not have to re-register in the United 
States. However, the operators of foreign-registered UAS must ensure 
they comply with all applicable regulations and obtain the appropriate 
safety authority issued by the FAA and economic authority issued by the 
Department of Transportation, as applicable, prior to operating in the 
airspace of the United States.
    FAA regulations do not prohibit the sale of unmanned aircraft 
without remote identification in the United States. The regulations do 
regulate the manufacturing of unmanned aircraft produced for operation 
in the airspace of the United States and the operation of all unmanned 
aircraft in the airspace of the United States, as further described in 
this rule.

XVII. ADS-B Out and Transponders for Remote Identification

A. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA proposed to prohibit the use of ADS-B Out equipment as a 
form of remote identification of UAS under part 89. The FAA also 
proposed changes to parts 91 and 107 to generally prohibit the use of 
ADS-B Out and transponders on UAS, unless otherwise authorized.
    The FAA adopts Sec.  89.125, ADS-B Out prohibition as proposed, 
with minor edits for clarity. This prohibits the use of ADS-B Out 
equipment as a form of remote identification under part 89.
    The FAA adopts the proposed modifications to Sec.  91.215, which 
state that ATC transponder and altitude-reporting equipment and use 
requirements do not apply to persons operating unmanned aircraft, 
unless the operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person 
operating the unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with 
ATC, or the use of a transponder is otherwise authorized by the 
Administrator. In addition, Sec.  91.215(e)(2) prohibits the use of ATC 
transponders by persons operating unmanned aircraft unless the 
operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person operating the 
unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with ATC, or the use 
of a transponder is otherwise authorized by the Administrator.
    The FAA adopts the modifications to Sec.  91.225(a)-(f) and (i) 
with some additional revisions for clarification. Per this section, no 
person may operate an unmanned aircraft under a flight plan and in two-
way communication with ATC unless that aircraft has equipment installed 
that meets the performance requirements in TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c, and 
the equipment meets the requirements of Sec.  91.227
    In addition, Sec.  91.225(i)(2) prohibits the use of ADS-B Out 
equipment by persons operating unmanned aircraft unless the operation 
is conducted under a flight plan and the person operating that unmanned 
aircraft maintains two-way communication with ATC, or the use of ADS-B 
Out is otherwise authorized by the Administrator.
    Lastly, the FAA adopts Sec. Sec.  107.52 and 107.53 as proposed, 
which prohibit the use of ADS-B Out and ATC transponders on small UAS. 
Under Sec.  107.52, no person may operate a small UAS under part 107 
with a transponder on, unless otherwise authorized by the 
Administrator. Under Sec.  107.53, no person may operate a small UAS 
under part 107 with ADS-B Out equipment in transmit mode unless 
otherwise authorized by the Administrator.

B. Public Comments and FAA Response

    Comments: Many commenters supported prohibiting ADS-B Out on UAS to 
prevent high volumes of UAS traffic using ADS-B Out from interfering 
with ADS-B used by manned aircraft and Air Traffic Control (ATC). 
Multiple commenters wanted to ensure that the use of ADS-B Out on UAS 
must first be proven not to interfere with manned aircraft before being 
widely allowed. They asked the FAA to continue to monitor radio 
frequency spectrum concerns if some UAS are authorized to use ADS-B Out 
by exception. They also noted that ADS-B Out does not accommodate 
sharing all of the proposed message elements. Airlines for America 
recommended that the FAA clearly state that UAS remote identification 
is prohibited from interfering with existing electronic surveillance 
technologies used for manned aircraft, and that the FAA consider 
permitting the use of ADS-B Out for more sophisticated UAS

[[Page 4473]]

operations near commercial airports and manned aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that supported 
prohibiting ADS-B Out on most UAS due to the likelihood that the high 
density of UAS operations compared to manned aircraft may generate 
signal saturation and create a safety hazard for manned aircraft. The 
FAA notes that unmanned aircraft remote identification equipment 
broadcasting in the frequency bands allowed under 47 CFR part 15 is 
prohibited by FCC regulations from interfering with existing, licensed 
frequencies used by existing surveillance technologies.
    Comments: Many commenters also supported limited exceptions 
permitting ADS-B Out on larger UAS operating at higher altitudes and 
participating in ATC services. Some commenters challenged the FAA to 
justify remote identification requirements for unmanned aircraft that 
fly at higher altitudes. Boeing and other commenters recommended 
permitting ADS-B Out in lieu of remote identification for UAS operating 
primarily above 400 feet and not operating under 14 CFR part 107 (e.g., 
part 91, part 135). AERO Corporation recommended permitting the use of 
ADS-B Out on UAS operating above 400 feet under 14 CFR part 91, 107, or 
135. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association recommended 
allowing ADS-B Out or transponder use for UAS of sufficient gross 
weight, based on the operations being performed.
    The National Business Aviation Association agreed with prohibiting 
ADS-B Out and transponders on low altitude UAS such as those operating 
under 14 CFR part 107, but recommended clarifying the regulations to 
ensure UAS are not operating at higher altitudes typically used by 
manned aircraft while transmitting remote identification that is not 
directly available to manned aircraft. They recommended the FAA 
consider specifying UAS operations that are permitted or required to 
use ADS-B Out or a transponder instead of authorizing by exception, 
such as for UAS operating at higher altitudes, under a flight plan, or 
in communication with Air Traffic Control. Johns Hopkins University 
Applied Physics Lab asked the FAA to clarify that use of ``ADS-B Out'' 
in this proposal specifically refers to current use of 978 and 1090 MHz 
and does not preclude potential future systems on alternate frequencies 
that may meet remote identification requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that recommended 
permitting use of ADS-B Out instead of remote identification equipment 
by unmanned aircraft that are participating in ATC services and are 
likely to be integrated with manned aircraft, or by limited exception. 
For this reason, persons operating unmanned aircraft equipped with ADS-
B Out, when operating under a flight plan and where the operator is in 
communication with ATC, do not have to meet the remote identification 
requirements in part 89. This is consistent with a recommendation by 
the UAS-ID ARC. Unmanned aircraft not operated in this specific manner 
must be equipped with remote identification unless authorized by the 
Administrator as permitted by Sec.  89.105, which is being finalized to 
permit such exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
    In response to the comment regarding future systems or alternate 
frequencies for ADS-B, the FAA notes that any changes to the current 
ADS-B Out equipment performance requirements, which include the 978 and 
1090 MHz broadcast frequencies, would require a separate rulemaking 
activity and are outside the scope of this final rule.
    Comments: Many commenters said that the rule does not clearly state 
that UAS authorized by the FAA to use ADS-B Out or transponders are 
excepted from meeting part 89 remote identification requirements. They 
suggested that remote identification would be unsuitable for use at 
traditional manned aircraft altitudes as well as unnecessary and 
redundant on UAS specifically approved to use ADS-B Out. Garmin 
similarly stated that requiring remote identification for UAS equipped 
with ADS-B would be unnecessarily duplicative.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters, and finalizes a 
change to Sec.  89.101 which clarifies that the unmanned aircraft 
remote identification requirements do not apply to persons operating 
unmanned aircraft when the unmanned aircraft is equipped with ADS-B Out 
and operated in accordance with Sec.  91.225.
    However, as explained in section XIV.E.1 of this preamble, nothing 
in the rule precludes producers from producing unmanned aircraft that 
have both the remote identification and ADS-B capabilities identified 
in the regulation. Therefore, depending on the operation, with a few 
exceptions, unmanned aircraft must comply with remote identification 
requirements when the operation does not qualify for use of ADS-B Out 
under Sec.  91.225. Operations that do qualify for use of ADS-B Out 
must comply with Sec.  91.225.
    Comments: Many commenters wanted the FAA to mandate the use of ADS-
B Out on UAS instead of remote identification. Commenters objected to 
the FAA's rationale that ADS-B Out is not appropriate due to 
infrastructure issues (ground radars and ADS-B receivers) and noted 
that remote identification will also require substantial new 
infrastructure, such as Remote ID USS, UAS equipment, and potentially 
greater internet coverage. Other commenters suggested that ADS-B Out 
should be a permitted option to meet the remote identification 
requirement.
    FAA Response: In the NPRM, the FAA explained the range of 
considerations that influenced its decision not to propose ADS-B Out as 
a solution for unmanned aircraft remote identification, including 
coverage at low altitudes and the absence of any information about the 
control station location. The FAA declines to require the use of ADS-B 
Out as the means of providing unmanned aircraft remote identification. 
The FAA reiterates that the ADS-B system serves a unique purpose of 
enabling surveillance for air traffic control purposes while remote 
identification enables the FAA, law enforcement, and the public to 
identify unmanned aircraft and locate their operators. Due to the 
prospects of signal saturation and the differences in the types of 
information being shared, ADS-B Out is not a suitable alternative for 
remote identification equipment.
    Comments suggesting that a greater number of receiver sites and 
software patches to limit ATC display clutter could address the issue 
with ADS-B Out were found to be impractical, in terms of both the time 
and the cost necessary to develop them. Further, they would not address 
the fundamental issues of signal saturation and insufficient message 
elements that made ADS-B unsuitable for remote identification. In 
addition, the FAA notes that the remote identification requirements, as 
being finalized, no longer require the referenced USS network 
infrastructure for the time being.
    Comments: Several commenters were concerned about punishing UAS 
operators who were early adopters of ADS-B Out, and suggested 
permitting ADS-B Out or similar broadcast remote identification devices 
that are interchangeable between multiple UAS. AT&T Services asked the 
FAA to permit ADS-B Out on UAS responding to emergencies, noting that 
their UAS providing emergency cellular service in disaster areas 
currently use ADS-B Out to share UAS location information with manned 
emergency aircraft. The Academy of Model Aeronautics

[[Page 4474]]

proposed permitting a single ADS-B Out unit to identify an FAA-
recognized identification area so manned aircraft and other UAS are 
aware of active model aircraft operations. They also proposed pairing 
this with ADS-B In and a warning system at some locations so members 
would be alerted when cooperative manned aircraft are in the area.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that ADS-B Out as presently 
implemented for surveillance purposes is inadequate to meet unmanned 
aircraft remote identification requirements. This rule includes 
provisions in Sec. Sec.  89.105 and 91.225 to permit use of ADS-B Out 
on unmanned aircraft on a case-by-case basis as authorized by the 
Administrator. The FAA declines to require the use of ADS-B Out to 
identify an FAA-recognized identification area because it was not 
intended to be used to identify physical locations where UAS may be 
operating without remote identification.
    Comments: One commenter expressed concern about the volume of UAS 
users that will be transmitting on Wi-Fi frequencies as well as range 
and altitude coverage on these frequencies.
    A commenter was concerned about future expansion of manned aircraft 
operations if ADS-B Out radio frequency spectrum could be saturated by 
UAS, and suggested the ADS-B Out system be upgraded to support UAS 
operations as well. Another commenter suggested requiring ADS-B Out in 
remote, uncontrolled airspace where is it unlikely to cause frequency 
saturation, and requiring network remote identification in controlled 
and urban airspace where data and cellular coverage is readily 
available.
    FAA Response: Regarding broadcast on Wi-Fi frequencies, the FAA 
notes that, by FCC rule, 47 CFR part 15 devices, including those used 
for the remote identification broadcast, may not cause harmful 
interference and must accept any interference received. In addition, 
remote identification equipment may not cause harmful interference to 
the unmanned aircraft command and control datalink or otherwise be in 
violation of FCC regulations. Unmanned aircraft remote identification 
equipment broadcasting in the 47 CFR part 15 radio frequency spectrum 
is also prohibited from interfering with existing, licensed frequencies 
used by existing surveillance technologies. With regard to the use of 
ADS-B Out in less dense environments where signal saturation would not 
be as likely a hazard, the FAA emphasizes that the ADS-B message set 
does not provide an indication of the control station location which is 
one of the reasons that ADS-B is not a suitable alternative.
    Comments: Some commenters, including the Aviators Code Initiative, 
suggested that UAS operating under part 91 and future Urban Air 
Mobility (UAM) operations be required to use ADS-B Out unless future 
frequency saturation issues develop or remote identification is proven 
to be an adequate substitute for these operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA partially agrees with comments that suggest 
ADS-B use is appropriate for unmanned aircraft operating under part 91 
and UAM operations, and adopts the requirements necessary for unmanned 
aircraft to operate with ADS-B Out instead of remote identification. 
The FAA believes that the performance-based requirements in this rule 
provide multiple technical solutions for unmanned aircraft remote 
identification and support the evolution of remote identification 
solutions as UAS technology evolves.
    Comments: A number of commenters challenged the FAA to justify its 
position that ADS-B functionality as a whole would be adversely 
impacted by a sharp increase in ADS-B users. uAvionix noted that radio 
frequency spectrum studies to date have focused on UAS operating in 
high traffic density below 400 feet AGL, but there are no studies at 
higher altitudes. uAvionix and Sagetech Avionics stated the part 91 
prohibition introduces the possibility of non-cooperative part 91 UAS 
unless otherwise required to equip with remote identification (or 
``otherwise authorized by the Administrator'' to use ADS-B Out or 
transponders). uAvionix, McInflight Aerospace, Sagetech Avionics, and 
NBAA recommended considering alternatives such as ADS-B Out. They also 
noted these licensed frequencies would be more reliable than 47 CFR 
part 15, Remote Identification Frequencies.
    FAA Response: In the NPRM, the FAA referenced a study titled ``ADS-
B Surveillance System Performance with Small UAS at Low Altitudes'' as 
the basis for proposing that an ADS-B Out solution for unmanned 
aircraft remote identification would cause adverse impacts to the 
existing ADS-B surveillance system. The FAA agrees with the analysis 
and information contained in this study. Related comments suggesting 
that lower-power ADS-B Out transmitters could be developed to meet 
remote identification requirements, accompanied by additional receiver 
sites and software patches to limit ATC display clutter, were found to 
be impractical, both in terms of the time and the cost necessary to 
develop them. The FAA agrees with commenters concerned about the 
possibility of non-cooperative unmanned aircraft in areas where remote 
identification is required, and notes that in accordance with Sec.  
89.101, part 89 applies to all unmanned aircraft operations except for 
those unmanned aircraft operations under part 91 of this chapter that 
are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant to Sec.  91.225.
    Comments: Many commenters noted that both UAS and manned aircraft 
would benefit from shared situational awareness if UAS were equipped 
with ADS-B Out, which would provide UAS position information to manned 
aircraft pilots (and vice versa) via ADS-B In. Another commenter 
recommended that all manned aircraft and commercial UAS be required to 
equip with ADS-B Out (and ADS-B In for UAS), while permitting 
recreational UAS without remote identification to operate in Class G 
airspace.
    Several commenters suggested that UAS remote identification and 
location information should be available to operators via the ADS-B In 
system, similar to current traffic and weather information, and noted a 
potential risk of reduced collision prevention capability because 
remote identification and ADS-B systems do not share information. 
Several manned pilots objected to needing to purchase new equipment to 
gain access to UAS remote identification information after already 
being required to purchase ADS-B equipment.
    A number of commenters discussed potential safety advantages 
associated with UAS equipping with ADS-B In as a means of remaining 
well clear of all ADS-B Out equipped aircraft. Several commenters 
suggested that ADS-B In should be required or optional for UAS, either 
in general or specifically for larger UAS or for UAS capable of BVLOS 
such as delivery operations, and the National Agricultural Aviation 
Association noted that ADS-B In for UAS remains essential.
    FAA Response: As the FAA stated in the NPRM, the primary purpose of 
UAS remote identification is to identify UAS operating in the airspace 
and provide an indication of the location of the operator. The FAA 
discussed other potential uses of remote identification information, 
such as situational awareness or future aircraft separation 
applications.
    The FAA recognizes the benefit of shared situational awareness and 
encourages unmanned aircraft operators to equip with ADS-B In for 
increased traffic awareness, if practicable. The

[[Page 4475]]

FAA notes that ADS-B In is not required equipment for aircraft 
operations under part 91, and any changes to require ADS-B In for 
manned or unmanned aircraft are outside the scope of this rule.

XVIII. Environmental Analysis

A. Public Comments and FAA Response

    Comments: The FAA received several comments addressing the 
potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed rule. 
Commenters expressed concerns with the potential environmental impacts 
associated with the disposal for UAS that would potentially become 
obsolete under the rule requirements.
    Some commenters suggested that additional analysis should be done 
under the National Environmental Policy Act, particularly in the areas 
of historic or socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule. Other 
commenters indicated that the rule would increase the number of UAS 
operations with resulting impacts on noise and quality of life, 
wildlife, birds, light and visual impacts, and other similar 
environmental impacts.
    FAA Response: The FAA believes the changes in this final rule 
compared to the NPRM provide the flexibility necessary for recreational 
unmanned aircraft designers, producers, and operators to continue to 
operate safely in the airspace of the United States. Specifically, this 
rule allows for the retrofit of existing unmanned aircraft and home-
built unmanned aircraft and increases the availability of FAA-
recognized identification areas where operations may occur without 
remote identification. For these reasons, FAA does not anticipate that 
this rule would result in an increase in unmanned aircraft disposal. 
The FAA notes that a discarded unmanned aircraft can be disassembled 
into the following parts: Carbon (frame, frame parts), plastic, metal 
parts (screws, standoffs), wire, electronics (flight controller, ESC, 
motors, camera, VTX, RX), and batteries. Recycling centers and online 
vendors can assist with the proper management of used unmanned aircraft 
parts. In addition, parts in good working condition could potentially 
be reused.
    The FAA considers that though this rulemaking action establishes 
requirements for the remote identification of unmanned aircraft, it 
does not, by itself, enable routine expanded operations, affect the 
frequency of UAS operations in the airspace of the United States, or 
authorize additional UAS operations. Nor does the rule open up new 
areas of airspace to UAS. With regard to the specific comments on 
impacts to birds, the FAA's experience has been that current levels of 
UAS operations do not produce negative impacts to Endangered Species 
Act-covered species or other migratory birds. The FAA also emphasizes 
that this rule does not relieve operators from other legal obligations 
that may be applicable to them, such as ones imposed by the Endangered 
Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For these reasons, the 
FAA has determined that it is appropriate to apply a categorical 
exclusion to this rule and that it does not require preparation of an 
Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement under the 
National Environmental Policy Act.

XIX. Effective and Compliance Dates

A. Effective Date of This Rule

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    As with most new regulations, the FAA recognized that some elements 
of the NPRM would take time to implement fully. The FAA also recognized 
it would need to implement requirements that address ongoing safety and 
security needs quickly. Therefore, the FAA proposed that the effective 
date of remote identification requirements would be the first day of 
the calendar month following 60 days from the date of publication of a 
final rule. The FAA also proposed the production compliance date would 
be 2 years after the proposed effective date, and the operational 
compliance date would be 3 years after the proposed effective date.
    However, given the changes in policy concepts since the publication 
of the NPRM, the FAA has instead decided to change the effective date 
of this rule to 60 days from the date of publication--with the 
exception of subpart C concerning FAA-recognized identification areas, 
which becomes effective 18 months following the 60 day effective date. 
The FAA also adopts the production compliance date as 18 months after 
the rule's effective date, and the operational compliance date as 30 
months after the rule's effective date.
    The FAA decided not to adopt the proposed requirement for owners of 
small unmanned aircraft used exclusively for limited recreational 
operations to register each aircraft individually. The FAA decided to 
maintain the current registration options, and will no longer revise 
part 48 to require individual aircraft registration as proposed. 
Therefore, it is no longer necessary for the final rule to be effective 
on the first day of a calendar month following 60 days after the 
publication date.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: Several commenters objected to mandating the use of 
technologies for remote identification of UAS and Remote ID USS, which 
do not exist and may not be developed by the proposed effective date, 
and noted that it is very difficult to estimate costs for operators 
accurately without existing technology. An individual commenter found 
it hard to envision third party companies completing implementation of 
an airspace-wide UAS equivalent to the current ATC system by the 
proposed effective date. Another commenter who also had issues with the 
proposed date recommended phasing in requirements initially in small 
geographic areas with limited technical requirements and then gradually 
expand to national use, adding additional technical requirements upon 
successful completion of each phase.
    FAA Response: The FAA notes that technologies for unmanned aircraft 
remote identification are not required to be developed or available on 
the rule effective date, but rather this date establishes a starting 
point for the 18-month production compliance date. Producers will have 
to comply with the rule's requirements by the production compliance 
date, which is 18 months after the effective date. Operators will have 
to comply with the rule's requirements by the operational compliance 
date, which is 30 months after the effective date.
    Comments expressing concern about the readiness of Remote ID USS 
and the USS network by the rule effective date are no longer applicable 
because the FAA is no longer adopting those proposed requirements.
    The FAA received many comments regarding the proposed timeline for 
accepting FAA-recognized identification areas applications, and how 
that policy would impact the rule. Those public comments and FAA 
responses are discussed in section XII of this preamble. Section XII.C 
of this preamble also discusses the FAA rationale for eliminating the 
12-month deadline, and the impact of that elimination on the 
effectivity of subpart C of part 89.

B. Production Requirements Compliance Date

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed a 24-month compliance date for the production of 
remote identification unmanned aircraft. The FAA discussed how persons 
responsible for the production

[[Page 4476]]

of unmanned aircraft would not be able to submit declarations of 
compliance until the FAA accepts at least one means of compliance. Once 
a means of compliance is accepted by the FAA, persons responsible for 
the production of unmanned aircraft would need time to design, develop, 
and test unmanned aircraft using that means of compliance. For that 
reason, the FAA proposed a 24-month period before compliance with the 
production requirements would be required. As proposed, the 24-month 
period would have provided time for the development and deployment of 
Remote ID USS to support the requirements of the proposed rule. Prior 
to the 24-month compliance date, the FAA proposed that the rule would 
allow for the production and operation of both unmanned aircraft with 
and without remote identification.
    As being finalized, this rule requires persons producing standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft for operation in the airspace 
of the United States to comply with the requirements of subpart F by 
September 16, 2022. The compliance date has been reduced by 6 months 
and now begins 18 months after the effective date of this rule. The 
change from the proposed 24-month production compliance date for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is supported by the 
removal of the requirement for the unmanned aircraft to connect to the 
internet and transmit information to a Remote ID USS. The change is 
also supported by the elimination of any schedule or technical risks 
associated with the development and deployment of a Remote ID USS 
network. The FAA also considered the maturity of existing standards for 
unmanned aircraft remote identification, such as ASTM F3411-19, and 
notes that the UAS-ID ARC suggested that industry consensus standards 
could be updated in as little as 6 months. For these reasons, this rule 
establishes an 18-month compliance date for the production of standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft.
    As promulgated, this rule also requires persons producing remote 
identification broadcast modules to comply with the requirements of 
subpart F by March 16, 2021. This requirement is because of the 
introduction of the remote identification broadcast module concept that 
replaces the proposed limited remote identification UAS concept, as 
further discussed throughout this rule. The requirement will support 
early adoption of remote identification.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: A few commenters supported the 24-month production 
compliance date, as proposed, including Zipline International and 
Airlines for America. An individual commenter supported the 2-year 
production timeline if the remote identification requirements were 
changed to ``broadcast or network'' but not both. This commenter 
believed this change would simplify the complexity of UAS and support 
faster development. Another individual stated that while the 2-year 
production compliance date is appropriate for ``mass produced 
commercial UAS,'' it should not apply to any recreational UAS. 
Similarly, another individual commenter noted it will be hard to 
incorporate remote identification on fixed wing model aircraft and 
suggested that additional time should be allowed for model aircraft.
    Many commenters stated the 24-month compliance date for production 
of UAS with remote identification is not long enough for the 
introduction of a new technology like UAS remote identification. Some 
of these commenters provided specific recommendations for a different 
compliance date, while others stated their disagreement without 
providing a recommendation. An individual commenter suggested that 
because remote identification is a new technology, introduction should 
happen slowly, and UAS with remote identification should be available 
before the rule is adopted. Another commenter noted that ADS-B 
technology was being developed and tested before the ADS-B rule was 
adopted, and that 10 years was provided for manned aircraft to equip 
with ADS-B technology. This commenter raised the concern that UAS 
remote identification technology has not been developed and tested, yet 
the FAA still intends to finalize the rule. Some commenters wanted the 
FAA to provide further guidance to allow adequate time for UAS service 
operators to replace, update, or upgrade hardware to meet any new 
requirement.
    Droneport Texas LLC recommended a 3-year production compliance date 
because ``the time required for rule assessment, engineering, testing, 
manufacturing and marketing to provide remote ID unit consumption at 
levels that allow for economies of scale to become practical is 
estimated to begin at a minimum of 36 months.'' A separate individual 
commenter recommended a production compliance period of 48 months 
because the commenter believed it is unlikely that the infrastructure 
necessary to enable remote identification will be ready in 2 years.
    In contrast to commenters who recommended a longer production 
compliance period, commenters that supported a production period 
shorter than the 2 years proposed include the Small UAV Coalition, 
American Association of Airport Executives, and Verizon/Skyward. The 
Small UAV Coalition stated the production compliance date should be 
shortened by 1 year on the basis that the ASTM F38 UAS Remote 
Identification standard has been published and the 1-year allocated to 
development and acceptance of a means of compliance can be eliminated. 
The American Association of Airport Executives also supported a 1-year 
production compliance period, stating that ``this is a more reasonable 
balance between the needs of airports and many other stakeholders, and 
the time needed to implement the proposed framework.'' Verizon and 
Skyward noted that ``USS Remote ID compliance is technically feasible 
today for a very high percentage of existing UAS through software 
upgrades and for manufacturers with minimal changes'' and suggested a 
production compliance date of 10 months after the rule's effective 
date.
    An individual commenter suggested that the FAA should allow for a 
1-year vendor proposal period where UAS producers would compete to 
manufacture a system that meets FAA requirements, at which point the 
FAA should approve the qualified bidder with the lowest cost. The 
Consumer Technology Association and other commenters said that the FAA 
should permit producers to continue selling non-compliant UAS if 
retrofit modules were available to bring the aircraft into compliance 
with the remote identification requirements.
    FAA Response: As stated above, the FAA is no longer requiring 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft to connect to the 
internet and transmit information to a Remote ID USS. As a result, any 
schedule or technical risks associated with the development and 
deployment of a Remote ID USS network are no longer applicable. Since 
FAA is adopting a broadcast-only remote identification requirement, the 
decision to eliminate the network requirement for remote identification 
at this time supports a reduction of the production compliance date 
from 24 months to 18 months.
    The FAA acknowledges that though persons responsible for the 
production of unmanned aircraft will not be able to submit declarations 
of compliance until the FAA accepts at least one means of compliance, 
the FAA anticipates an

[[Page 4477]]

expedited revision to the ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for 
Remote ID and Tracking to occur after publication of this final rule. 
Once the standard is revised to meet the minimum performance 
requirements, it could be submitted for consideration as an FAA-
accepted means of compliance. The FAA also notes that any person, 
including unmanned aircraft manufacturers, may submit a means of 
compliance for consideration by the FAA. This provides additional 
opportunities for the UAS industry to develop means of compliance, 
potentially on an accelerated schedule. Finally, the FAA believes the 
18-month production compliance date provides sufficient time for 
unmanned aircraft manufacturers to design, develop, and test standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft using an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance.

C. Operational Requirements Compliance Date

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA proposed that the requirements for the operation of 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification would begin 36 months 
after the effective date of a final rule. This 36-month period would 
run concurrently with the proposed 24-month period provided for the 
development of means of compliance, and for the design and production 
of unmanned aircraft with remote identification. The FAA explained in 
the NPRM that once unmanned aircraft with remote identification become 
widely available, this rule would allow an additional 1-year time 
period for unmanned aircraft owners and operators to purchase and 
transition to operations of unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification.
    As promulgated, this rule requires persons operating unmanned 
aircraft in the airspace of the United States to comply with the 
operational rules in subpart B by September 16, 2023. The compliance 
date has been reduced by 6 months and now begins 30 months after the 
effective date of this rule as compared to the proposed 36-month 
compliance date in the NPRM. The FAA notes that the 30-month 
operational compliance date is still 1 year later than the 18-month 
production compliance date, so the difference between the two dates has 
been maintained in this final rule compared to the NPRM. The FAA 
believes that an operational compliance date that is 1 year after the 
production compliance date provides adequate time for unmanned aircraft 
operators to acquire standard remote identification unmanned aircraft.
    In addition, because there is no production compliance date for 
remote identification broadcast modules, the FAA anticipates that a 
means of compliance may be developed and submitted to the FAA for 
consideration soon after the rule is effective, potentially resulting 
in broadcast modules being available well in advance of the 30-month 
operational compliance date. The FAA believes that a 30-month 
operational compliance date is appropriate for operators of standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft, as well as unmanned aircraft 
equipped with remote identification broadcast modules.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: The FAA received some comments that supported the 
operational compliance date as proposed, including comments from the 
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, and various 
individuals that noted a 3-year phase-in period is reasonable for 
developing initial solutions. However, many commenters did not agree 
with the FAA's proposed 3-year operational compliance date, of which 
some suggested alternative time periods that are longer or shorter than 
the proposed operational compliance date.
    Many commenters raised the concern that there is only 1 year 
between the production and operational compliance dates, resulting in 
some UAS being ineligible to operate after only 1 year of ownership. 
Instead, an individual commenter suggested that a 3-year operational 
compliance date, after the manufacturing compliance date, would be 
preferable and would preclude having to throw away or discontinue using 
UAS purchased only a year prior to the operational compliance date. 
Many individual commenters, however, stated the FAA's belief that a 
typical UAS would reach the end of its useful life in 3 years is 
incorrect, and therefore opposed the proposed operational compliance 
date of 3 years after the effective date of the rule. An individual 
stated that while a ``commercial quadcopter (drone)'' may have a 
lifespan of 3 years, certain R/C model aircraft can have a lifespan of 
30-40 years or more. Another commenter stated that with proper care and 
maintenance, the lifespan of a UAS can be extended past 3 years. An 
individual suggested the government pay for the loss of use of UAS 
equipment that lasts for greater than 3 years. Another individual 
recommended that additional time be provided to allow the price of UAS 
with remote identification to come down. This commenter also noted that 
its existing fleet of UAS without remote identification will have no 
resale value
    In contrast to the commenters that requested additional time to 
comply with the operational compliance period, others suggested an 
operational compliance date shorter than the proposed 3 years. 
Organizations including: Amazon, AUVSI, the National Sheriff's 
Association, Zipline International, sports organizations (NFL, MLB, 
NASCAR, and NCAA), U.S. Rail Operating Subsidiaries of the Canadian 
National Railway Company, FlyGuys, Inc., Tampa International Airport/
Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, and UPS, all supported the 
expeditious implementation of the rule. These commenters generally 
opposed an operational compliance date longer than 3 years. Verizon and 
Skyward stated the operational compliance date could be as soon as 12 
months after the rule's effective date. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
supported 18 months for the operational compliance date, and suggested 
that the FAA follow the recommendations of the Drone Advisory Committee 
(DAC) related to early compliance with remote identification 
requirements. The Small UAV Coalition supported an operational 
compliance period of 18 to 24 months.
    DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety Alliance, Airlines for America, 
International Association of Fire Fighters, Medina County EMA, American 
Association of Airport Executives, and Motorola Solutions, Inc. 
supported a 2-year operational compliance date while generally agreeing 
that shortening the operational compliance date serves to expedite the 
safety and security benefits of the rule. An individual believed that 
UAS manufacturers would have sufficient time to incorporate remote 
identification into their UAS, and that the operational compliance date 
should be reduced to a time period of 1 year to 18 months. Another 
individual commenter recommended shortening the operational compliance 
date because of existing UAS operations that are in violation of the 
regulations.
    Kittyhawk stated the 3-year compliance date is too long because the 
FAA has made it clear that ``routine (i.e., waiverless) advanced 
operations like those beyond visual line of sight, operations over 
people, or operations at night, require Remote ID.'' Kittyhawk supports 
a tiered approach for establishing compliance dates, which would allow 
some operations to be conducted with remote identification

[[Page 4478]]

immediately upon the rule effective date. The National Association of 
Tower Erectors (NATE) suggested reducing the 3-year operational 
compliance period both to enhance safety and enable earlier expanded 
operations such as BVLOS. The National Agricultural Aviation 
Association stated they do not believe it should take 3 years to 
implement the rule, but did not provide a specific alternative 
timeline. AirMap, Aerospace Industries Association, and the Commercial 
Drone Alliance supported an immediate implementation of the rule 
compared to the proposed 3-year compliance date. WhiteFox Defense 
Technologies supported a shorter operational compliance period if the 
rule was modified to allow retrofit modules for existing UAS.
    Several individual commenters recommended a 5-year timeline for the 
operational compliance date because they believed it would better align 
with the typical lifespan of UAS, and allow time for the technology to 
be widely available. The Academy of Model Aeronautics supported a 
``more reasonable timeline,'' including incentives similar to those 
that were provided for the general aviation community to equip with 
ADS-B. Several individual commenters referenced the 10-year operational 
compliance period in the ADS-B rule as justification for extending the 
proposed 3-year operational compliance date; most of these commenters 
suggested an operational compliance date between 5 and 10 years from 
the rule's publication date. Other commenters recommended additional 
time, ranging from 10-15 years, for the operational compliance date 
because remote identification technology does not exist. Several 
individual commenters recommended a 5-7 year operational compliance 
date, and for the FAA to not rush the implementation of remote 
identification.
    To simplify compliance, multiple individuals supported the idea of 
an FAA ``grandfathering'' provision that would not require existing UAS 
to comply with the rules for remote identification for 10 years. A 
commenter suggested grandfathering all existing recreational UAS, with 
remote identification required for recreational UAS only if they are 
new. This commenter recommended a 5-year operational compliance date 
for part 107 operators. Another commenter noted that many recreational 
UAS operators are still not registered, and asked why the FAA thinks 
these unregistered operators will comply with a 3-year operational 
compliance period. San Diego County Water requested that additional 3-
year waivers be available for operators that are not able to comply 
with the 3-year remote identification operational compliance date.
    Rather than requiring a fixed time period, an individual suggested 
that the operational compliance date be based on the availability of 
remote identification technology. Another individual suggested a phased 
approach for operational compliance dates, with UAS conducting higher 
risk operations having an earlier date than those conducing low risk 
operations. Utah Public Lands policy recommended that ``the FAA should 
initiate a pilot program, working with UAS developers, USS suppliers, 
and UAS operators, to better understand how these various components 
can be successfully brought together and proven and, only then, 
determine an implementation or compliance period accompanied with known 
costs and technology solutions.'' Another individual asked how the 3-
year operational compliance date would apply to existing UAS.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with grandfathering or broadly 
excepting existing unmanned aircraft from meeting remote identification 
requirements. However, after considering the comments received, the FAA 
has updated this rule to permit less complex, cost-effective solutions 
to prevent obsolescence of existing unmanned aircraft, and support 
continued unmanned aircraft operations in compliance with remote 
identification requirements. Removing the requirements to transmit 
remote identification information to a Remote ID USS will make it more 
straightforward for manufacturers to upgrade or retrofit existing 
unmanned aircraft to meet the broadcast remote identification 
requirements, or to upgrade unmanned aircraft which are produced before 
the production compliance date. Most unmanned aircraft produced without 
remote identification will be able to equip with a remote 
identification broadcast module, or will be able to operate in an FAA-
recognized identification area. The FAA anticipates this rule, which 
permits additional organizations to apply for an FAA-recognized 
identification area, with no deadline for submitting an application, 
will result in an increased number of FAA-recognized identification 
areas for operators without remote identification.
    Though the finalized remote identification requirements support 
reducing the production compliance date by 6 months, the FAA does not 
agree with commenters that suggested further shortening the operational 
compliance date. A 1-year time period, as originally proposed in the 
NPRM, is necessary for unmanned aircraft owners and operators to 
purchase new unmanned aircraft, upgrade or retrofit existing unmanned 
aircraft, and transition to operations of those unmanned aircraft which 
meet remote identification requirements. Therefore, the FAA is adopting 
a 30-month operational compliance period which runs concurrently with 
the amended 18-month production compliance date. Requirements that 
prohibit operation of UAS without remote identification would begin 30 
months after the effective date of the rule. This 30-month period 
provides sufficient time for the development of means of compliance for 
the design and production of unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification, and time for operators to procure standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
modules to comply with the operating requirements of this rule.
    Comments: Commenters, including Unifly and the District of Columbia 
government, believed that UAS operating under a waiver should still be 
required to have remote identification. These operations include 
nighttime operations, operations over people, or BVLOS operations. In 
contrast, an individual member of the FPVFC suggested that if the UAS 
has remote identification, operations over people and at night should 
be allowed without a waiver. This individual added that if the UAS has 
LAANC authorization, then no remote identification equipment should be 
required for operating over people or at night. Other commenters also 
referenced similar recommendations made by the DAC, and stated that UAS 
that meet the remote identification requirements should not be required 
to seek a waiver for small UAS operations at night or over people.
    FAA Response: The unmanned aircraft remote identification 
requirements in this rule are separate from, and in addition to, the 
UAS operating rules as well as any waivers or exemptions issued from 
those operating rules. The FAA agrees that all UAS operations, 
including those subject to waiver or exemption, must meet the unmanned 
aircraft remote identification requirements in part 89. The FAA does 
not agree with commenters who suggest equipping an unmanned aircraft 
with remote identification is a basis for operating without a waiver 
when a waiver would otherwise be required. Having remote identification 
equipment

[[Page 4479]]

does not address the operational safety issues associated with 
operating an unmanned aircraft at night or over people, and does not 
support relief from any existing operating requirements, including 
requirements for airspace authorizations.

D. Incentives for Early Compliance

1. Discussion of the Final Rule
    The FAA explained that early compliance may benefit both industry 
and UAS operators, and encourages regulated parties to implement remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft sooner than the established 
compliance dates. The FAA requested comments on the NPRM providing 
specific proposals and ideas on how to build an early compliance 
framework into the regulation. The Agency stated it is interested in 
comments related to how an early compliance framework would work and 
how it would fit into the overarching remote identification framework 
proposed by the FAA.
    The FAA received many comments addressing incentives for early 
compliance. The FAA has reviewed the comments supporting an incentive 
for early compliance with remote identification, and views these 
incentives as part of the implementation methodology and not part of 
this rule.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
    Comments: A commenter suggested allowing operations in certain 
restricted airspace as an incentive for early compliance with the 
remote identification requirements. AUVSI, Small UAV Coalition, 
Consumer Technology Association, Aerospace Industries Association, and 
WhiteFox Defense Technologies expressed their support for incentivizing 
early compliance, including support of the DAC recommendations. AUVSI 
identified many possible incentives for early compliance with the 
remote identification requirements, such as permitting expanded 
operations through waivers and exemptions for operators who equip 
early, providing ``preferential treatment'' for UAS equipped with 
remote identification, increased access to airspace such as temporary 
flight restrictions, restricted areas, and controlled airspace, and 
various financial incentives. AiRXOS stated that ``early compliance 
with remote identification should be incentivized through applied use 
in advanced operational approvals.'' Fortem Technologies supported 
expedited waiver approvals for operators that use UAS equipped with 
remote identification.
    FAA Response: The FAA commits to conducting an analysis of any 
waivers or exemptions that use remote identification industry consensus 
standards and communicating any additional information needed for the 
FAA to give credit for, as appropriate, using remote identification as 
part of a waiver application. This is how operators may take advantage 
of the availability of industry consensus standards prior to a final 
rule concerning remote identification. While voluntary adoption of 
remote identification will not equate to automatic waiver approval, the 
FAA's evaluation of part 107 waiver applications may consider early 
adoption of remote identification prior to any required compliance date 
set forth by this rule.
    To be considered as a benefit for a particular operation, 
applicants will need to demonstrate in their waiver application that 
the unmanned aircraft are equipped with remote identification 
capability and will remain compliant with this rule during operations. 
The FAA will evaluate applicants' ability to demonstrate early 
compliance with remote identification in their DroneZone applications. 
The FAA anticipates such updates will result in handling applications 
for waiver in an efficient manner.
    The FAA supports the proposition that remote identification will 
provide security benefits, which underlies the DAC's recommendations 
regarding increasing access by unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification to airspace restricted for security reasons. The Agency 
is committed to working with interagency security partners to realize 
those benefits where appropriate, including using remote identification 
equipage as a positive consideration in authorizing access to airspace 
to which security instructions have been applied. Remote identification 
equipage will be, however, only one of many complex factors driving 
decisions made by the FAA to enable access by UAS to this sort of 
secured airspace. The FAA will continue to coordinate with security 
agencies, as well as industry, to determine how to best leverage the 
security benefits offered by remote identification. The FAA commits to 
considering the added safety and security benefits provided by remote 
identification equipage in development of future rules related to UAS 
and airspace access.
    Comments: Many commenters provided input and ideas that would allow 
for an early compliance framework into the regulation. Both AUVSI and 
SenseFly suggested the FAA follow the recommendations provided by the 
DAC \35\ as an early compliance framework for UAS remote identification 
requirements, while Wing Aviation LLC suggested the FAA accepts the 
ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking as an 
idea for early compliance. An individual member of the FPVFC suggested 
that the FAA should adopt the incentives proposed in the DAC's October 
2019 submission to the FAA. Verizon and Skyward and also expressed 
support for incentivizing early compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ October 17, 2019 Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) Meeting 
Materials, https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/drone_advisory_committee/media/eBook_10172019_DAC_Meeting.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unifly recommended allowing operators to use an add-on retrofit for 
remote identification as a solution for achieving early compliance. An 
individual commenter stated the FAA should utilize open source 
technology to build an early compliance framework, and provided web-
links to those sources. This commenter stated that working with these 
resources may require new partnerships or contracts, but they can be 
tremendously beneficial to the FAA. Another individual commenter 
suggested the FAA provide monetary subsidies for operators to adopt 
remote identification technology similar to the rebates that were 
offered for ADS-B. The Albuquerque Radio Control Club recommended 
subsidizing purchases of equipment over $50 to help ensure widespread 
compliance, and the Aviators Code Initiative suggested offering 
subsidies for installation of remote identification equipment on UAS 
manufactured without broadcast capability. Some commenters suggested 
the government subsidize UAS operators to speed the replacement of 
current UAS with remote identification UAS, similar to the incentives 
for manned aircraft to equip with ADS-B Out.
    Droneport Texas LLC raised the concern that ``since a regulation 
cannot be followed until it is implemented, attempts at creating an 
early compliance framework will only confuse those attempting to 
enforce the law and create an easily-challenged situation for those 
required to adjudicate on this slippery slope.''
    FAA Response: The Agency will review all comments and incentive 
methods for potential inclusion in implementation after this rule is 
published.
    Incentives for government procurement and contracting would require 
compliance with certain specific

[[Page 4480]]

regulations and standards. To be fair and equitable, the FAA's 
procurement processes do not enable preferential treatment for 
voluntary early adoption of equipment or compliance to regulations.
    Regarding early equipage, as stated in the FAA's remote 
identification NPRM, the FAA will maintain an online database of 
designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft that 
have declared compliance with an industry consensus standard recognized 
by the FAA as a means of compliance with the remote identification 
rule. The FAA will begin this database with the first declaration of 
compliance. This online list will be linked to all applicable FAA apps, 
including B4UFLY, and on all relevant web pages. The FAA will endeavor 
to ensure information is disseminated as far as possible.
    As stated in the FAA's remote identification NPRM, the FAA is 
willing to consider methods to offset the registration costs associated 
with final remote identification rule compliance. 84 FR 72438, 72463 
(Dec. 31, 2019) at Sec. IX.C. The FAA will consider opportunities for 
cost reduction and off-setting, while remaining mindful of statutory 
requirements that apply to the collection of registration fees.
    Finally, the FAA strongly encourages the industry to continue 
collaborating in the area of early adoption incentives. It is important 
to recognize that the broad safety and security benefits of remote 
identification equipage for UAS are realized only with widespread 
compliance with the rule and equipage standards. The result is a 
cooperative user community that becomes its own mitigation against risk 
presented by other unmanned air traffic, especially in circumstances 
with the unmanned aircraft flying beyond visual line-of-sight. The FAA 
recognizes that while this may not be a direct incentive for individual 
operators and recreational flyers, it should broadly incentivize the 
unmanned aircraft producer or designer community to produce aircraft in 
compliance with published industry consensus standards (e.g., the 
serial number standard) as early and quickly as possible.

XX. Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis--Benefits and Costs

A. General Comments About Cost Impacts of the Rule

    Comments: Many commenters stated the remote identification 
requirements as proposed would be too costly for many recreational 
operators and businesses, many of which are small, to comply. 
Commenters suggested that retail hobby businesses already operate on 
low margins. Any impact on these businesses would also have negative 
downstream effects on the community. The affected groups include retail 
hobby shops, designers and producers of UAS and suppliers of model 
aircraft, parts and equipment, and aerial photographers. The commenters 
suggested that many recreational operators and owners, especially those 
involved in flying and building remote controlled aircraft, would cease 
pursuing the hobby or business, because of the cost to either upgrade 
or replace existing aircraft to meet the proposed standard and the cost 
to subscribe to internet service. Many commenters expressed concern for 
the potential impact of the rule on businesses and consumers who cannot 
afford to retrofit or replace UAS at a low cost. Commenters suggested 
that there does not exist an off-the-shelf solution, such as software 
upgrades, to retrofit most recreational aircraft. One commenter 
provided an estimate of $12 billion in sales for the model aircraft 
industry for 2021. Another commenter reported $1 billion to $20 billion 
per year based on IBIS World's 2020 Hobby and Toy Store industry. 
Commenters state that by requiring standard remote identification UAS 
to both broadcast and provide information over the internet, the FAA is 
violating the requirement of E.O. 13563 to maximize net benefits and 
design regulations to impose the least burden. Allowing the option of 
remote broadcast alone would allow UAS owners to save the Remote ID USS 
subscription fee. The broadcast-only option would also not reduce 
demand from operators who do not want to send flight data to a Remote 
ID USS. Removal of the requirement for both kinds of transmission would 
also eliminate the need for ``Limited'' remote identification UAS and 
streamline the regulation. DJI Technology estimated a one-time cost of 
$2 or less per unit for a large quantity when manufacturing new UAS or 
a cost for existing UAS of $15 or less per unit for a large quantity 
without requiring screens, sim cards, internet connections, data plans, 
or centralized data aggregation like a network solution would require. 
A commenter states that the FAA neglects the increased cost of customer 
support because UASs will not be able to fly unless Remote ID USS is 
functional. The reason a UAS is not working will not always be clear, 
and designers and producers of remote identification UAS or sellers may 
need to provide support to determine the reason the UAS is not 
functioning. Using data on customer complaint rates for the 
telecommunications sector tracked by the Australian Communications and 
Media Authority (ACMA) on complaint rates and an estimate of the cost 
of a customer service call by the Harvard Business Review of $10 per 
call, the commenter estimates a 10-year cost of $80 million.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that recreational and business 
operators of unmanned aircraft will incur out-of-pocket costs as a 
result of this rule. However, the FAA has attempted to alleviate 
complexity and costs of compliance for all operators of unmanned 
aircraft by removing the network requirement from this rule and 
allowing remote identification using a stand-alone broadcast module for 
the time being. The concept allows unmanned aircraft built without 
remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned aircraft fleet, home-
built unmanned aircraft) to be operated outside of FAA-recognized 
identification areas because the broadcast modules enable the unmanned 
aircraft to broadcast the remote identification message elements 
required by this rule.
    The FAA decided to incorporate this concept into this rule after 
reviewing public comments and considering the significant concerns 
raised with respect to the remote identification UAS framework. The FAA 
determined a remote identification broadcast module facilitates 
compliance with this rule and meets the safety and security needs of 
the FAA, national security agencies, and law enforcement. The concept 
is broadcast-based and does not require a person to connect to the 
internet to identify remotely, as the limited remote identification UAS 
proposal did. This shift allows unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification broadcast modules to operate in areas where the internet 
is unavailable. In addition, by making this a broadcast solution, the 
FAA has determined that the 400-foot range limitation included in the 
proposed requirements for limited remote identification UAS is no 
longer warranted and has removed the design constraint.
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concern with displacing 
hobbyists, recreational operators and amateur builders in favor of 
creating opportunities for new commercial operations. In particular, 
one commenter believed that the FAA's proposed approach highly favors 
current monolithic vendors and delivery fleet operators of UAS (DJI, 
Amazon, Google, UPS, etc.), and would harm or eliminate small UAS 
integrator-owners

[[Page 4481]]

by forcing UAS owners to purchase them only from a limited number of 
commercial corporations. Thus, the rule would severely limit or 
eliminate independent UAS electronic vendors.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that this rule places a burden on 
all operators of unmanned aircraft, and has eliminated the internet 
connectivity requirement to reduce the negative impact to independent 
UAS electronic vendors and the hobby industry. The FAA does not agree 
that it favors creating opportunities for new commercial operations at 
the expense of hobbyists, recreational operators and home-builders. 
While recreational users of unmanned aircraft have been operating in 
the airspace of the United States for decades, commercial operations of 
unmanned aircraft are in their infancy. Commercial operations of 
unmanned aircraft are creating economic opportunities and facilitating 
safer operating environments by substituting unmanned aircraft for 
manned operations. The evolution of this nascent industry has spawned 
educational programs from elementary school through college, which in 
turn could produce a new generation of model aircraft enthusiasts and 
recreational operators.
    Comments: Many commenters suggested that designers and producers of 
remote identification UAS are likely to pass on the costs of additional 
parts, equipment, and software necessary to meet the proposed standard 
to consumers in the form of higher prices for aircraft. One commenter 
stated the cost of implementing the proposed nationwide infrastructure, 
broadcasting and monitoring system of UAS will be paid by consumers 
including UAS manufacturers' new costs that would be passed on to UAS 
buyers. Commenters suggested that the additional cost of UAS production 
and operation would also result in fewer designers and producers of 
remote identification UAS and near elimination of the hobby market. One 
commenter expressed concern that the remote identification requirements 
would limit competition and innovation in UAS technologies leading to 
adverse impacts on employment and the United States economy.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that designers and producers of remote 
identification unmanned aircraft will likely pass the costs of 
producing standard remote identification unmanned aircraft to 
consumers, though the elimination of the network requirement at this 
time should reduce consumer costs. As well, the infrastructure required 
to receive broadcast messages would be borne by the entity requiring 
access to the information, and not the consumer. In addition, in its 
preliminary regulatory impact analysis, FAA acknowledged uncertainties 
regarding direct or indirect effects of the rule on the small toy 
unmanned aircraft market. Producers of toy unmanned aircraft where the 
unmanned aircraft currently weigh more than 0.55 pounds would need to 
make a business decision weighing the costs and practicality of 
producing small toy unmanned aircraft with remote identification using 
an FAA-accepted means of compliance. As a result, the market for small 
toy unmanned aircraft where the unmanned aircraft weighs more than 0.55 
pounds may be negatively affected by the rule, while the market for 
unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less may be positively 
affected. Nonetheless, the UAS industry is evolving rapidly as 
demonstrated by the success of beyond visual line of sight operations 
and small-cargo delivery operations occurring on a limited basis in the 
airspace of the United States, and therefore, the FAA does not believe 
this rule would limit innovation in the technologies supporting 
integration of UAS into the airspace of the United States.
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concern with the option of 
flying within designated fields (FAA-recognized identification areas) 
because of their inconvenient locations, scarcity, and the membership 
costs required for usage. Commenters indicated the impracticality of 
using designated flying fields compared with using one's own 
residential property. Other comments stated that limiting first-person-
view (FPV) UAS to a few FAA-recognized identification areas will harm 
the FPV UAS market because hobbyists will not have access to a wide 
variety of interesting places. Similarly, amateur photographers with 
substantial investments in equipment (e.g., $5,000) will only be able 
to fly at an FAA-recognized identification area near home. Commenters 
expressed concern that the rule will devalue current equipment and end 
the recreational UAS photography hobby.
    FAA Response: The FAA concedes that the proposed rule imposed 
opportunity costs and out-of-pocket costs for individuals that would 
only be able to comply with the proposed rule by travelling to an FAA-
recognized identification area. This rule allows operators to equip 
their unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules, 
which would enable affected individuals to operate at locations other 
than FAA-recognized identification areas so long as a remote 
identification broadcast module is securely installed into their 
aircraft. The FAA acknowledges that these individuals will incur a cost 
for purchase of the broadcast module, and anticipates that owners of 
UAS without remote identification would prefer to incur this cost in 
exchange for the freedom to fly at locations other than FAA-recognized 
identification areas.
    Comments: Commenters stated the FAA underestimated the time and 
resource cost burden for the CBOs to complete FAA-recognized 
identification area requests. A commenter asserted that the burden 
threatens the viability of CBOs.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it could have underestimated the 
time and resource cost burden for CBOs to complete FAA-recognized 
identification area requests. However, to revise the estimates, the FAA 
requires a cost for the time and resource burden, with documentation 
supporting the estimate. The FAA expects that submitting an FAA-
recognized identification area requests could become automated at some 
point, alleviating some of the burden on CBOs to complete the FAA-
recognized identification area request.
    Comments: Commenters suggested that the proposed rule would 
implicitly force operators to purchase additional equipment, such as 
transmitters or transponders, which could cost about $100 to $500.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that operators with a desire to 
operate beyond the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area 
will be required to purchase broadcast equipment of some kind (i.e., 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a remote 
identification broadcast module). The FAA expects that the incremental 
cost to a consumer will range between $20 and $50 per unit. The FAA 
determined remote identification facilitates compliance with this rule 
and meets the safety and security needs of the FAA, national security 
agencies, and law enforcement.
    Commenters: Multiple commenters suggested that many recreational 
operators may ultimately decide not to comply with the rule because of 
the perception that the cost of compliance is overly burdensome. 
Commenters suggested that a high level of non-compliance would have an 
overall negative effect on safety.
    FAA Response: The FAA has greatly reduced the burden for 
recreational operators to comply with this rule. The two most impactful 
changes for recreational operators are: (1) The

[[Page 4482]]

network connectivity requirement has been removed at this time, and (2) 
the proposed requirement to register each aircraft individually is not 
adopted. The FAA does not agree that there will be a high-level of non-
compliance by recreational operators. The FAA is continually engaging 
the recreational community regarding safely operating in the airspace 
of the United States, and asserts that this community is, by and large, 
aware that FAA regulations lead to a safer, more secure operating 
environment for all (users and non-users alike).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/community_engagement/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Many commenters expressed concern with the potential 
obsolescence of existing aircraft equipment and their financial impact. 
DJI noted that no manufacturer would be willing to certify that 
retrofits comply with remote identification requirements because 
previously sold models are no longer in their control. The manufacturer 
certification requirement therefore reduces the retrofit rate to zero. 
Commenters provided examples of equipment that may become obsolete, 
including UAS camera platforms with retail value of $3,000 and UASs 
with values of $10,000 or more. Another commenter noted that many 
hobbyists own dozens of UAS, some of which are nearly 50 years old, 
some of which are unique and difficult or impossible to replace, and 
some of which cost over $15,000. Commenters asserted a wide variation 
in retail values of existing UAS and accessories, including 
transmitters and ground control stations. Investments in equipment and 
licenses range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands or even millions 
of dollars. One commenter provided an estimate of $880 as the average 
UAS priced based on a survey of members of the First Person View 
Freedom Coalition. In addition to obsolescence of equipment, another 
commenter stated there would be obsolescence in terms of training based 
on existing equipment for some UAS operators.
    FAA Response: First, the FAA appreciates the estimate of $880 as 
the average UAS price based on a survey of First Person View Freedom 
Coalition members. Second, this rule will allow pilots to attach a 
remote identification broadcast module to unmanned aircraft that will 
make the aircraft remote identification compliant. The FAA acknowledges 
that the relief provided in this rule will still be considered a burden 
by some operators. Nonetheless, the rule will create a safe and secure 
airspace and is a stepping stone toward integration of increasingly 
complex UAS operations.
    Comments: Commenters expressed concerns with the costs associated 
with a Remote ID USS, suggesting that the FAA underestimated 
subscription costs in the regulatory evaluation. The commenters also 
suggest that businesses would not be able to incur the cost of a data 
plan, which would adversely affect their ability to continue 
operations. Some estimates ranged from $25 to $100 per month for 
subscription fees. Multiple commenters expressed concern with the 
purchase of cellular service or a data plan for the purposes of 
transmitting remote identification information from their UAS. 
Commenters were also concerned about the cost to switch to data plans 
with better coverage for those with cellular service plans.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the complexity of creating 
Remote ID USS and requiring network connectivity by operators to a 
Remote ID USS. The requirement that the remote identification UAS 
connect to the internet and transmit remote identification message 
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS is not adopted at this 
time.
    Comments: A commenter stated the FAA incorrectly assumes that there 
may be no price charged for USS subscriptions and therefore no societal 
cost. The commenter stated that no matter what pricing strategy a USS 
provider selects, it must recover the real resource cost of designing, 
building and maintaining the system.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that if Remote ID USS were to 
exist, they would do so with intent to recover the cost of designing, 
building, and maintaining the system. However, the FAA acknowledges the 
complexity of designing a Remote ID USS and did not adopt the proposed 
network connectivity requirement at this time.
    Comments: Many commenters stated the costs of the proposed rule 
include additional unmanned aircraft registration fees as well as 
subscription fees for remote identification service providers. These 
fees would increase barriers to entry and reduce the accessibility of 
UAS to lower income individuals while shifting the market to larger 
corporations that can sell the remote identification hardware and 
software. Droneport Texas noted that the costs of Remote ID USS 
subscriptions were not included in the FAA-recognized identification 
area analysis but is required for remote identification UAS operating 
in an FAA-recognized identification area as proposed. The International 
Association of Fire Fighters and the Coconino County Sheriff's Office 
noted the increased cost for emergency response organizations to comply 
with the proposed rule. One commenter suggested Remote ID USS 
subscriptions should be provided free if it is required for emergency 
service operators.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that registration and subscription 
fees could reduce the accessibility of unmanned aircraft to lower 
income individuals and notes that the proposed requirement that 
recreational operators register each aircraft individually is not 
adopted. In addition, the proposed network connectivity requirement is 
not adopted at this time, and thus subscription fees are eliminated. 
Instead, this rule requires that small unmanned aircraft operating 
beyond the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area do so 
with either standard remote identification or with a remote 
identification broadcast module.
    Comments: One commenter stated the FAA should not have included the 
cost of obsolescence for UAS purchased in the first year of the rule 
implementation. The commenter also asserted that the FAA incorrectly 
applied an 80 percent retrofit rate in the calculation of obsolescence 
cost, inconsistent with the stated assumption of a 20 percent retrofit 
rate.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the commenter's observations 
regarding the cost of obsolescence. FAA has carefully reviewed the 
obsolescence section of the regulatory impact analysis and provides 
clarity to the commenter. On page 75 of the analysis, it is stated that 
20 percent of the recreational fleet purchased during year 1 could be 
retrofit. Based on the assumption that 20 percent of the recreational 
fleet purchased during year 1 could be retrofit, the FAA determined 
that the remaining 80 percent of the fleet could become obsolete prior 
to the end of its lifespan.
    To estimate the size of the fleet that would become obsolete, the 
FAA spread the estimated sales of recreational aircraft that could not 
be retrofit equally over a 12-month period during year 1. Based on the 
assumption that a small unmanned aircraft has a 3-year lifespan (36 
months), those unmanned aircraft purchased during the earlier part of 
year 1 would have less loss of use compared to those aircraft purchased 
near the end of year 1. For calculating obsolescence, sales of unmanned 
aircraft were presumed to occur on the first day of the month. 
Therefore, units sold in January of year 1 of the analysis period are 
fully depreciated by December of year 3, and thus there is no loss of 
useful life; units

[[Page 4483]]

sold in February of year 1 lose one month of useful life (which is 
January of year 4); units sold in March of year 1 lose two months of 
useful life (which are January-February of year 4); units sold in April 
of year 1 lose three months of useful life (which are January-March of 
year 4); etc. This calculation is shown on Appendix G of the regulatory 
impact analysis.
    Comments: Commenters stated that many areas in which UAS operations 
take place, such as for aerial photography, inspections, or survey 
mapping, tend to be rural locations or coastlines where internet 
connection and cellular service does not exist. The requirement to 
transmit via internet would therefore create geographic limitations for 
many businesses. It would prevent operators from providing services in 
those areas without cellular service.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the complexities and nuances of a 
remote identification rule that requires network connectivity, 
including the geographic limitations it creates for many businesses. 
The proposed requirement to transmit via internet is not part of this 
rule at this time. Instead, this rule requires that small unmanned 
aircraft operating beyond the boundaries of an FAA-recognized 
identification area do so with either standard remote identification or 
with a remote identification broadcast module.
    Comments: Commenters provided alternative estimates of the number 
of Academy of Model Aeronautics members ranging from 180,000 to 195,000 
with 9 to 10 as the average number of aircraft owned by AMA members. 
Based on these estimates of membership and aircraft ownership, 
commenters develop an estimated cost of $8.1 million to $9.75 million 
associated with registration. Multiple commenters expressed concern 
with the burden associated with the registration process and fee for 
each owned aircraft. Many commenters opposed having to register each 
aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates information provided by AMA 
regarding the number of its members and the average number of aircraft 
owned by each member. The proposal to require recreational operators 
register each aircraft individually is not adopted. By maintaining the 
current framework, the intent of the statutory requirement for aircraft 
registration is achieved without being overly burdensome, particularly 
considering the mitigation of cost for those individuals specifically 
flying multiple aircraft exclusively in compliance with section 44809. 
The FAA therefore will retain the current part 48 registration 
framework. Corresponding updates are applied to part 48 to reflect the 
inclusion of the current statutory requirement for limited recreational 
operations and to incorporate information relevant to remote 
identification. Owners registering as exclusively compliant with 
section 44809 will be required to submit the aircraft manufacturer and 
model name.
    Comments: A commenter stated requiring one control station for each 
aircraft would increase costs substantially. Another commenter stated 
the cost of replacing a commercial fleet due to the lack of serial 
numbers would be cost-prohibitive for many small businesses.
    FAA Response: The FAA notes that the serial number requirement in 
Sec.  89.505 applies to standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules produced after the 
effective date of this rule. This rule does not require designers and 
producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft to assign a serial 
number to any unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date 
of the design and production requirements. The requirements also do not 
make the existing unmanned aircraft fleet obsolete because operators 
can continue to operate existing unmanned aircraft subject to the 
operating rules in subpart B of this rule.\37\ This rule does not 
require any person to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number 
to any existing unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date 
of the design and production requirements. In addition, the rule 
neither requires serial numbers to be assigned to control stations nor 
prevents operators from swapping out control stations. The serial 
number requirements are specific to the unmanned aircraft, not to the 
entire UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Producers may choose to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant 
serial number to an unmanned aircraft produced prior to the 
compliance date of the design and production requirements of this 
rule (e.g., through a software upgrade). The assignment of the 
serial number--by itself--does not make the unmanned aircraft a 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a compliant 
unmanned aircraft that is properly equipped with a remote 
identification broadcast module. Persons who wish to ``upgrade'' an 
unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date of this rule 
to make it a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or an 
unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast 
module may do so by meeting all design and production requirements 
in subpart F. Subpart F contains the design and production 
requirements for a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
and a remote identification broadcast module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Many commenters suggested that UAS on the market last 
more than the three years that FAA assumed in its regulatory impact 
analysis. Some commenters estimated the lifespan to be 10 years with an 
average cost per UAS for recreational operators to be $600-$700.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates commenters' estimates for the 
average lifespan of an unmanned aircraft and the average cost for 
unmanned aircraft used for recreational operators. At this time, the 
FAA continues to assume an average lifespan of unmanned aircraft to be 
three years, which is the assumption used by the FAA in its published 
2020 UAS fleet forecasts.\38\ The FAA welcomes estimates of UAS 
lifespan and UAS costs when informed by supporting documentation, and 
would consider use of such estimates in its regulatory impact analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. 
Pages 41-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: One commenter questioned whether the proposed rule would 
meet the threshold under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded Federal mandates on 
State, local, and tribal governments (SLTG), or the private sector. 
Most of UMRAs provisions apply to proposed and final rules for which a 
general notice of proposed rulemaking was published and that include a 
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure of funds by SLTG, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
year. The FAA notes that the threshold of $100 million (in 1995 
dollars) or more in any 1 year was not exceeded in either the proposed 
rule or the final rule.
    Comments: A commenter stated the proposed rule did not address the 
costs of equipping 18,000 police departments with technology required 
to access remote identification data and the required training of 
750,000 officers to use the technology. The commenter asserted that 
these costs should be included in the cost analysis for the final rule 
and suggested that the FAA should conduct a survey of law enforcement 
departments to determine if they are equipped with remote 
identification technology, and what the cost and funding needs would be 
if they need to obtain the technology. Further, the commenter suggested 
that the FAA delay the implementation of the final rule until funding 
and implementation

[[Page 4484]]

plans for law enforcement groups are available.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that equipping 18,000 police 
departments with technology to access remote identification data, and 
then training 750,000 officers to use the technology has costs. The 
regulatory impact analysis for this rule identifies the qualitative 
safety and security benefits of remote identification information used 
to distinguish compliant operations from non-compliant operations. The 
FAA does not place any requirements on local law enforcement; to the 
contrary, the purpose is to make a resource available so that they can 
use it in the discharge of their responsibilities. The FAA assumes that 
security and law enforcement entities would incur costs relative to the 
scope of their needs (e.g., scaled to national, regional and locality 
needs, based on the level of UAS operations).
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns that the rule would 
adversely impact UAS manufactured in the United States, causing 
manufacturing to move offshore as the Western products and products in 
the United States become less competitive. One commenter gave examples 
of certain companies that supply radio systems that have abandoned 
their markets and cut back on their research and development because 
foreign companies have copied their technologies and undercut their 
manufacturing costs.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that at the time of this 
rulemaking, foreign companies produce a majority of the unmanned 
aircraft already being operated in the United States. Accordingly, the 
FAA does not expect this rule to negatively impact United States 
designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft at a 
greater rate than their foreign counterparts.
    Comments: A commenter asserted the FAA incorrectly neglects the 
value of lost UAS sales due to the cost of the rule. The commenter 
stated the FAA implicitly and incorrectly assumes that the UAS 
elasticity of demand is zero and that designers and producers of remote 
identification UAS will pass all costs to consumers, but that the 
quantity demanded will be unaffected. The commenter argued that the 
other possible assumption is that the manufacturer will absorb all 
costs, but the market is competitive so this will not happen. The 
commenter provided an estimate based on a survey that the demand for 
new UAS would decline by 10.6 percent due to the increase in cost. The 
commenter further asserted that demand may decrease because of the loss 
of privacy from the requirement to disclose location and flight data to 
the government and the public.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates these comments, and recognizes 
that the final rule could change consumer behavior and result in 
reduced demand for unmanned aircraft. However, for purposes of the 
regulatory impact analysis, three scenarios were considered--a base 
scenario (which is the preliminary estimate), a low case scenario, and 
a high case scenario. The low case scenario is reflective of a reduced 
demand for unmanned aircraft.

B. Comments on Benefits and Cost Savings

    Comments: Commenters did not agree that the cost of conducting 
investigations would decrease under the remote identification 
requirement. Some commenters suggested remote identification will 
increase the total cost of investigating UAS incidents. Commenters 
argued that by increasing the amount of available data from remote 
identification, there would be an increase in the number of incidents 
requiring investigations. Commenters also argued that there would be an 
increase in the cost of investigations due to potential non-compliance 
among amateur flyers or hobbyists.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the commenters concerns and notes 
that since Fiscal Year 2017, the number of UAS investigations conducted 
by the FAA has declined.\39\ The FAA continually conducts community 
outreach with the recreational and part 107 communities regarding safe 
operation of UAS in the airspace of the United States. Similarly, part 
107 remote pilots must pass recurrent knowledge testing every 24 
calendar months on topics related to operating safely and complying 
with regulations.\40\ The FAA believes that a vast majority of pilots 
in each of the communities are compliant with regulations and operate 
safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The FAA recorded 2,141 investigations in FY 2017; 2,002 
investigations in FY 2018, 1,955 investigations in FY 2019; and it 
is estimated that there will be approximately 1,460 investigations 
in FY 2020.
    \40\ The FAA notes the requirements for recurrent knowledge 
testing were proposed to be removed and replaced with recurrent 
knowledge training in the Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems over People notice of proposed rulemaking. 84 FR 3856, 
February 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the regulatory impact analysis the FAA presents a 
range for estimating the FAA costs of UAS investigations using three 
scenarios based on UAS fleet size. The regulatory impact analysis also 
acknowledges security partners and law enforcement communities incur 
costs investigating UAS incidents, and discusses them qualitatively in 
the regulatory impact analysis for the final rule.
    Comments: Commenters asserted that because of the safety record of 
limited recreational aircraft and first-person view quadcopter 
operators, there are no incremental safety or security benefits from 
applying the remote identification requirements to recreational flyers. 
The rule would not necessarily prevent malicious actors from building 
their own unmanned aircraft without complying.
    FAA Response: FAA agrees with commenters that the final rule for 
the remote identification of unmanned aircraft would not prevent 
malicious actors from building their own unmanned aircraft that do not 
comply with the requirements of this rule. However, as discussed 
earlier in this preamble, an unmanned aircraft flying in violation of 
this rule would be a data point that law enforcement could use in 
deciding what action to take in response to that aircraft. In addition, 
broadcast remote identification does not rely on internet availability, 
and is a secure method which is less susceptible to widespread failure 
caused by malicious actors or systems outages. The FAA has determined 
that a requirement for unmanned aircraft to broadcast remote 
identification information will provide the FAA, law enforcement, the 
general public, and other parts of the aviation community with real-
time information about unmanned aircraft operations in any area in 
which broadcast signals can be received. The broadcast will permit 
detection of unmanned aircraft and will permit law enforcement and the 
general public who receive those broadcasted message elements to have 
information about the aircraft location as well as information about 
the control station or takeoff location.
    Comments: Commenters asserted that the FAA should make the data on 
UAS incidents available to the public to assess the level of safety 
benefits.
    FAA Response: The FAA values the commenters concern. At this time, 
the FAA does not report on UAS investigations. The FAA does publish a 
quarterly UAS sightings report, however the FAA acknowledges that 
reported UAS sightings do not necessarily involve the violation of 
regulations or unsafe conditions.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public_records/uas_sightings_report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: A commenter stated the FAA incorrectly includes benefits 
of

[[Page 4485]]

extended operations though the proposed rule does not enable flight at 
night, operations over people, or flights beyond visual line of sight. 
The commenter asserted that it is incorrect to include the benefits 
from future rules in the analysis. In addition, there is no evidence 
that remote identification is necessary to expand UAS operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the reader of the 
regulatory impact analysis may have the impression that the benefits of 
extended operations were included in its estimates of the proposed 
rule, however, they were not and it was not the FAA's intent to mislead 
the reader. The FAA provided estimated cost savings due to a reduction 
in waiver processing for operations over people and night operations in 
Appendix C of its preliminary regulatory impact analysis (page 162), 
however these cost savings were not used for the proposed rule's 
estimated net costs.

C. Comments on Data and Assumptions

    Comments: Many commenters argued the FAA substantially 
underestimated the current UAS fleet size and UAS sales. Commenters did 
not agree with the assumptions regarding the average number of aircraft 
owned, suggesting that the FAA underestimated the number of affected 
aircraft. The AMA stated their members own on average of at least nine 
model aircraft and many AMA members own 100 to 200 aircraft. 
Recreational flyers of model aircraft frequently buy, sell, and trade 
aircraft. The requirement to register an aircraft every time ownership 
changes is impractical and costly. Some recreational flyers replace 
aircraft more frequently than the three-year lifespan assumed by the 
FAA. Some hobbyists frequently exchange and recombine aircraft 
components making it difficult to identify distinct aircraft. One 
commenter provided an average estimate of 15 UAS owned, based on a 
survey of members from the First-Person View Freedom Coalition. One 
commenter suggested it will take 15 minutes to complete an aircraft 
registration because of the additional complexity of the proposed 
requirement.
    FAA Response: The FAA values the response on the average number of 
aircraft owned by recreational flyers. The FAA recognizes its fleet 
forecast for recreational unmanned aircraft is most likely 
underestimated, and is pursuing resources to assist with developing a 
forecast that accurately reflects the number of aircraft in the fleet. 
In the NPRM, the FAA explained that the lack of aircraft-specific data 
for unmanned aircraft registered under part 48 could inhibit the FAA 
and law enforcement agencies from correlating the remote identification 
data with data stored in the FAA's Aircraft Registry. Thus, the Agency 
proposed to revise part 48 to require the individual registration of 
all small unmanned aircraft and the provision of additional aircraft-
specific data. The FAA proposed that owners of small unmanned aircraft 
would have to complete the registration application by providing 
aircraft specific information in addition to basic contact information. 
After evaluating the comments and incorporating the new remote 
identification broadcast module option for part 89 compliance, the FAA 
determined it will maintain the current registration framework and will 
no longer revise part 48 to require the individual registration of all 
small unmanned aircraft. Owners intending to operate all their small 
unmanned aircraft exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 may 
maintain one registration for all unmanned aircraft meeting that 
description.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The registration is based on the intended use of the 
unmanned aircraft. An operator would violate FAA regulations if he 
or she uses any of such aircraft for any purpose other than for 
limited recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: A commenter suggested the regulatory impact analysis 
should include the cost of cell phones and data plans because not all 
recreational flyers own cell phones. Commenters also expressed concern 
that some flyers may incur costs of switching to data plans with better 
coverage. A commenter stated the FAA overestimated the percentage of 
UAS that are already connected to the internet, but did not provide an 
alternative estimate. Many commenters did not agree with the FAA 
assumption that most unmanned aircraft would only need a software 
upgrade to comply. Compliance would require the addition of hardware 
that would add weight and cost. In some cases, retrofitting aircraft to 
connect to the internet is not technically feasible, especially for 
small aircraft. The weight of additional equipment would adversely 
impact the performance of UAS, especially in speed, safety, endurance 
and races. A commenter stated that the regulatory evaluation omitted or 
underestimated the cost of service to retrofit the aircraft for 
connection to the internet. Commenters stated that the FAA's assumption 
of monthly Remote ID USS subscription fee per aircraft based on LAANC 
fees underestimates the actual cost. The commenter suggested that the 
median monthly fee would be approximately $10 per month based on 
internet pet and car location and tracking services. A commenter did 
not agree with the FAA's assumption that all LAANC providers will 
become Remote ID USS and stated the FAA did not provide data to support 
its estimate of the number of USS providers. Another commenter asserted 
that the FAA does not have sufficient resources to monitor the USS 
network and enforce the proposed requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates that comments received on the 
regulatory impact analysis for the rule. The NPRM proposed requiring 
both standard remote identification and limited remote identification 
UAS to transmit the remote identification message elements through an 
internet connection to a Remote ID USS. After careful consideration of 
public comments on the implementation challenges associated with this 
requirement, the FAA decided to eliminate this requirement. Without the 
requirement to transmit remote identification through the internet, 
limited remote identification UAS is no longer a viable concept. In its 
place, the FAA incorporates a modified regulatory framework under which 
persons can retrofit an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification 
broadcast module to satisfy the remote identification requirements of 
this rule. While the FAA recognizes that there are potential benefits 
associated with establishing a network of Remote ID USS, the FAA 
believes that, for the time being and given the types of unmanned 
aircraft operations that are currently allowed, the broadcast remote 
identification solution fulfills agency and law enforcement needs to 
maintain the safety and security of the airspace of the United States.
    In addition, FAA acknowledges that the weight of additional 
equipment to an unmanned aircraft adversely impacts its performance and 
discusses this cost of the rule qualitatively in the regulatory impact 
analysis for the final rule.
    Comments: Some recreational flyers did not agree with the 
assumption that all modelers belong to the AMA. Commenters also stated 
the FAA incorrectly assumed that most AMA members operate exclusively 
at flight sites and that only 10 percent of members will be displaced 
due to denials of FAA-recognized identification area requests.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the comments on the composition 
of the recreational flyer population. The FAA is aware that not all 
recreational flyers belong to the AMA, and provides clarity on this 
point in the regulatory impact

[[Page 4486]]

analysis of the final rule. The regulatory impact analysis for the 
final rule acknowledges that AMA members do not operate exclusively at 
flight sights. The regulatory impact analysis will reflect that all 
recreational flyers belonging to a community-based organization will 
choose to purchase a remote identification broadcast module to equip 
their unmanned aircraft to be in compliance with the final rule when 
operating outside of the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification 
area. Lastly, the FAA acknowledges comments which state that over 10 
percent of AMA members would be displaced from flight sites due to 
denials of FAA-recognized identification area requests. The FAA 
acknowledges that the public may have access to information or data 
that would enable the FAA to estimate costs with greater accuracy, and 
encourages the public to provide such information with supporting 
documentation.
    Comments: Commenters stated that the FAA underestimated the average 
lifespan of UAS, asserting that some aircraft have decades of useful 
life rather than an average of three years. Commenters requested that 
the data used to estimate the lifespan of UAS be available to the 
public for review. A commenter provided an estimated average lifespan 
of 6 years based on a survey of members in the First Person View 
Freedom Coalition. Other commenters contended that the average lifespan 
of recreational UAS is much lower than 3 years due to accidents.
    FAA Response: The FAA values the information provided by commenters 
touching on the lifespan assumption used for the regulatory impact 
analysis. The 3-year lifespan is not an assumption created specifically 
to analyze the costs and benefits of the remote identification 
rulemaking. Rather, the lifespan is one element used to forecast the 
unmanned aircraft fleet, which is available to the public in a document 
titled FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040.\43\ The FAA continues to seek 
resources and information that inform unmanned aircraft lifespan 
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. 
Pages 41-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Comments on Regulatory Alternatives

    Comments: Multiple commenters suggested alternatives to reduce the 
burden on operators. One alternative would be to grandfather older UAS 
or to allow for a grace period for compliance. Over time as the 
existing unmanned aircraft fleet becomes obsolete, fewer unmanned 
aircraft not equipped with remote identification capabilities would 
make up the market. Some commenters also proposed additional time to 
come into compliance. Others suggested a notification system that would 
allow pilots to call-in to identify themselves before flying their 
unmanned aircraft. Some commenters suggested requiring internet 
transmission of remote identification for BVLOS operations only. 
Several commenters supported the concept of remote identification, but 
suggested establishing simpler alternatives to the rule, such as a 
simple remote beacon that would have less performance impact on smaller 
aircraft. Others preferred to use a simple application on the phone or 
an FAA-approved application to register pre-flight model and location 
to ``check-out'' airspace. Some commenters proposed a government buy-
back program to compensate for the loss of use for aircraft that cannot 
comply through software upgrades or government subsidization. Many 
commenters suggested the FAA should compensate or reimburse UAS owners 
for aircraft rendered obsolete by the rule. One commenter suggested the 
use of network publishing utilizing a network connection to transmit 
remote identification as an alternative to broadcasting which would 
require equipment upgrades. The commenter noted that the proposed 
solution was recommended by the UAS Identification and Tracking 
Aviation Rulemaking Committee in its final report. Commenters express 
concern that the compliance deadline of 1 year is too soon. The 
proposed compliance period would benefit designers and producers of 
remote identification UAS by increasing sales at the expense of UAS 
owners who have to purchase new equipment to comply.
    FAA Response: The FAA values the abundance of commenter suggestions 
for reducing the burden of the rulemaking on operators of unmanned 
aircraft, and will not adopt the network requirement as proposed for 
the time being. Instead, operators of unmanned aircraft can comply with 
the final rule in one of three ways, which include: (1) Operating 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, or (2) attaching a 
remote identification broadcast module to an unmanned aircraft that is 
not able to otherwise broadcast, or (3) operating unmanned aircraft 
within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area.
    The FAA decided to incorporate this concept after reviewing public 
comments and considering the significant concerns raised with respect 
to the remote identification UAS framework. The FAA determined a remote 
identification broadcast module facilitates compliance with this rule 
and meets the safety and security needs of the FAA, national security 
agencies, and law enforcement. The concept is broadcast based and does 
not require a person to connect to the internet to identify remotely, 
as the limited remote identification UAS proposal did. This shift 
allows unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules 
to operate in areas where the internet is unavailable. In addition, by 
making this a broadcast solution, the FAA has determined that the 400-
foot range limitation included in the proposed requirements for limited 
remote identification UAS is no longer warranted and has removed the 
design constraint.

E. Miscellaneous Comments

    Comments: Some commenters expressed concern that the existing 4G 
and LTE cellular networks will be adversely affected by the potential 
increase in usage due to UAS surveillance and monitoring.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the concern that existing 4G and 
LTE cellular networks would be adversely affected by the potential 
increase in usage due to UAS surveillance and monitoring, and did not 
adopt the proposed requirement for network connectivity at this time.
    Comments: The Fourth Branch Project of the Mercatus Center at 
George Mason University suggested that the FAA had not established how 
much risk a UAS without remote identification poses to manned aircraft 
when operating in Class G airspace and away from airports and 
heliports, and noted that increased costs of network remote 
identification as well as dependence on Remote ID USS and internet 
connectivity is likely excessive considering that risk is likely very 
low. Many other comments also noted that given the safety record of UAS 
operators, the safety benefits would be minimal. Some also noted that 
the FAA did not produce data to support the claim of safety benefits. 
DJI also noted that some of the improvements in safety may have 
occurred even without the remote identification rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the comments related to risk, 
and notes that this rule will play a critical role in threat 
discrimination by law enforcement and national security entities, 
similar to radar data for manned aircraft and license plates on road 
vehicles. Law enforcement officials have made clear that it can be very 
difficult to make a decision about the risk posed by a person 
manipulating the

[[Page 4487]]

flight controls of the UAS with the limited information available from 
visually observing an unmanned aircraft. Remote identification 
information will enable better threat discrimination, an immediate and 
appropriate law enforcement response, and an effective follow-on 
investigation. This is because remote identification information can be 
correlated with unmanned aircraft registry information to inform law 
enforcement officers about the registered owner. This information, 
along with the real-time location of the UAS operator, provide critical 
input to a law enforcement officer's decision on whether intervention 
is appropriate. In addition, a careless or clueless operator may be 
introducing unnecessary risk into the airspace of the United States 
without realizing it. Remote identification allows appropriate 
authorities to identify the operator for follow up or education on how 
to operate safely and in compliance with the FAA's rules.

XXI. Guidance Documents

    The FAA is promulgating several guidance documents to supplement 
the requirements in this rule. Copies of the guidance documents are 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The FAA is establishing an advisory circular on the means of 
compliance process for remote identification of unmanned aircraft 
systems. This advisory circular provides guidance on the means of 
compliance process described in part 89. This AC outlines the required 
information for submitting a means of compliance.
    The FAA is establishing an advisory circular on the declaration of 
compliance process for remote identification of unmanned aircraft 
systems. This advisory circular provides guidance on the declaration of 
compliance process described in part 89. This AC outlines the required 
information for submitting a declaration of compliance.
    The FAA is revising AC 107-2, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, to 
describe the requirements of remote identification. The advisory 
circular also describes where the various small UAS are permitted to 
operate.
    The FAA is establishing a new advisory circular for FAA-recognized 
identification areas. This advisory circular provides guidance to 
persons requesting the establishment of an FAA-recognized 
identification area under Sec.  89.210. This AC also provides guidance 
for persons responsible for FAA-recognized identification areas, as 
well as persons operating UAS at FAA-recognized identification areas 
under Sec.  89.115(b).

XXII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. In addition, DOT rulemaking procedures in subpart B 
of 49 CFR part 5 instruct DOT agencies that if the regulatory action is 
expected to impose costs, then the rulemaking shall include either a 
reasoned determination that the benefits outweigh the costs or, if the 
particular rulemaking is mandated by statute or compelling safety need 
notwithstanding a negative cost-benefit assessment, a detailed 
discussion of the rationale supporting the specific regulatory action 
proposed, and an explanation of why a less costly alternative is not an 
option. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) 
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes 
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-
39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing 
United States standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of United States standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment 
of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules 
that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for 
inflation with base year of 1995). The FAA has provided a detailed 
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket of this rulemaking. This 
portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic 
impacts of this rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866; (3) is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's general rulemaking 
procedures at 49 CFR 5.13(a)(1); (4) will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will not create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and 
(5) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold 
identified above.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

1. Key Assumptions and Data Sources
    The analysis of the rule is based on findings from the Unmanned 
Aircraft Systems Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee (UAS-ID ARC), as well as data and information from the FAA 
and industry stakeholders. The analysis for the regulatory evaluation 
is based on the following assumptions and data sources.
     The analysis uses 2020 constant dollars. Year 1 of the 
period of analysis, which would correlate with the effective date of 
the final rule, is used as the base year.
     The FAA uses a 10-year time period of analysis to capture 
the effects of the compliance period and recurring effects of the 
rule.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The FAA typically uses a 5-year time period for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis of UAS rulemakings to align with historical and 
current FAA UAS Forecasts (see https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems.pdf). 
In addition, the FAA acknowledges uncertainty in estimating 
incremental impacts of this proposed rule beyond 5 years due to 
rapid changes in UAS technology and innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The analysis includes the 18-month phase-in period from 
the effective date of the rule for compliance by persons responsible 
for the production of unmanned aircraft. At the end of 30 months from 
the effective date, operators must fly either a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft equipped with 
a remote identification broadcast module, or operate within the 
boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area.
     The FAA uses a three percent and seven percent discount 
rate to quantify present value costs and cost savings as prescribed by 
OMB in Circular A-4.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (2003), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The analysis of costs and cost savings of this rule are 
based on the fleet forecast for small unmanned aircraft as published in 
the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040.\46\ The forecast includes base, 
low, and high scenarios. The analysis provides a range of net impacts 
from low to high based on these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers

[[Page 4488]]

the primary estimate of net impacts of the rule to be the base 
scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020-2040 at 41-63, 
available at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Based on the FAA part 48 unmanned aircraft registry, the 
FAA estimates that 87.6 percent of small unmanned aircraft sold in the 
United States are produced by foreign entities.
     Each unmanned aircraft producer will incur an estimated 
one-time cost of $85 for the purchase of a remote identification 
standard from a consensus standards body.\47\ The serial number 
standard is available at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ https://www.astm.org/Standards/F3411.htm. Accessed August 
4, 2020. The price for the Standard Specification for Remote ID and 
Tracking is listed as $85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA estimates that potentially as many as 191 United 
States and 351 foreign producers would submit a declaration of 
compliance for 391 United States and 891 foreign models of unmanned 
aircraft for FAA during year 2 of the analysis period.\48\ During each 
of the remaining years of the analysis period, the FAA assumes an 
additional nine new producers would submit a declaration of compliance 
annually for one model of unmanned aircraft each, and nine new models 
will be produced by preexisting producers, for a total of eighteen new 
models of unmanned aircraft annually.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Based on analysis of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle 
Systems International (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems & Robotics Database.
    \49\ Based on analysis of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle 
Systems International (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems & Robotics Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA assumes that five percent of the declarations of 
compliance submitted by persons responsible for the production of 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules to the FAA would not be accepted. The 
declaration of compliance would then be rewritten and resubmitted to 
the FAA for acceptance, and the FAA would accept the resubmission.
     Producers will maintain product support and notification 
procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition 
that causes the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module to not to meet 
the requirements of proposed part 89.
     The FAA assigns the United States Department of 
Transportation guidance on the hourly value of travel time savings for 
personal purposes (for limited recreational flyers only). This value is 
equal to $14.37 per hour and is applicable for the 10-year analysis 
period.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Time savings is estimated to be median hourly wage plus 
benefits as described in the U.S. Department of Transportation 
Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in 
Economic Analysis (Sept. 27, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA assumes that all Academy of Model Aeronautics 
(AMA) flying sites, about 2,200 as of this writing,\51\ will submit 
requests to establish FAA-recognized identification areas, and that 90 
percent of the requests will be approved. The remaining 10 percent are 
assumed to be in sensitive areas and therefore will not be approved to 
become an FAA-recognized identification area. The FAA also assumes that 
1,700 United States Army Junior ROTC clubs and 66 institutions 
identified as awarding undergraduate degrees in aerospace engineering 
will submit requests to establish FAA-recognized identification areas, 
and that 90 percent of the requests will be approved as well.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ https://www.modelaircraft.org/club-finder. Accessed August 
26, 2020. The FAA notes that a subset of AMA clubs has flying sites.
    \52\ http://www.usarmyjrotc.com/general/program_overview.php. 
Accessed August 26, 2020. https://ira.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-Engineering-by-Numbers-Engineering-Statistics-UPDATED-15-July-2019.pdf. P. 18. Accessed August 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA estimates it will conduct approximately 1,500 to 
1,600 investigations of UAS incidents annually for each year of the 
analysis period and that each investigation will range between 0 and 40 
hours.\53\ This is used to estimate cost savings from reduced hours for 
FAA UAS investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The FAA conducted 2,002 investigations in FY 2018; 1,995 
investigations in FY 2019; and as of May 18, 2020, the FAA has 
conducted 920 investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA determines the cost of a broadcast module to be 
$50.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The FAA received company proprietary information from 
potential U.S. manufacturers of a broadcast module that may meet 
remote identification requirements. One U.S. manufacturer estimated 
a cost of $50 for a self-contained module with its own power and 
GPS, with a decrease in cost as production volume increases. Another 
U.S. manufacturer stated an estimate would not be available until 
the rule's final requirements were published. Commercially available 
modules that comply with French remote identification laws range 
from 40 euros (equivalent to $47.48 US dollars on 9/14/2020), and 
up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA notes the analysis of this rule reflects industry 
conditions that predate the public health emergency concerning the 
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While there is currently a lack of 
data to forecast the timing of recovery from COVID-19 impacts relative 
to implementation of the rule, the analysis provides information on the 
types of impacts that may be experienced in the future as the economy 
returns to baseline levels.
2. Benefits Summary
    The FAA expects this rule will result in several important benefits 
and enhancements to support safety and security in the airspace of the 
United States. Remote identification provides information that helps 
address existing challenges of the FAA, law enforcement entities, and 
national security agencies responsible for the safety and security of 
the airspace of the United States. As UAS operations increase, so does 
the risk of unmanned aircraft being operated in close proximity to 
manned aircraft or in airspace that is not open to the operations. 
Remote identification provides a means to identify these aircraft and 
locate the person that controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in 
command). It allows law enforcement and national security agencies to 
distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a 
safety or security risk. It permits the FAA and law enforcement to 
conduct oversight of persons operating UAS and to determine whether 
compliance actions, enforcement, educational, training, or other types 
of actions are needed to mitigate safety or security risks and foster 
increased compliance with regulations. Remote identification data also 
informs users of the airspace of the United States of the operations 
that are being conducted at any given moment in a particular airspace.
    The FAA expects this rule will result in important benefits and 
enhancements to support the safe integration of expanded UAS operations 
in the United States airspace. Remote identification provides greater 
situational awareness of UAS operations to airport operators and other 
aircraft in the vicinity of those operations. Manned aircraft, 
especially those operating at low altitudes where UAS operations are 
anticipated to be the most prevalent (such as helicopters and 
agricultural aircraft), could carry the necessary equipment to display 
the location of UAS operating nearby. In addition, towered airports 
could use remote identification information for situational awareness, 
especially for landing and takeoff operations.
3. Cost and Savings Summary
    The costs of this rule include UAS owners including additional 
information when completing the unmanned aircraft certificate of 
registration; UAS operators flying compliant remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or travelling to FAA-recognized identification areas 
to operate without remote identification; the producers of standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft and the producers of broadcast 
modules submitting a declaration of compliance to the FAA for 
acceptance; entities submitting means of compliance to the FAA for 
acceptance; entities submitting

[[Page 4489]]

requests to establish FAA-recognized identification areas; FAA 
approving means of compliance, declarations of compliance, and requests 
for designated flying fields, and developing information technology in 
support of the rule. The cost savings of this rule include relief 
provided to the FAA from avoided aviation safety inspector costs 
resulting from a reduction in hours expended on UAS investigations.
    The FAA bases the analysis of this rule on a fleet forecast for 
small unmanned aircraft that includes base, low, and high scenarios. 
Accordingly, this analysis provides a range of net impacts from low to 
high based on these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers the base 
scenario as the primary estimate of net impacts of this rule. For the 
primary estimate, over a 10 year period of analysis this rule will 
result in present value net costs of $227.1 million at a three percent 
discount rate, with annualized net costs of $26.6 million. At a seven 
percent discount rate, this rule will result in present value net costs 
of $186.5 million, with annualized net costs of $26.6 million. The 
following table summarizes the quantified costs and cost savings of 
this rule for the three forecast scenarios.

                                 Table 2--Net Costs of Final Rule ($Millions) *
                                        [Base scenario--Primary estimate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10 Year present  Annualized (at  10 Year present  Annualized (at
           Affected entity/category              value (at 3%)         3%)        value (at 7%)         7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators..........................            181.3            21.2            144.9            20.6
UAS Producers (US and Foreign)................             33.8             4.0             30.9             4.4
Developers of Remote Identification Means of                2.9             0.3              2.4             0.3
 Compliance...................................
FAA-Recognized Identification Area Requests...              0.6             0.1              0.6             0.1
FAA Costs.....................................             12.1             1.4             10.6             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Costs...............................            230.7            27.0            189.4            27.0
    Cost Savings..............................            (3.6)           (0.4)            (2.9)           (0.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs.................................            227.1            26.6            186.5            26.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Table notes: (i) Column totals may not sum due to rounding and parenthesis, ``( )'', around numbers to indicate
  savings. (ii) The low and high forecast scenarios are not symmetric around the base--please see the forecast
  report for more information. The FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020-2040, available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. The
  forecast provides a base with high and low scenarios.

                                 Table 3--Net Costs of Final Rule ($Millions) *
                                                 [Low scenario]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10 Year present  Annualized (at  10 Year present  Annualized (at
           Affected entity/category              value (at 3%)         3%)        value (at 7%)         7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators..........................            167.7            19.7            134.1            19.1
UAS Producers (US and Foreign)................             33.8             4.0             30.9             4.4
Developers of Remote Identification Means of                2.9             0.3              2.4             0.3
 Compliance...................................
FAA-Recognized Identification Area Requests...              0.6             0.1              0.6             0.1
FAA Costs.....................................             12.1             1.4             10.6             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Costs...............................            217.1            25.4            178.6            25.4
    Cost Savings..............................            (3.5)           (0.4)            (2.8)           (0.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs.................................            213.6            25.0            175.8            25.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table notes: Column totals may not sum due to rounding and parenthesis, ``( )'', around numbers to indicate
  savings.

                                 Table 4--Net Costs of Final Rule ($Millions) *
                                                 [High scenario]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10 Year present  Annualized (at  10 Year present  Annualized (at
           Affected entity/category              value (at 3%)         3%)        value (at 7%)         7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators..........................            200.8            23.5            160.4            22.8
UAS Producers (US and Foreign)................             33.8             4.0             30.9             4.4
Developers of Remote Identification Means of                2.9             0.3              2.4             0.3
 Compliance...................................
FAA-Recognized Identification Area Requests...              0.6             0.1              0.6             0.1
FAA Costs.....................................             12.1             1.4             10.6             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Costs...............................            250.2            29.3            204.9            29.2
    Cost Savings..............................            (3.7)           (0.4)            (3.0)           (0.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs.................................            246.4            28.9            201.9            28.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Table notes: Column totals may not sum due to rounding and parenthesis, ``( )'', around numbers indicate
  savings.

[[Page 4490]]

    The following table presents an itemized list of the base scenario 
or primary estimate of costs and cost savings from this rule.

                        Table 5--Remote Identification Costs and Cost Savings ($Millions)
                                        [Base scenario--Primary estimate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                10 Year present  10 Year present
                                Affected entity                                  value (at 3%)    value (at 7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators Recreational:
    Registration Updates......................................................             0.82             0.67
    Travel Expense (Travel to FAA-recognized Identification Areas)............            85.18            66.17
    Broadcast Module..........................................................            27.15            23.57
    Standard Unmanned Aircraft................................................            51.17            40.68
Part 107:
    Registration..............................................................             2.35             1.92
    Broadcast Module..........................................................             3.62             3.23
    Standard Unmanned Aircraft................................................            10.97             8.65
FAA-recognized Identification Area Requests:
    Letters of Agreement Submission...........................................             0.64             0.56
UAS Manufacturers:
    Declaration of Compliance.................................................            31.53            28.83
    Industry Consensus Standard--Remote Identification........................             0.05             0.05
    Industry Consensus Standard--Serial Number*...............................             0.00             0.00
    Labeling Requirement......................................................             2.22             2.03
Developers of Remote Identification Means of Compliance:
    Industry Consensus Standard...............................................             1.25             1.10
    Developers of Means of Compliance (Others)................................             1.65             1.30
FAA Costs:
    Accept/Not Accept Means of Compliance.....................................             0.15             0.12
    Accept/Not Accept Mfr Declaration of Compliance **........................             0.00             0.00
    Web Portal Update--Registration/Notification..............................             0.73             0.70
    Approve/Disapprove Designated FAA-recognized Identification Areas.........             6.46             5.65
    Website for Receiving Declarations of Compliance..........................             4.72             4.14
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total Costs...........................................................           230.69           189.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Cost Savings: Reduced Hours for FAA UAS Investigations................           (3.58)           (2.85)
        Net Costs.............................................................           227.11           186.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized Net Costs..................................................            26.62            26.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Serial number standard is available at zero cost to manufacturers.
**Automated approval through FAA DroneZone portal at no additional costs.
Note: Column totals may not sum due to rounding.

    The key cost drivers of the rule are the total costs for remote 
identification equipage followed by travel expenses for a select group 
of recreational flyers. Total costs for remote identification equipage 
are about $93 million at a three percent discount rate and about $76 
million at a seven percent discount rate. The annualized equipage cost 
is about $11 million at both a three percent discount rate and a seven 
percent discount rate. This impact represents 40.3 percent of the 
rule's total costs. The cost for a select group of operators to travel 
to an FAA-recognized identification area is 36.9 percent of the rule's 
total costs.
    The FAA expects this rule will also provide important unquantified 
savings and efficiencies from reduced operational costs. The ability to 
identify and locate UAS provides additional situational awareness to 
manned and unmanned aircraft and critical information to law 
enforcement and other government officials. This will become 
increasingly important as the number of UAS operations in all classes 
of airspace grow. The following table summarizes unquantified savings 
from the final rule.

                      Table 6--Unquantified Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Savings                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced obsolescence of        Operators will be able to attach a remote
 unmanned aircraft.             identification broadcast module to their
                                unmanned aircraft that enables them to
                                identify remotely. Without this option,
                                operators would be allowed to only
                                operate within the boundaries of an FAA-
                                recognized identification area.
Refined threat assessment....  Remote identification provides near real-
                                time information to security agencies
                                and law enforcement organizations that
                                will enhance threat assessments.
Promotes safety..............  Availability of near real-time
                                information facilitated by remote
                                identification discourages unsafe flying
                                by operators of unmanned aircraft,
                                thereby promoting safety for other users
                                of the airspace of the United States and
                                for those on the ground.
Supports industry innovation.  Supports future industry and technology
                                innovation by providing a performance-
                                based framework for the development of
                                current and future industry standards
                                and means of compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4491]]

4. Alternatives Considered
    The FAA considered both higher and lower cost alternatives for the 
final rule. The alternatives and the FAA's reasons for rejecting those 
alternatives are discussed below.
i. Alternative Compliance Periods--Producers
    The chosen compliance period to estimate producer costs is 18 
months beyond the effective date of the final rule. The FAA proposed a 
2-year compliance date in the NPRM, and considered it for the final 
rule as well. The reduction in the producer compliance period by 6 
months reflects that the final rule removes the network requirement 
which alleviates technical complexities for producers of unmanned 
aircraft. Though no FAA-accepted means of compliance is currently 
available for producers to build to, there is an ASTM Standard 
Specification for Remote ID and Tracking available. Accordingly, the 
FAA believes it is practical for this industry consensus standard to be 
modified and submitted for acceptance as a means of compliance 6 months 
after the effective date of the final rule, allowing an additional year 
for producers to design, build, and test unmanned aircraft that meet 
the standard.
    The final rule does not preclude earlier producer compliance, and 
there potentially could be economic incentive to comply earlier.
ii. Alternative Operational Compliance Period
    The FAA considered allowing 3 years beyond the effective date of 
the final rule for owners and operators to comply with the remote 
identification requirements of this rule. However, the FAA determined 
that period of time was less preferable because it prolonged safety and 
security risks to air traffic and airports by delaying the ability of 
law enforcement personnel to identify unauthorized UAS operations. To 
reduce the delay in implementing remote identification, the owner/
operator compliance period was reduced from 3 years after the effective 
date of the final rule to 30 months after the effective date of the 
final rule. For UAS purchased prior to the final rule or after the 
final rule is published, a broadcast module could be purchased to 
continue operating the unmanned aircraft for the entirety of its 
lifespan. In addition, the adopted alternative is more likely to reduce 
uncertainty of adverse impacts to producers with inventories of UAS 
produced before the compliance date that would likely not meet the 
remote identification provisions of the proposal.
iii. Requiring ADS-B Out
    The FAA could have required transponders or ADS-B Out for unmanned 
aircraft as a means to identify those aircraft remotely. The FAA is 
prohibiting the use of transponders or ADS-B Out for remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft operations, with limited 
exceptions, for two primary reasons. First, the FAA expects that, due 
to the volume of unmanned aircraft operations projected, the additional 
radio frequency signals would saturate the available spectrum and 
degrade the overall cooperative surveillance system. Second, 
transponders and ADS-B Out do not provide any information about the 
location of control stations or takeoff locations, as these systems 
were designed for manned aircraft. For these reasons, the FAA has 
determined that existing cooperative surveillance systems are incapable 
of supporting unmanned aircraft remote identification. In addition, 
there would be a higher cost to equip under this alternative compared 
to the rule. The cost to equip unmanned aircraft with transponders and 
ADS-B Out would be $3,999 per aircraft.
iv. UAS Service Suppliers
    The final rule considered a network solution that would require 
Remote ID USS to come forward to offer remote identification services 
to individuals operating UAS in the airspace of the United States. 
Throughout its integration of UAS into the airspace of the United 
States, the FAA has taken a phased, incremental approach that fosters 
industry innovation while meeting the safety and security concerns 
presented by the operations. The FAA believes this should be the case 
with remote identification of unmanned aircraft as well and has 
carefully considered the intent of the remote identification of 
unmanned aircraft.
    Though the FAA continues to work toward full integration of UAS 
into the airspace of the United States, the FAA believes that the most 
appropriate step, at this time, is to establish a broadcast based 
remote identification system that provides for immediate awareness of 
unmanned aircraft in the widest variety of settings. The FAA is not 
adopting the requirement to transmit message elements through the 
internet to a Remote ID USS in this rule. The FAA believes broadcast 
alone is sufficient for the time being, given the types of unmanned 
aircraft operations that are currently allowed, to maintain the safety 
and security of the airspace of the United States.
v. Require Network Connectivity and Broadcast Capability
    The FAA considered requiring network connectivity through a USS and 
a broadcast requirement for the final rule, but as adopted the rule 
contains only a broadcast requirement at this time. The FAA recognized 
concerns about an internet connectivity requirement including internet 
availability or connectivity issues, and increased costs for UAS 
upgrades, internet data plans, and Remote ID USS subscriptions. The FAA 
acknowledges that the ability to connect to the internet is dependent 
on a variety of factors including geographic coverage of cellular 
internet networks, wide-scale network disruptions, or natural 
disasters.
    The FAA notes that many current UAS are capable of broadcast but 
may have difficulty with the potential complexity and cost of 
integrating network capabilities to meet the standard remote 
identification requirements proposed in the NPRM. By shifting to the 
broadcast-only requirement, the dependency on an internet connection as 
the sole means of providing remote identification information is 
removed and allows the unmanned aircraft to operate in areas where the 
internet is unavailable. In addition, by incorporating a broadcast 
requirement, the FAA has determined that the 400-foot range limitation 
is no longer warranted and has removed this design constraint.
vi. Requiring Separate Certificate of Aircraft Registration for Each 
Section 44809 Unmanned Aircraft
    This rule retains the requirement for small unmanned aircraft 
owners to pay a $5 registration fee and a $5 renewal fee, but this 
final rule differs from the proposal which required a separate 
registration for each individual aircraft. As a result of the FAA's 
decision to maintain the current registration framework, owners of 
aircraft operated exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must 
only register once every 3 years for all aircraft meeting that 
description. Therefore, those owners would pay the $5 fee one time 
every 3 years, and not a $5 fee for each aircraft registered.
vii. Open FAA-Recognized Identification Areas to Entities Other Than 
CBOs
    The FAA considered allowing educational institutions and State and

[[Page 4492]]

local governments to request FAA-recognized identification areas. The 
intent for allowing FAA-recognized identification areas is to minimize 
the regulatory burden for operators of existing unmanned aircraft used 
exclusively for educational purposes or by State and local government 
that do not have remote identification equipment, while still meeting 
the intent of the rule.
    By identifying a defined location where operations of unmanned 
aircraft without remote identification would be occurring, the FAA-
recognized identification area itself becomes the form of 
identification. Though the FAA considers that FAA-recognized 
identification areas may not be necessary for the majority of unmanned 
aircraft operators under this rule with the addition of the remote 
identification broadcast module option, the FAA recognizes an ongoing 
need for some operators such as educational science, technology, 
engineering, and math programs to have an option for flying their 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification. To support science, 
technology, engineering, and math programs and encourage participation 
in aviation for educational purposes, this rule will expand eligibility 
to educational institutions including institutions of primary and 
secondary education, trade schools, colleges, and universities. As 
adopted, community-based organizations will continue to be eligible to 
apply.
    The FAA is including educational institutions at all levels in 
recognition of the critical role they play in providing pathways to 
aviation careers, whether through science, technology, engineering, and 
math curricula; the building and flight of unmanned aircraft; or other 
educational activities. The FAA determines it is appropriate to allow 
these educational institutions to request the establishment of FAA-
recognized identification areas for their educational purposes. The FAA 
believes that extending the ability to request establishment of FAA-
recognized identification areas to educational institutions will 
provide a greater number of convenient locations for those operations 
and reduce costs associated with travel time to FAA-recognized 
identification areas.
    The FAA also considered expanding eligibility for FAA-recognized 
identification areas to State and local governments. The FAA considers 
that expanding eligibility to CBOs and educational institutions at all 
levels is sufficient, and declines to expand eligibility to State and 
local governments. With the addition of the remote identification 
broadcast module option, the FAA considers there is now an available 
option for unmanned aircraft operators to retrofit their unmanned 
aircraft produced prior to the production compliance date. Expanding 
eligibility to State and local governments could expand the scope of 
FAA-recognized identification areas to an extent that would undermine 
the effectiveness of remote identification.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the Agency determines that it will, section 604 of the Act 
requires agencies to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
describing the impact of final rules on small entities.
    The FAA has determined this rule will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under the 
requirements in section 604 of the RFA, the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis must address:
     A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
     A statement of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
statement of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a 
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such 
comments;
     The response of the Agency to any comments filed by the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in 
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change 
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the 
comments;
     A description of and an estimate of the number of small 
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such 
estimate is available;
     A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of 
the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement 
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the 
report or record; and
     A description of the steps the Agency has taken to 
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent 
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a 
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the Agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
1. A Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
    The remote identification of unmanned aircraft is necessary to 
ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of 
the United States. The remote identification framework provides 
unmanned aircraft-specific data, which could be used in tandem with new 
technologies and infrastructure to facilitate advanced operational 
capabilities (such as detect-and-avoid and aircraft-to-aircraft 
communications that support beyond visual line of sight operations). 
Remote identification of unmanned aircraft will allow the FAA, national 
security agencies, and law enforcement entities, to discern compliant 
airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.
    Current rules for registration and marking of unmanned aircraft 
facilitate the identification of the owners of unmanned aircraft, but 
normally only upon physical examination of the aircraft. Existing 
electronic surveillance technologies, like transponders and ADS-B, were 
considered as potential solutions for the remote identification of 
unmanned aircraft but were determined to be unsuitable due to the lack 
of infrastructure for these technologies at lower altitudes and 
potential saturation of available radio frequency spectrum. Currently, 
the lack of real-time data regarding unmanned aircraft operations 
affects the ability of the FAA to oversee the safety and security of 
the airspace of the United States, creates challenges for national 
security agencies and law enforcement entities in identifying threats, 
and impedes the further integration of UAS into the airspace of the 
United States. The FAA addresses

[[Page 4493]]

the identification issues associated with UAS by requiring the use of 
systems and technology to enable the remote identification of unmanned 
aircraft.
    The final rule is consistent with the FAA's missions of promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft through regulations necessary for safety 
in air commerce and national security and promoting the safe and 
efficient use of the navigable airspace. The rule also strengthens the 
FAA's oversight of UAS operations and supports efforts of law 
enforcement to address and mitigate disruptive behavior and hazards, 
which may threaten the safety and security of the airspace of the 
United States, other UAS, manned aviation, and persons and property on 
the ground. The near real-time access to remote identification 
information will also assist Federal security partners in threat 
discrimination--allowing them to identify an operator and make an 
informed decision regarding the need to take actions to mitigate a 
perceived security or safety risk. The final rule enhances the FAA's 
ability to monitor compliance with applicable regulations; contributes 
to the FAA's ability to undertake compliance, enforcement, and 
educational actions required to mitigate safety risks; and 
incrementally advances the safe and secure integration of UAS into the 
airspace of the United States.
    Statement of the legal basis. The FAA promulgates this rulemaking 
pursuant to various authorities. First, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and 
(2), the FAA is directed to issue regulations: (1) To ensure the safety 
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern the 
flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and 
identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the 
ground.
    Second, under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), the FAA must promote safe 
flight of civil aircraft by prescribing regulations the FAA finds 
necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
    Third, under section 2202 of Public Law 114-190, the Administrator 
must convene industry stakeholders to facilitate the development of 
consensus standards for remotely identifying operators and owners of 
UAS and associated unmanned aircraft and to issue regulations or 
guidance based on any standards developed.
    Fourth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805, the Administrator must establish a 
process for, among other things, accepting risk-based consensus safety 
standards related to the design and production of small UAS.
    Fifth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805(b)(7), the Administrator must take 
into account any consensus identification standard regarding remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft developed pursuant to section 2202 
of Public Law 114-190.
    Sixth, under 49 U.S.C. 44809(f), the Administrator is not 
prohibited from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned 
aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception 
for limited recreational operations of UAS. Among other things, this 
authority extends to rules relating to the registration and marking of 
unmanned aircraft and the standards for remotely identifying owners and 
operators of UAS and associated unmanned aircraft.
    Seventh, the FAA has authority to regulate registration of aircraft 
under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44106 and 44110-44113, which require aircraft to 
be registered as a condition of operation and establish registration 
requirements and registration processes.
    Lastly, this rulemaking is promulgated under the authority 
described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules, and 49 U.S.C. 
40101(d), which authorizes the FAA to consider in the public interest, 
among other things, the enhancement of safety and security as the 
highest priorities in air commerce, the regulation of civil and 
military operations in the interest of safety and efficiency, and 
assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws 
related to regulation of controlled substances, to the extent 
consistent with aviation safety.
    Objectives for the final rule. The FAA is integrating UAS 
operations into the airspace of the United States through a phased, 
incremental, and risk-based approach.\55\ On June 28, 2016, the FAA 
achieved a major step towards UAS integration when it issued the final 
rule for Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems.\56\ This was one of multiple UAS-related regulatory actions 
taken by the FAA to enable the safe integration of UAS into the 
airspace of the United States. As technology progresses and the utility 
of UAS increases, the FAA anticipates a need for further rulemaking to 
continue to foster the safe, secure, and efficient use of the airspace 
of the United States. The FAA believes that the next step in the 
regulatory process involves the enactment of regulatory requirements to 
enable the remote identification of UAS operating in the airspace of 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Consult http://www.faa.gov/uas for additional information 
regarding UAS operations.
    \56\ 81 FR 42064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action would implement requirements for the remote 
identification of UAS. The remote identification of UAS in the airspace 
of the United States would address safety, security, and law 
enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these 
aircraft into the airspace.
2. A Statement of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments 
in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement 
of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any 
Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
    FAA is not aware of any comments specific to the regulatory 
flexibility analysis; however, many commenters stated that small 
businesses would be adversely affected. Commenters that stated that 
compliance with the remote identification requirements as proposed 
would be too costly for many recreational operators and businesses, 
many of which are small. The commenters suggested that many 
recreational operators and owners, especially those involved in flying 
and building remote controlled aircraft, would cease pursuing the hobby 
or business, because of the cost to either upgrade or replace existing 
aircraft to meet the proposed standard and the cost to subscribe to 
internet service. Commenters suggested that there does not exist an 
off-the-shelf solution, such as software upgrades, to retrofit most 
recreational aircraft.
    The FAA has attempted to alleviate complexity and costs of 
compliance for all operators of unmanned aircraft by removing the 
network requirement from the final rule and allowing remote 
identification using a stand-alone broadcast module at this time. The 
concept allows unmanned aircraft built without remote identification 
(e.g., existing unmanned aircraft fleet, home-built unmanned aircraft) 
to be operated outside of FAA-recognized identification areas because 
the broadcast modules enable the unmanned aircraft to broadcast the 
remote identification message elements required by this rule.
    The FAA decided to incorporate this new concept into this rule 
after reviewing public comments and considering the significant 
concerns raised with respect to the remote identification UAS 
framework. The FAA determined a remote identification broadcast module 
facilitates compliance with this rule and meets the safety and security 
needs under this rule of the

[[Page 4494]]

FAA, national security agencies, and law enforcement. The concept is 
broadcast-based and does not require a person to connect to the 
internet to identify remotely, as the limited remote identification UAS 
proposal did. This shift allows unmanned aircraft equipped with remote 
identification broadcast modules to operate in areas where the internet 
is unavailable. In addition, by making this a broadcast solution, the 
FAA has determined that the 400-foot range limitation included in the 
proposed requirements for limited remote identification UAS is no 
longer warranted and has removed the design constraint.
3. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response 
to the Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to 
the Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments
    The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business did not submit 
comments to the proposed rule.
4. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate is 
Available
    The rule could apply to three communities of small entities: 
Producers of unmanned aircraft, entities that either own or operate 
UAS, and community-based organizations.
    For purposes of this rulemaking, the FAA estimates that there are 
approximately 188 United States entities that produce small unmanned 
aircraft.\57\ Out of these 188 United States entities, data on entity 
size, as defined by number of employees, was available for 157 of the 
entities. Out of these 157, 132 are categorized as small, 11 are 
categorized as medium, and 12 are categorized as large.\58\ Data for 
the remaining entities was not available and thus the categorization by 
entity size could not be determined, however a majority of these 
entities are believed to be small. NAICS code 336411 is titled 
``Miscellaneous Aircraft Manufacturing,'' and includes the manufacture 
of unmanned and robotic aircraft. The SBA defines industries within 
this code to be small if they employ 1,500 employees or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ AUVSI Air Platform Database. Accessed July 2020.
    \58\ This is based on AUVSI criteria for number of employees. 
The AUVSI criteria for a manufacturer of unmanned aircraft to be 
identified as a small entity is 49 employees or fewer. The criteria 
to be identified as a medium entity is 50-499 employees. Large 
entities are determined to have 500 or more employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next group of entities affected by the final rule are owners 
and operators of UAS that conduct operations for purposes other than 
recreational. While the FAA does not collect entity size information 
when owners register unmanned aircraft, the Association for Unmanned 
Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) has performed an analysis of part 
107 waivers issued and determined that 92 percent of the waivers were 
issued to entities with fewer than 100 employees.\59\ Based on the 
AUVSI analysis, the FAA determines that a majority of entities 
operating unmanned aircraft for other than recreational purposes are 
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ (AUVSI) Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 
International. As of April 2020, 4,144 waivers had been issued. For 
those waivers that could be identified by entity size, 85.5 percent 
were granted to entities with less than 10 employees), and 6.7 
percent were granted to entities with 10 to 100 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model aircraft clubs \60\ currently operating flying sites are 
affected by this rulemaking. To have an established flying site 
approved as an FAA-recognized identification area, these organizations 
would be required to submit a request to the FAA. Based on an AMA 
(Academy of Model Aeronautics) membership of 180,000,\61\ it is 
estimated that each flying club has, on average, 82 members.\62\ For 
NAICS code 713990 ``All Other Amusement and Recreation Activities'' the 
SBA standard for small entity size is less than $7.5 million in annual 
receipts. Financial records for these individual community-based 
organizations are not public information, but it is believed that none 
have receipts totaling $7.5 million, and thus each is considered a 
small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/whatisama.aspx; more than 2,500 AMA 
clubs.
    \61\ http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2020/02/AMA-Letter-to-Sec-Chao-on-Remote-ID-Hobbyist-Impact-2-12-20-.pdf.
    \62\ Ibid. Based on 2020 AMA membership of 180,000 and 
approximately 2,200 AMA fields, the average membership per field is 
estimated to be 82 individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA determines that a majority of entities impacted by this 
proposed rule are small. Therefore, the FAA determines this proposed 
rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.
5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the 
Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement and 
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report 
or Record
    This rule imposes recordkeeping requirements. The FAA proposed 
changes to the registration requirements for all unmanned aircraft, 
including small unmanned aircraft, in the NPRM. While the FAA is not 
finalizing all of the registration changes proposed, this final rule 
finalizes certain requirements for all persons registering unmanned 
aircraft. As of the effective date of this final rule, an applicant 
requesting registration of an unmanned aircraft is required to submit 
the following information: The applicant's name, physical address, 
email address, and telephone number(s); the aircraft manufacturer and 
model name; the serial number of the standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or the serial number of the remote identification 
broadcast module; and other information as required by the 
Administrator.
    Next, the FAA requires persons who develop standards that the FAA 
may accept as a means of compliance to submit those standards for 
review and acceptance by the FAA. A person who submits a means of 
compliance is required to retain the data for as long as the means of 
compliance is accepted, plus an additional 24 calendar months.
    The FAA is requiring persons who produce unmanned aircraft with 
remote identification to meet the minimum performance requirements of 
the rule using an FAA-accepted means of compliance. To demonstrate the 
unmanned aircraft has been produced to meet the minimum performance 
requirements using an FAA-accepted means of compliance, persons 
responsible for the production of unmanned aircraft would be required 
to submit to the FAA a declaration of compliance. A person who submits 
a declaration of compliance is required to retain the data submitted 
for 24 calendar months after the cessation of production of the 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification.
    The rule requires a producer to label the unmanned aircraft to show 
that it was produced with remote identification technology capable of 
meeting the rule. The labeling requirement would inform the operator 
that the unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct operations within the 
airspace of the United States.

[[Page 4495]]

    Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and unmanned 
aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast module must be 
designed and produced to broadcast certain message elements using 
unlicensed radio frequency spectrum. The disclosure of this information 
in the form of message elements is necessary to comply with the 
statutory requirement to develop standards for remotely identifying 
operators and owners of UAS and associated unmanned aircraft. Remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft would provide airspace awareness to 
the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement entities, and 
other government officials which could be used to distinguish compliant 
airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.
    Authorized representatives of CBOs and educational institutions may 
request the establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area by 
submitting an application in a form and manner acceptable to the 
Administrator. The application will collect certain information 
regarding the location and requirements of the flying site, and require 
the CBO representative to confirm certain information regarding the 
site.
6. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected
    The FAA considered both higher and lower cost alternatives as part 
of the proposed rule because the RFA requires the Agency to consider 
significant regulatory alternatives that meet the Agency's statutory 
objectives and minimize the costs to small entities. The FAA rejected 
the costlier alternatives due to policy considerations and the undue 
burden imposed on small unmanned aircraft operators. The less costly 
alternatives and the FAA's reasons for either rejecting those 
alternatives, or adopting them for the final rule, are discussed below.
i. Alternative Compliance Periods--Producers
    The chosen compliance period to estimate producer costs is 18 
months beyond the effective date of the final rule. The FAA proposed a 
2-year compliance date in the NPRM, and considered it for the final 
rule as well. The reduction in the producer compliance period by 6 
months reflects that the final rule removes the network requirement for 
the time being, which alleviates technical complexities for producers 
of unmanned aircraft. Though no FAA-accepted means of compliance is 
currently available for producers to build to, there is an ASTM 
Standard Specification for remote identification and tracking 
available. Accordingly, the FAA believes it is practical for this 
industry consensus standard to be modified and submitted for acceptance 
as a means of compliance 6 months after the effective date of the final 
rule, allowing an additional year for producers to design, build, and 
test unmanned aircraft that meet the standard.
    The FAA has not identified or analyzed an alternative based on the 
final rule's requirements. The rule does not preclude earlier producer 
compliance, and there potentially could be economic incentive to comply 
earlier.
ii. Alternative Operational Compliance Periods
    The FAA considered allowing 3 years beyond the effective date of 
the final rule for owners and operators to comply with the remote 
identification requirements of this rule. However, the FAA determined 
that period of time was less preferable because it prolonged safety and 
security risks to air traffic and airports by delaying the ability of 
law enforcement personnel to identify unauthorized UAS operations. To 
reduce the delay in implementing remote identification, the owner/
operator compliance period was reduced from 3 years after the effective 
date of the final rule to 30 months after the effective date of the 
final rule. For UAS purchased prior to the final rule or after the 
final rule is published, a stand-alone broadcast module could be 
purchased to continue operating the unmanned aircraft for its natural 
lifespan. Permitting stand-alone broadcast modules is a simple and 
minimally burdensome solution that lowers the cost for existing 
manufactured and amateur-built unmanned aircraft to meet the remote 
identification requirements via broadcast. In addition, this 
alternative is likely to reduce uncertainty of adverse impacts to 
producers with inventories of unmanned aircraft produced before the 
compliance date that would likely not meet the remote identification 
provisions of the proposal.
iii. Require Network Connectivity and Broadcast Capability
    The FAA considered requiring network connectivity through a USS in 
addition to the broadcast requirement that the final rule adopts. 
However, the FAA recognized concerns about an internet connectivity 
requirement including internet availability or connectivity issues; 
increased costs for unmanned aircraft upgrades, internet data plans, 
and Remote ID USS subscriptions; and reduced air and ground risk when 
operating in remote areas with less air traffic and lower population 
density. The FAA acknowledges that the ability to connect to the 
internet is dependent on a variety of factors including geographic 
coverage of cellular internet networks, wide-scale network disruptions, 
or natural disasters.
    There are some remote areas where an operator cannot connect to the 
internet, such as locations where cellular or other internet signals 
are not available or sufficient to establish and maintain a connection 
to a Remote ID USS. While loss of the broadcast capability is an 
indication of a remote identification equipment failure, loss of 
connectivity to the internet or a Remote ID USS could be attributed to 
a lack of internet availability that is outside the control of the UAS 
operator. A functioning broadcast capability is necessary for remote 
identification information to be available in areas that do not have 
internet availability. Therefore, the proposed regulations have been 
updated to reflect that the required remote identification message 
elements must be broadcast from the unmanned aircraft, with no internet 
connectivity or Remote ID USS transmission requirements.
    The FAA notes that many current unmanned aircraft are capable of 
broadcasting information but may have difficulty with the potential 
complexity and cost of integrating network capabilities to meet 
proposed standard remote identification requirements. By incorporating 
the broadcast-only requirement, the dependency on an internet 
connection as the sole means of providing remote identification 
information is removed, and allows the unmanned aircraft to operate in 
areas where the internet is unavailable. In addition, by incorporating 
a broadcast requirement, the FAA has determined that the 400-foot range 
limitation is no longer warranted and has removed this design 
constraint. The previously proposed limited remote identification UAS 
concept is being replaced with the remote identification broadcast 
module to provide a simpler, cost-effective

[[Page 4496]]

method for existing and amateur-built unmanned aircraft to meet the 
remote identification requirements.
iv. Requiring Separate Certificate of Aircraft Registration for Each 
Section 44809 Unmanned Aircraft
    This rule retains the requirement for small unmanned aircraft 
owners to pay a $5 registration fee and a $5 renewal fee, though this 
rule differs from the proposal in the NPRM to require a separate 
registration for each individual aircraft. As a result of the FAA's 
decision to maintain the current registration framework, owners of 
aircraft operated exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must 
only register once for all aircraft meeting that description. 
Therefore, those owners would pay the $5 fee one time every 3 years, 
and not a $5 fee for each aircraft registered.
v. Open FAA-Recognized Identification Areas to Entities Other Than CBOs
    The FAA considered allowing educational institutions and State and 
local governments to request FAA-recognized identification areas if it 
would reduce regulatory burden while meeting the intent of the rule.
    By identifying a defined location where operations of UAS without 
remote identification would be occurring, the FAA-recognized 
identification area itself becomes the form of identification. Though 
the FAA considers that FAA-recognized identification areas may not be 
necessary for the majority of unmanned aircraft operators under this 
rule with the addition of the remote identification broadcast module 
option, the FAA recognizes an ongoing need for some operators such as 
educational science, technology, engineering, and math programs to have 
an option for operating without remote identification. To support 
science, technology, engineering, and math programs and encourage 
participation in aviation for educational purposes, this rule will 
expand eligibility to educational institutions including institutions 
of primary and secondary education, trade schools, colleges, and 
universities. As adopted, community-based organizations will continue 
to be eligible to apply.
    The FAA is including educational institutions at all levels in 
recognition of the critical role they play in providing pathways to 
aviation careers, whether through science, technology, engineering, and 
math curricula; the building and flight of unmanned aircraft; or other 
educational activities. The FAA determines it is appropriate to allow 
these educational institutions to request the establishment of FAA-
recognized identification areas. The FAA believes that extending the 
ability to request establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas 
to educational institutions will provide more convenient locations for 
those operations and reduce costs associated with travel time to FAA-
recognized identification areas.
    The FAA also considered expanding eligibility for FAA-recognized 
identification areas to State and local governments. The FAA considers 
that expanding eligibility to CBOs and educational institutions at all 
levels is sufficient, and declines to expand eligibility to State and 
local governments. With the addition of the remote identification 
broadcast module option, the FAA considers there is now an available 
option for operators to retrofit their unmanned aircraft produced prior 
to the production compliance date. Expanding eligibility to State and 
local governments could expand the scope of FAA-recognized 
identification areas to an extent that would undermine the 
effectiveness of remote identification.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for United States standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and 
determined that it ensures the safety of the American public and does 
not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, the FAA does 
not consider this final rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to 
foreign commerce.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any 1 year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of about $155 million in lieu of $100 
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA sought public 
comments on all of the information collections being established or 
revised in this rule. The FAA did not receive any comments specific to 
the information collection-related aspects of the proposed rule. The 
FAA is implementing these collections based on the requirements of this 
rule as published in the NPRM.
    Five new information collections are established as part of this 
rule.
1. New Information Collection: 2120-0785: Additional Elements for Small 
Unmanned Aircraft Registration System
    This rule finalizes several changes to the registration 
requirements for small unmanned aircraft registering under part 48. 
Specifically, the FAA is establishing a new information collection to 
add the following information to the list of information collected upon 
registration or registration renewal of small unmanned aircraft under 
information collection 2120-0765, Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration 
System:
    (1) Applicant's telephone number(s) and, for an applicant other 
than an individual, the telephone number(s) of the authorized 
representative.
    (2) For any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, the 
serial number issued by the manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft in 
accordance with the design and production requirements of part 89. The 
serial number provided in this application must not be listed on more 
than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the same time.
    (3) For any unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification 
broadcast module, the serial number issued by the manufacturer of the 
remote identification broadcast module in accordance with the design 
and production requirements of part 89. An applicant may submit the 
serial number

[[Page 4497]]

of more than one remote identification broadcast module as part of the 
application for aircraft registration under Sec.  48.105. The serial 
number of a remote identification broadcast module provided in this 
application must not be listed on more than one Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration at the same time.
    The FAA recognizes that persons who currently register their small 
unmanned aircraft other than exclusively for limited recreational 
operations are already required to provide the manufacturer, model, and 
serial number, if available. Therefore, these persons will only need to 
update their registration with one or more telephone numbers.
    Persons who have registered their unmanned aircraft exclusively for 
limited recreational operations will need to provide one or more 
telephone numbers, and will need to list one or more unmanned aircraft 
serial numbers or remote identification broadcast module serial numbers 
if they wish to operate their unmanned aircraft outside FAA-recognized 
identification areas.
    Use: The FAA would use the telephone number, manufacturer, model, 
and serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast module to assist with the remote identification of unmanned 
aircraft systems. The serial number, which may be broadcast as the 
unique identifier of an unmanned aircraft, would help to identify the 
aircraft and associate the aircraft with its owner. The FAA would use 
the telephone number of the owner to disseminate safety and security-
related information to the registrant as well as issues related to 
compliance.

                Table 7--Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration--Incremental Hourly Burden and Cost
                                                     [$Mil.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total cost
                             Year                               Registrations    Hourly burden       ($Mil.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................          552,046            9,201            $0.29
2............................................................          819,428           13,657             0.37
3............................................................          748,983           12,483             0.36
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................        2,120,457           35,341             1.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.

2. New Information Collection: 2120-0782, Identification of Foreign-
Registered Civil Unmanned Aircraft Operating in the Airspace of the 
United States
    The FAA is extending the operational requirements of part 89 to 
persons operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United States. 
These persons must comply with the remote identification requirements, 
which means that these persons are required to operate foreign civil 
unmanned aircraft that qualify as standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft, unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote 
identification broadcast module, or that have no remote identification 
equipment, but are operated within an FAA-recognized identification 
area.
    The FAA will allow a person to operate foreign-registered civil 
unmanned aircraft in the United States only if the person submits a 
notice of identification to the Administrator. The notice is required 
to have the following information to allow FAA to associate an unmanned 
aircraft to a responsible person:
    (1) The name of the person operating the foreign registered civil 
unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the 
person's authorized representative.
    (2) The physical address of the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the physical address for the person's authorized 
representative. If the operator or authorized representative does not 
receive mail at the physical address, a mailing address must also be 
provided.
    (3) The telephone number(s) where the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the person's authorized representative can be reached while 
in the United States.
    (4) The email address of the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the email address of the person's authorized 
representative.
    (5) The unmanned aircraft manufacturer and model name.
    (6) The serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module.
    (7) The country of registration of the unmanned aircraft.
    (8) The registration number.
    Once a person submits a notice of identification, the FAA will 
issue a confirmation of identification. A person operating a foreign-
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States will have to 
maintain the confirmation of identification at the unmanned aircraft' 
control station, and will have to produce it when requested by the FAA 
or a law enforcement officer. The holder of a confirmation of 
identification will have to ensure that the information provided 
remains accurate and is current prior to operating a foreign-registered 
civil unmanned aircraft in the United States.
    Use: The FAA uses information provided by operators of foreign-
registered civil unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the 
United States to identify those aircraft.

                                                            Table 8--Notice of Identification
                                                                       [Unit cost]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Minutes to
                                      establish    Additional     Total      Part 107  opportunity cost  of time    Recreational flyer  opportunity cost
                Year                   account    minutes per    minutes             ($0.794/minute) \64\              of time  ($0.242/minute) \65\
                                         \63\       aircraft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................            5            1            6  $4.76/notification...................  $1.45/notification.
2..................................            5            1            6  4.76/notification....................  1.45/notification.

[[Page 4498]]

 
3..................................            5            1            6  4.76/notification....................  1.45/notification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/2015-12-13_2120-AK82_RIA.pdf. See Page 13 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 
Interim Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation for the Registration and 
Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft. RIN 2120-AK82.
    \64\ The hourly wage earned by part 107 operators is estimated 
to be $33.33 per hour. The fully-burdened hourly wage (compensation 
+ benefits) uses a load factor 1.43 for a total of $47.66 per hour. 
($0.794 per minute).
    \65\ Department of Transportation Departmental Guidance on 
Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis, September 27, 2016. 
Table 4 Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time Savings, Page 17. 
In constant dollars, the hourly value of time for personal travel is 
$14.52 per hour ($.242 per minute). This value is used as a proxy 
for the value of time of someone operating UAS for recreational 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. New Information Collection: 2120-0781, Remote Identification Means 
of Compliance, Declaration of Compliance, and Labeling Requirements
i. Means of Compliance
    The FAA is requiring persons who develop standards that the FAA may 
accept as means of compliance for the production of standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast 
modules to submit those standards for review and acceptance by the FAA. 
The means of compliance will include requirements for producer 
demonstration of how the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module performs its 
intended functions and meets the performance requirements by analysis, 
ground test, or flight test, as appropriate. A person who submits a 
means of compliance that is accepted by the FAA is required to retain 
the following data for as long as the means of compliance is accepted 
and an additional 24 calendar months: All documentation and 
substantiating data submitted for the acceptance of the means of 
compliance; records of all test procedures, methodology, and other 
procedures, if applicable; and any other information necessary to 
justify and substantiate how the means of compliance enables compliance 
with the remote identification requirements of part 89.
    Use: The FAA uses the means of compliance as a way for persons 
responsible for the production of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements for remote identification 
of unmanned aircraft.

                                                   Table 9--Means of Compliance Hourly Burden and Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Means of
                          Year                              compliance      Total pages      Hours per      Total hours   Cost per  hour    Total cost
                                                             submitted                         page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................               1              12               1              12          $94.52       $1,134.24
2.......................................................               1              12               1              12           94.52        1,134.24
3.......................................................               1              12               1              12           94.52        1,134.24
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................               3              36               3              36  ..............        3,402.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.

ii. Declaration of Compliance
    The FAA is requiring persons responsible for the production of 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules to produce those unmanned aircraft and 
broadcast modules to meet the minimum performance requirements of the 
rule using an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
    To demonstrate that a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft has been produced using an FAA-accepted means of compliance, 
producers are required to submit to the FAA a declaration of compliance 
containing:
     The name, physical address, telephone number, and email 
address of the person responsible for production of the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft.
     The unmanned aircraft make and model.
     The unmanned aircraft's serial number, or the range of 
serial numbers for which the person responsible for production is 
declaring compliance.
     The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio 
frequency equipment used and integrated into the unmanned aircraft.
     The means of compliance used in the design and production 
of the unmanned aircraft.
     Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial 
declaration or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of 
compliance is an amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
     A declaration that the person responsible for the 
production of the unmanned aircraft:
    [cir] Can demonstrate that the unmanned aircraft was designed and 
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements of standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft by using an FAA-accepted means 
of compliance.
    [cir] Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its 
facilities, technical data, and any unmanned aircraft produced with 
remote identification, and to witness any tests necessary to determine 
compliance with part 89, subpart D.
    [cir] Will perform independent audits on a recurring basis, and 
whenever the

[[Page 4499]]

FAA provides notice of noncompliance or of potential noncompliance, to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of subpart F of part 89, 
and will provide the results of those audits to the FAA upon request.
    [cir] Will maintain product support and notification procedures to 
notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes 
the unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of subpart F 
of part 89, within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes 
aware of the defect or condition.
     A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency 
equipment is used and is integrated into the unmanned aircraft without 
modification to its authorized radio frequency parameters.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ As part of the acceptance process, the FAA will rely on an 
applicant's statement that the equipment complies with FCC 
regulations. The FAA's acceptance of a declaration of compliance is 
not a determination that the equipment is in compliance with FCC 
regulations. The FAA notes that an applicant who falsely asserts 
that the equipment is in compliance with FCC regulations may be 
subject to civil and criminal penalties, as well as administrative 
action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 14 CFR 89.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To demonstrate that a remote identification broadcast module has 
been produced using an FAA-accepted means of compliance, producers are 
required to submit to the FAA a declaration of compliance containing:
     The name, physical address, telephone number, and email 
address of the person responsible for production of the remote 
identification broadcast module.
     The remote identification broadcast module make and model.
     The remote identification broadcast module serial number, 
or the range of serial numbers for which the person responsible for 
production is declaring compliance.
     The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio 
frequency equipment used and integrated into the remote identification 
broadcast module.
     The means of compliance used in the design and production 
of the remote identification broadcast module.
     Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial 
declaration or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of 
compliance is an amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
     A declaration that the person responsible for the 
production of the remote identification broadcast module:
    [cir] Can demonstrate that the broadcast module was designed and 
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements of remote 
identification broadcast modules by using an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance.
    [cir] Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its 
facilities, technical data, and any remote identification broadcast 
modules produced, and to witness any tests necessary to determine 
compliance with part 89, subpart D.
    [cir] Will perform independent audits on a recurring basis, and 
whenever the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or of potential 
noncompliance, to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 
subpart F of part 89, and will provide the results of those audits to 
the FAA upon request.
    [cir] Will maintain product support and notification procedures to 
notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes 
the remote identification broadcast module to no longer meet the 
requirements of subpart F of part 89, within 15 calendar days of the 
date the person becomes aware of the defect or condition.
    [cir] Will make available instructions for installing and operating 
the remote identification broadcast module to any person operating an 
unmanned aircraft with the remote identification broadcast module.
     A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency 
equipment is used and is integrated into the remote identification 
broadcast module without modification to its authorized radio frequency 
parameters, and a statement that instructions have been provided for 
installation of 47 CFR part 15-compliant remote identification 
broadcast module without modification to the broadcast module's 
authorized radio frequency parameters.
    A person who submits a declaration of compliance that is accepted 
by the FAA is required to retain the following data for 24 calendar 
months after the cessation of production of the standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
module: The means of compliance, all documentation, and substantiating 
data related to the means of compliance used; records of all test 
results; and any other information necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with the means of compliance so that the unmanned aircraft or broadcast 
module meets the remote identification requirements of part 89.
    Use: The FAA uses the declaration of compliance to determine that 
the person responsible for the production of standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
modules has demonstrated compliance with the requirements for remote 
identification of unmanned aircraft.

                                               Table 10--Declaration of Compliance Hourly Burden and Cost
                                                                         [$Mil]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Declaration of     Pages per
                          Year                               compliance     declaration      Hours per    Hourly  burden  Cost per  hour    Total cost
                                                             submitted     of compliance       page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2.......................................................         1,346.1              50               1          67,305          $83.79           $5.64
3.......................................................            18.9              50               1             945           83.79            0.08
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................           1,365  ..............  ..............          68,250           83.79            5.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.

iii. Labeling
    For standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 
identification broadcast modules, the rule requires the person 
responsible for production of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module 
to label the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module to show that it was 
produced with remote identification technology that meets the 
requirements of the rule. The label would be in English and be legible, 
prominent, and permanently affixed to the unmanned aircraft or 
broadcast module. The proposed labeling

[[Page 4500]]

requirement assists the operator to know that his or her unmanned 
aircraft or broadcast module is eligible to conduct operations within 
the airspace of the United States.
    Use: The labeling requirement assists the FAA and owners and 
operators of unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules to determine if 
the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module meets the remote 
identification requirements of the rule.

                              Table 11--Labeling Requirement Hourly Burden and Cost
                                                     [$Mil.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of       Hours per
              Year                   platforms        design       Hourly burden   Cost per hour    Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2...............................           1,282               2           2,564          $83.79          $0.215
3...............................              18               2              36           83.79           0.003
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           1,300  ..............           2,600           83.79           0.218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.

4. New Information Collection: 2120-0783, Remote Identification Message 
Elements
    Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and unmanned 
aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast module must be 
designed and produced to broadcast certain message elements using 
unlicensed radio frequency spectrum. The remote identification 
requirements to broadcast the message elements are consistent with the 
statutory authority allowing FAA to promulgate rules generally 
applicable to unmanned aircraft relating to the standards for remotely 
identifying owners and operators of UAS and associated unmanned 
aircraft.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Remote identification of unmanned aircraft would provide airspace 
awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement 
entities, and other government officials. The information can be used 
to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a 
safety or security risk.
    No person would be able to operate an unmanned aircraft required to 
have remote identification within the airspace of the United States 
unless the unmanned aircraft is capable of broadcasting certain message 
elements. Persons operating unmanned aircraft would comply with remote 
identification in one of three ways. First, standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft would broadcast those message elements 
directly from the unmanned aircraft. These message elements would 
include the unique identifier (either the unmanned aircraft's serial 
number or session ID), latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude of 
both the control station and the unmanned aircraft, the velocity of the 
unmanned aircraft, a time mark, and an emergency status code that would 
be broadcast-only when applicable. A standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft that could no longer broadcast the message elements 
would have to land as soon as practicable.
    Second, unmanned aircraft without remote identification could equip 
with a remote identification broadcast module by either a software 
upgrade or by securing the module to the unmanned aircraft prior to 
takeoff. The broadcast module would broadcast the message elements 
directly from the unmanned aircraft. These message elements would 
include the unique identifier (the unmanned aircraft's serial number); 
latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude of both the takeoff 
location and the unmanned aircraft; the velocity of the unmanned 
aircraft; and a time mark. Unmanned aircraft with remote identification 
broadcast modules would have to be operated such that the person 
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned 
aircraft at all times throughout the operation.
    The third way to comply with the unmanned aircraft remote 
identification requirements would be to operate an unmanned aircraft 
without remote identification at an FAA-recognized identification area. 
Because these types of operations do not involve the broadcast of 
message elements, they were not considered as part of this information 
collection.
    Use: The remote identification message elements are broadcast from 
the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module using unlicensed radio frequency 
spectrum.
    The following table shows the number of estimated respondents that 
would broadcast messages.

                  Table 12--Broadcast Message Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Remote ID
                          Year                              respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................  ..............
2.......................................................         269,600
3.......................................................       1,160,669
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................       1,430,269
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. New Information Collection: 2120-0784, Application for FAA-
Recognized Identification Areas
    The FAA will allow CBO representatives and representatives of 
educational institutions to submit applications for flying sites to 
become FAA-recognized identification areas in a form and manner 
acceptable to the FAA. The application collects certain information 
regarding the location of the flying site, and requires the 
representative to confirm certain information regarding the site.
    An applicant for an FAA-recognized identification area would be 
required to submit: (1) The name of the eligible person under Sec.  
89.205; (2) the name of the individual making the request on behalf of 
the eligible person; (3) a declaration that the individual making the 
request has the authority to act on behalf of the entity; (4) the name 
and contact information, including telephone number, of the primary 
point of contact for communications with the FAA; (5) the physical 
address of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area; (6) the 
location of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area; (7) if 
applicable, a copy of any existing letter of agreement regarding the 
flying site; (8) a description of the intended purpose of the FAA-
recognized identification area and why the proposed FAA-recognized 
identification area is necessary for that purpose, and

[[Page 4501]]

(9) any other information required by the Administrator.
    Use: Applications permit community-based organizations and 
educational institutions to apply for FAA-recognized identification 
areas.

                                     Table 13--Request for FAA-Recognized Identification Area Hourly Burden and Cost
                                                                         [$Mil]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Requests        Pages per                       Hours per
                  Year                       submitted        request       Total pages        page        Total  hours   Hourly  burden    Total cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................           3,966               4          15,864             0.5           7,932          $58.47           $0.46
3.......................................              50               4             200             0.5             100           58.47            0.01
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................           4,016  ..............          16,064  ..............           8,032  ..............            0.47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with United States obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended 
Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the 
existing ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has determined 
that no Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to these 
regulations. The FAA regularly reaches out to its international 
partners on a bilateral and multilateral basis to harmonize regulations 
to the maximum extent possible. The FAA's international outreach 
efforts include the following:
     Discussions with the Switzerland Federal Office of Civil 
Aviation (FOCA) regarding plans for use of remote identification to 
facilitate U-Space operations and plans to allow multiple UAS Service 
Suppliers to provide a range of services, similar in concept to current 
and future FAA USS plans.
     Collaboration with the European Union Aviation Safety 
Agency (EASA) on the EASA U-Space Regulatory Framework.
     Cooperation in the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on 
Unmanned Systems (JARUS) on UTM/U-Space and other regulatory 
recommendations under development.
     Collaboration with the Transport Canada Civil Aviation 
(TCCA) Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) Task Force on policy, 
rulemaking, regulatory, and research and development topics related to 
UAS and beyond visual line of sight operations.
     The FAA hosted a workshop on Sharing Best Practices for 
Managing UAS with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 
Member States in Singapore.
     Meetings with the Australia Civil Aviation Safety 
Authority (CASA) to share best practices and lessons learned on UAS 
integration.
     Shared the remote identification NPRM announcement with 
FAA international Regional Directors, and also shared the NPRM directly 
with 35 civil aviation authorities, air navigation service providers, 
trade associations and embassies.
     The FAA met with Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), 
briefed them on the remote identification NPRM, and learned of TCCA 
plans to issue proposed BVLOS rulemaking with potential remote 
identification content by the end of 2020.
     The FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety gave a 
speech on the remote identification NPRM at the Singapore Airshow.
     The FAA met with United Kingdom National Air Traffic 
Services organization to discuss UTM, including the status of the 
remote identification rulemaking and comments received to date.
     The FAA Administrator met with the French Minister of 
Transportation in discussions that included the remote identification 
NPRM.
     The FAA met with EASA to discuss comments received and the 
status of the respective U-Space rulemaking by EASA and remote 
identification rulemaking of the FAA, and learned that EASA had 
received approximately 2,600 comments on their U-Space Opinion compared 
to the 53,000 comments received on the remote identification NPRM.
     The FAA held webinars with 52 countries, and 
representatives from the International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO) and the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC), ICAO 
Regional Offices, and the Africa Civil Aviation Commission (AFCAC) to 
discuss the FAA UTM Concept of Operations, including its relationship 
to remote identification transmissions, answering questions on the 
status of remote identification rulemaking.
    In addition, the FAA has assessed the European Commission 
regulations for UAS remote identification and compared them to the 
requirements in this final rule. Similar to the proposed European 
Commission regulations, the FAA adopts a broadcast-only requirement for 
remote identification information. Other similarities include that the 
European regulation and the FAA's rule both include the position of the 
unmanned aircraft and the control station as remote identification 
message elements. One difference is the proposed European regulation 
requires the broadcast of both the unmanned aircraft registration 
number and the serial number, whereas the FAA's rule uses the unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module serial number or a 
session ID as the unique identifier in the remote identification 
message set. Other differences include that the European regulation 
requires message elements for the route course and speed of the 
unmanned aircraft, while the FAA's rule only includes velocity of the 
unmanned aircraft, and the FAA rule includes remote identification 
message elements for emergency status and a time mark, but the European 
regulation does not.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA 
determined that the categorical exclusion in FAA Order 1050.1F, 
paragraph 5-6.6.f. applies to this action. The FAA has determined that 
none of the extraordinary circumstances in FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 
5-2 exist.
    This rulemaking action provides a framework and establishes 
requirements for the remote identification of all UAS operating in the 
airspace of the United States. It will not alone enable routine 
expanded operations, affect the frequency of UAS operations in the

[[Page 4502]]

airspace of the United States, or authorize additional UAS operations. 
Nor does the rule by itself open up new areas of airspace to UAS.
    Subpart C provides the requirements for an applicant to request the 
establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. At the time 
that FAA establishes any such area, the FAA will conduct any necessary 
environmental reviews.
    For these reasons, the FAA has reviewed the implementation of the 
rulemaking action and determined it is categorically excluded from 
further environmental review. Possible extraordinary circumstances that 
would preclude the use of a categorical exclusion have been examined 
and the FAA has determined that no such circumstances exist. After 
careful and thorough consideration of the rulemaking action, the FAA 
finds that it does not require preparation of an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the 
requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and 
FAA Order 1050.1F.

XXIII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency has determined that this 
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\68\ and FAA Order 1210.20, 
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and 
Procedures,\69\ the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes 
(Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely 
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to 
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly 
their respective Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
    \69\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One tribe, the Choctaw Nation, provided comments on the proposed 
rule. See Comment ID FAA-2019-1100-34477. In these comments, the 
Choctaw Nation expressed that remote identification would help expand 
unmanned aircraft operations and build confidence in local communities. 
It also requested that FAA be mindful of issues facing rural 
communities in development of the final rule, including the potential 
for unique broadband and communication issues.
    At this point, the FAA has not identified any substantial direct 
effects or any unique or significant effects on tribes resulting from 
this rule.
    The FAA continues to develop its involvement with tribes within the 
broader UAS integration effort.\70\ In particular, the FAA has 
partnered with the Choctaw Nation in a pilot program under which State, 
local, and tribal governments test and evaluate the integration of 
civil and public UAS operations into the low-altitude airspace of the 
United States to promote the safe operation of UAS and enable the 
development of UAS technologies and their use in agriculture, commerce, 
emergency management, human transportation, and other sectors.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 81 FR 42064, 42189.
    \71\ Federal Aviation Administration, UAS Integration Pilot 
Program (May 7, 2018), available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_integration_pilot_program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has also conducted outreach to tribes to ensure they are 
familiar with UAS-related rules and that they are aware of FAA's plans 
for additional rulemakings to integrate UAS into the airspace of the 
United States. As part of that recent outreach, the FAA has:
     Presented information on UAS for public safety at the 
Osage Nation 2019 Public Safety Drone Conference (Tulsa, Oklahoma, 
November 5, 2019); and
     Provided information to the National Congress of American 
Indians on the proposed rule for remote identification of UAS. 
(February 6, 2020).
    The FAA will continue to respond to tribes that express interest in 
or concerns about UAS operations, and will engage in government-to-
government consultation with tribes as appropriate, in accordance with 
Executive Orders and FAA guidance.

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The Agency has determined that it 
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international 
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements.
    For significant regulations that the Agency identifies as having 
significant international impacts, the FAA has to consider, to the 
extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory 
approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to 
consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan. A 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13609 has the same 
meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. An international 
impact, as defined in Executive Order 13609, means ``a direct effect 
that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on 
international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of 
significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.''
    As discussed in the International Compatibility and Cooperation 
section of this rule, in keeping with United States obligations under 
the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the FAA seeks to 
conform to International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations. In addition, the 
FAA regularly reaches out to its international partners on a bi-lateral 
and multi-lateral basis to harmonize regulations to the maximum extent 
possible. Thus, the FAA believes that the rule should have no effect on 
international regulatory cooperation.
    The FAA identified a direct effect that may be of significant 
interest to the trading partners of the United States. Even though a 
majority of the costs and the benefits of the rule are accrued by 
United States entities and United States

[[Page 4503]]

commerce,\72\ the rule is estimated to cost foreign producers 
approximately $121.8 million at 3 percent present value and $86 million 
at 7 percent present value. These costs exceed those borne by United 
States producers because presently a vast majority of UAS operated in 
the United States are manufactured overseas (> 80 percent). On a per 
unit basis, the costs to foreign and United States producers of UAS are 
expected to be the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Thus, the FAA estimates that the primary impact of the rule 
will be on U.S. entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This final rule is an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action. 
Details on the estimated impacts of this final rule are in the rule's 
economic analysis.

XXIV. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
internet by:
     Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
     Accessing the Government Publishing Office at https://www.govinfo.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from 
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for 
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations 
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this 
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the 
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 47

    Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 48

    Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 89

    Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety, 
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Security measures.

14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

14 CFR Part 107

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Security measures.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.

0
2. In Sec.  1.1, add the definition for ``Unmanned aircraft system'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  1.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Unmanned aircraft system means an unmanned aircraft and its 
associated elements (including communication links and the components 
that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and 
efficient operation of the unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the 
United States.
* * * * *

PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

0
3. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109, 
40113, 44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 50901-
50923.

0
4. Amend Sec.  11.201(b) by adding the entry ``Part 89'' in numerical 
order to read as follows:

Sec.  11.201   Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   14 CFR part or section identified and
                 described                     Current OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Part 89...................................  2120-0781, 2120-0782, 2120-
                                             0783, 2120-0785.
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 47--AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION

0
5. The authority citation for part 47 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  4 U.S.T. 1830; Pub. L. 108-297, 118 Stat. 1095 (49 
U.S.C. 40101 note, 49 U.S.C. 44101 note); 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 
40113-40114, 44101-44108, 44110-44113, 44703-44704, 44713, 44809(f), 
45302, 45305, 46104, 46301.

0
6. Add Sec.  47.14 to read as follows:

Sec.  47.14   Serial numbers for unmanned aircraft.

    (a) The unmanned aircraft serial number provided as part of any 
application for aircraft registration of any standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft must be the serial number issued by 
the manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft in accordance with the design 
and production requirements of part 89 of this chapter. The serial 
number provided in this application must not be listed on more than one 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the same time.
    (b) The unmanned aircraft serial number provided as part of any 
application for registration of any unmanned aircraft with a remote 
identification broadcast module must be the serial number issued by the 
manufacturer of the remote identification broadcast module in 
accordance with the design and production requirements of part 89 of 
this chapter. The serial number provided in this application must not 
be listed on more than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the 
same time.

[[Page 4504]]

PART 48--REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED 
AIRCRAFT

0
7. The authority citation for part 48 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40113-40114, 
41703, 44101-44103, 44105-44106, 44110-44113, 44809(f), 45302, 
45305, 46104, 46301, 46306.

Sec.  48.5   [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Remove and reserve Sec.  48.5.

0
9. Amend Sec.  48.15 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  48.15   Requirement to register.

* * * * *
    (b) The aircraft is operated exclusively in compliance with 49 
U.S.C. 44809 and weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, including 
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  48.25 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  48.25   Applicants.

    (a) To register a small unmanned aircraft in the United States 
under this part, a person must provide the information required by 
Sec.  48.110 to the Registry in a form and manner prescribed by the 
Administrator. Upon submission of this information, the FAA issues a 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration to that person.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  48.30 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  48.30   Fees.

    (a) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration as described in Sec.  48.100 is $5.00 per aircraft.
    (b) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration as described in Sec.  48.105 is $5.00 per certificate.
* * * * *

Sec.  Sec.  48.100, 48.105, 48.110, and 48.115  [Redesignated as 
Sec. Sec.  48.110, 48.115, 48.100, and 48.105]

0
12. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  48.100 through 48.115 as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48.100..................................................          48.110
48.105..................................................          48.115
48.110..................................................          48.100
48.115..................................................          48.105
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
13. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  48.100 by revising the section 
heading and paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  48.100   Registration: Small unmanned aircraft operated for any 
purpose other than exclusively limited recreational operations.

    (a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration. A Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration issued in accordance with Sec.  48.110 to a small unmanned 
aircraft used for any purpose other than operating exclusively in 
compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 constitutes registration for the small 
unmanned aircraft identified on the application.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must renew 
the Certificate by verifying, in a form and manner prescribed by the 
Administrator, that the information provided in accordance with Sec.  
48.110 is accurate and if it is not, provide updated information. The 
verification may take place at any time within the six months preceding 
the month in which the Certificate of Aircraft registration expires.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  48.105 by revising the section 
heading and paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  48.105   Registration: Small unmanned aircraft intended 
exclusively for limited recreational operations.

    (a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration. A Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration issued in accordance with Sec.  48.110 for small unmanned 
aircraft to be operated exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 
constitutes registration for all the small unmanned aircraft used 
exclusively for operations in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 owned by 
the individual identified on the application.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must renew 
the Certificate by verifying, in a form and manner prescribed by the 
Administrator, that the information provided in accordance with Sec.  
48.110 is accurate and if it is not, provide updated information. The 
verification may take place at any time within the six months preceding 
the month in which the Certificate of Aircraft registration expires.
* * * * *

0
15. Revise newly redesignated Sec.  48.110 to read as follows:

Sec.  48.110   Application.

    (a) Required information. Each applicant for a Certificate of 
Aircraft Registration issued under this part must submit all of the 
following information to the Registry:
    (1) Applicant's name and, for an applicant other than an 
individual, the name of the authorized representative applying for a 
Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
    (2) Applicant's physical address and, for an applicant other than 
an individual, the physical address of the authorized representative. 
If the applicant or authorized representative cannot receive mail at a 
physical address, then provide a mailing address.
    (3) Applicant's email address or, for applicants other than 
individuals, the email address of the authorized representative.
    (4) Applicant's telephone number(s) and, for an applicant other 
than an individual, the telephone number(s) of the authorized 
representative.
    (5) The aircraft manufacturer and model name.
    (6) For any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, the 
serial number issued by the manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft in 
accordance with the design and production requirements of part 89 of 
this chapter. The serial number provided in this application must not 
be listed on more than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the 
same time.
    (7) For any unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification 
broadcast module, the serial number issued by the manufacturer of the 
remote identification broadcast module in accordance with the design 
and production requirements of part 89 of this chapter. An applicant 
may submit the serial number of more than one remote identification 
broadcast module as part of the application for aircraft registration 
under Sec.  48.105. The serial number of a remote identification 
broadcast module provided in this application must not be listed on 
more than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the same time.
    (8) Other information as required by the Administrator.
    (b) Provision of information. The information identified in 
paragraph (a) of this section must be submitted to the Registry through 
the web-based small unmanned aircraft registration system in a form and 
manner prescribed by the Administrator.
    (c) Issuance of Certificate of Aircraft Registration. The FAA will 
issue a Certificate of Aircraft Registration upon completion of the 
application requirements provided in paragraph (a) of this section.

0
16. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  48.115 by revising paragraphs (a) 
and (b)(1) to read as follows:

[[Page 4505]]

Sec.  48.115   Requirement to maintain current information.

    (a) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must 
ensure that the information provided under Sec.  48.110 remains 
accurate.
    (b) * * *
    (1) A change in the information provided under Sec.  48.110.
* * * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  48.200 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  48.200   General.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) If authorized by the Administrator, the small unmanned aircraft 
serial number provided with the application for Certificate of Aircraft 
Registration under Sec.  48.110(a).

0
18. Add part 89 to subchapter F to read as follows:

PART 89--REMOTE IDENTIFICATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

Sec.
Subpart A--General
89.1 Definitions.
89.5 Falsification, reproduction, alteration, or omission.
Subpart B--Operating Requirements
89.101 Applicability.
89.105 Remote identification requirement.
89.110 Operation of standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft.
89.115 Alternative remote identification.
89.120 Operations for aeronautical research or to show compliance 
with regulations.
89.125 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
prohibition.
89.130 Confirmation of identification.
Subpart C--[Reserved]
Subpart D--Requirements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned 
Aircraft and Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
89.301 Applicability.
89.305 Minimum message elements broadcast by standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft.
89.310 Minimum performance requirements for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft.
89.315 Minimum message elements broadcast by remote identification 
broadcast modules.
89.320 Minimum performance requirements for remote identification 
broadcast modules.
Subpart E--Means of Compliance
89.401 Applicability.
89.405 Submission of a means of compliance for FAA acceptance.
89.410 Acceptance of a means of compliance.
89.415 Rescission.
89.420 Record retention.
Subpart F-- Remote Identification Design and Production
89.501 Applicability.
89.505 Serial numbers.
89.510 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft produced under 
a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of 
this chapter.
89.515 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without design 
approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this 
chapter.
89.520 Production requirements for remote identification broadcast 
modules.
89.525 Labeling.
89.530 Submission of a declaration of compliance for FAA acceptance.
89.535 Acceptance of a declaration of compliance.
89.540 Rescission and reconsideration.
89.545 Record retention.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101(d), 40103(b), 44701, 
44805, 44809(f); Section 2202 of Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 629.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  89.1   Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this part.
    Declaration of compliance means a record submitted to the FAA by 
the producer of a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
remote identification broadcast module to attest that all the 
requirements of subpart F of this part have been met.
    Home-built unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft that an 
individual built solely for education or recreation.

Sec.  89.5   Falsification, reproduction, alteration, or omission.

    (a) No person may make or cause to be made any of the following:
    (1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any document 
related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, 
certificate, declaration, designation, qualification, record, report, 
request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted under this part.
    (2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any document 
required to be developed, provided, kept, or used to show compliance 
with any requirement under this part.
    (3) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any 
document related to any acceptance, application, approval, 
authorization, certificate, declaration, designation, qualification, 
record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted or 
granted under this part.
    (b) No person may, by omission, knowingly conceal or cause to be 
concealed, a material fact in--
    (1) Any document related to any acceptance, application, approval, 
authorization, certificate, declaration, designation, qualification, 
record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted 
under this part; or
    (2) Any document required to be developed, provided, kept, or used 
to show compliance with any requirement under this part.
    (c) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is a basis for--
    (1) Denial, suspension, rescission, or revocation of any 
acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, 
declaration, declaration of compliance, designation, document, filing, 
qualification, means of compliance, record, report, request for 
reconsideration, or similar instrument issued or granted by the 
Administrator and held by that person; or
    (2) A civil penalty.

Subpart B--Operating Requirement

Sec.  89.101   Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this 
subpart applies to the following:
    (1) Persons operating unmanned aircraft registered or required to 
be registered under part 47 or 48 of this chapter.
    (2) Persons operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United 
States.
    (b) This subpart does not apply to unmanned aircraft operations 
under part 91 of this chapter that are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant 
to Sec.  91.225.

Sec.  89.105   Remote identification requirement.

    Except as otherwise authorized by the Administrator or as provided 
in Sec.  89.120, after September 16, 2023, no person may operate an 
unmanned aircraft within the airspace of the United States unless the 
operation meets the requirements of Sec.  89.110 or Sec.  89.115.

Sec.  89.110   Operation of standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft.

    Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may 
comply with the remote identification requirement of Sec.  89.105 by 
operating a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under the 
following conditions:
    (a) Operational requirements. A person may operate a standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft only if the person operating 
the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft ensures that all 
of the following conditions are met:
    (1) From takeoff to shutdown, the standard remote identification

[[Page 4506]]

unmanned aircraft must broadcast the message elements of Sec.  89.305.
    (2) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned 
aircraft system must land the unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable 
if the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is no longer 
broadcasting the message elements of Sec.  89.305.
    (b) Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft requirements. 
A person may operate a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
only if the unmanned aircraft meets all of the following requirements:
    (1) Its serial number is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance, or the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is 
covered by a design approval or production approval issued under part 
21 of this chapter and meets the requirements of subpart F of this 
part.
    (2) Its remote identification equipment is functional and complies 
with the requirements of this part from takeoff to shutdown.
    (3) Its remote identification equipment and functionality have not 
been disabled.
    (4) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration of the unmanned 
aircraft used in the operation must include the serial number of the 
unmanned aircraft, as per applicable requirements of parts 47 and 48 of 
this chapter, or the serial number of the unmanned aircraft must be 
provided to the FAA in a notice of identification pursuant to Sec.  
89.130 prior to the operation.

Sec.  89.115   Alternative remote identification.

    A person operating an unmanned aircraft that is not a standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft may comply with the remote 
identification requirement of Sec.  89.105 by meeting all of the 
requirements of either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
    (a) Remote identification broadcast modules. Unless otherwise 
authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned 
aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) Equipage. (i) The unmanned aircraft used in the operation must 
be equipped with a remote identification broadcast module that meets 
the requirements of Sec.  89.320 and the serial number of the remote 
identification broadcast module must be listed on an FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance.
    (ii) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration of the unmanned 
aircraft used in the operation must include the serial number of the 
remote identification broadcast module, as per applicable requirements 
of parts 47 and 48 of this chapter, or the serial number of the 
unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a notice of 
identification pursuant to Sec.  89.130 prior to the operation.
    (2) Remote identification operating requirements. Unless otherwise 
authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned 
aircraft under this paragraph (a) only if all of the following 
conditions are met:
    (i) From takeoff to shutdown, the person operating the unmanned 
aircraft must ensure that the remote identification broadcast module 
broadcasts the remote identification message elements of Sec.  89.315 
directly from the unmanned aircraft.
    (ii) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned 
aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times 
throughout the operation.
    (3) Pre-flight requirement. Prior to takeoff, the person 
manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must 
ensure the remote identification broadcast module is functioning in 
accordance with this subpart.
    (4) In-flight loss of remote identification broadcast. The person 
manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must 
land the unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable if the unmanned 
aircraft is no longer broadcasting the message elements of Sec.  
89.315.
    (b) Operations at FAA-recognized identification areas. Unless 
otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an 
unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment only if all 
of the following conditions are met:
    (1) The unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight 
controls of the unmanned aircraft system remain within the boundaries 
of an FAA-recognized identification area throughout the operation; and
    (2) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned 
aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times 
throughout the operation.

Sec.  89.120   Operations for aeronautical research or to show 
compliance with regulations.

    The Administrator may authorize operations without remote 
identification where the operation is solely for the purpose of 
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.

Sec.  89.125   Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
prohibition.

    Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment 
cannot be used to comply with the remote identification requirements of 
this part.

Sec.  89.130   Confirmation of identification.

    (a) Notification requirement. No person may operate a foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the 
airspace of the United States unless, prior to the operation, the 
person submits a notice of identification in a form and manner 
acceptable to the Administrator. The notice of identification must 
include all of the following:
    (1) The name of the person operating the foreign registered civil 
unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the 
person's authorized representative.
    (2) The physical address of the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the physical address for the person's authorized 
representative. If the operator or authorized representative does not 
receive mail at the physical address, a mailing address must also be 
provided.
    (3) The telephone number(s) where the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the person's authorized representative can be reached while 
in the United States.
    (4) The email address of the person operating the foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if 
applicable, the email address of the person's authorized 
representative.
    (5) The unmanned aircraft manufacturer and model name.
    (6) The serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module.
    (7) The country of registration of the unmanned aircraft.
    (8) The registration number.
    (b) Issuance of a Confirmation of Identification. (1) The FAA will 
issue a Confirmation of Identification upon completion of the 
notification requirements provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) The filing of a notification under paragraph (a) of this 
section and the Confirmation of Identification issued under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section do not have the effect of United States aircraft 
registration.
    (c) Proof of notification. No person may operate a foreign 
registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the 
United States

[[Page 4507]]

unless the person obtains a Confirmation of Identification under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, maintains such Confirmation of 
Identification at the unmanned aircraft's control station, and produces 
the Confirmation of Identification when requested by the FAA or a law 
enforcement officer.
    (d) Requirement to maintain current information. The holder of a 
Confirmation of Identification must ensure that the information 
provided under paragraph (a) of this section remains accurate and must 
update the information prior to operating a foreign registered civil 
unmanned aircraft in the United States.

Subpart C [Reserved]

Subpart D--Requirements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned 
Aircraft and Remote Identification Broadcast Modules

Sec.  89.301  Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes the minimum message element set and minimum 
performance requirements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules.

Sec.  89.305   Minimum message elements broadcast by standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft.

    A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must be capable 
of broadcasting the following remote identification message elements:
    (a) The identity of the unmanned aircraft, consisting of:
    (1) A serial number assigned to the unmanned aircraft by the person 
responsible for the production of the standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft; or
    (2) A session ID.
    (b) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the control 
station.
    (c) An indication of the geometric altitude of the control station.
    (d) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the unmanned 
aircraft.
    (e) An indication of the geometric altitude of the unmanned 
aircraft.
    (f) An indication of the velocity of the unmanned aircraft.
    (g) A time mark identifying the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) 
time of applicability of a position source output.
    (h) An indication of the emergency status of the unmanned aircraft.

Sec.  89.310  Minimum performance requirements for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft.

    A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must meet the 
following minimum performance requirements:
    (a) Control station location. The location of the control station 
of the unmanned aircraft must be generated and encoded into the message 
elements and must correspond to the location of the person manipulating 
the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system.
    (b) Time mark. The time mark message element must be synchronized 
with all other remote identification message elements.
    (c) Self-testing and monitoring. (1) Prior to takeoff, the unmanned 
aircraft must automatically test the remote identification 
functionality and notify the person manipulating the flight controls of 
the unmanned aircraft system of the result of the test.
    (2) The unmanned aircraft must not be able to take off if the 
remote identification equipment is not functional.
    (3) The unmanned aircraft must continuously monitor the remote 
identification functionality from takeoff to shutdown and must provide 
notification of malfunction or failure to the person manipulating the 
flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system.
    (d) Tamper resistance. The unmanned aircraft must be designed and 
produced in a way that reduces the ability of a person to tamper with 
the remote identification functionality.
    (e) Error correction. The remote identification equipment must 
incorporate error correction in the broadcast of the message elements 
in Sec.  89.305.
    (f) Interference considerations. The remote identification 
equipment must not interfere with other systems or equipment installed 
on the unmanned aircraft, and other systems or equipment installed on 
the unmanned aircraft must not interfere with the remote identification 
equipment.
    (g) Message broadcast. (1) The unmanned aircraft must be capable of 
broadcasting the message elements in Sec.  89.305 using a non-
proprietary broadcast specification and using radio frequency spectrum 
compatible with personal wireless devices in accordance with 47 CFR 
part 15, where operations may occur without an FCC individual license.
    (2) Any broadcasting device used to meet the requirements of this 
section must be integrated into the unmanned aircraft without 
modification to its authorized radio frequency parameters and designed 
to maximize the range at which the broadcast can be received, while 
complying with 47 CFR part 15 and any other applicable laws in effect 
as of the date the declaration of compliance is submitted to the FAA 
for acceptance.
    (h) Message elements performance requirements. (1) The reported 
geometric position of the unmanned aircraft and the control station 
must be accurate to within 100 feet of the true position, with 95 
percent probability.
    (2) The reported geometric altitude of the control station must be 
accurate to within 15 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95 
percent probability.
    (3) The reported geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft must 
be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95 
percent probability.
    (4) The unmanned aircraft must broadcast the latitude, longitude, 
and geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft and its control station 
no later than 1.0 seconds from the time of measurement to the time of 
broadcast.
    (5) The unmanned aircraft must broadcast the message elements at a 
rate of at least 1 message per second.
    (i) Take-off limitation. The unmanned aircraft must not be able to 
take off unless it is broadcasting the message elements in Sec.  
89.305.

Sec.  89.315  Minimum message elements broadcast by remote 
identification broadcast modules.

    Remote identification broadcast modules must be capable of 
broadcasting the following remote identification message elements:
    (a) The identity of the unmanned aircraft, consisting of the serial 
number assigned to the remote identification broadcast module by the 
person responsible for the production of the remote identification 
broadcast module.
    (b) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the unmanned 
aircraft.
    (c) An indication of the geometric altitude of the unmanned 
aircraft.
    (d) An indication of the velocity of the unmanned aircraft.
    (e) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the take-off 
location of the unmanned aircraft.
    (f) An indication of the geometric altitude of the take-off 
location of the unmanned aircraft.
    (g) A time mark identifying the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) 
time of applicability of a position source output.

Sec.  89.320  Minimum performance requirements for remote 
identification broadcast modules.

    Remote identification broadcast modules must meet the following 
minimum performance requirements:
    (a) Take-off location. The remote identification broadcast module 
must be

[[Page 4508]]

capable of determining the take-off location of the unmanned aircraft.
    (b) Time mark. The time mark message element must be synchronized 
with all other remote identification message elements.
    (c) Self-testing and monitoring. (1) Prior to take-off, the remote 
identification broadcast module must automatically test the remote 
identification functionality and notify the person manipulating the 
flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system of the result of the 
test.
    (2) The remote identification broadcast module must continuously 
monitor the remote identification functionality from takeoff to 
shutdown and must provide notification of malfunction or failure to the 
person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft 
system.
    (d) Tamper resistance. The remote identification broadcast module 
must be designed and produced in a way that reduces the ability of a 
person to tamper with the remote identification functionality.
    (e) Error correction. The remote identification broadcast module 
must incorporate error correction in the broadcast of the message 
elements in Sec.  89.315.
    (f) Interference considerations. The remote identification 
broadcast module must not interfere with other systems or equipment 
installed on compatible unmanned aircraft, and other systems or 
equipment installed on compatible unmanned aircraft must not interfere 
with the remote identification equipment.
    (g) Message broadcast. (1) The remote identification broadcast 
module must be capable of broadcasting the message elements in Sec.  
89.315 using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and using radio 
frequency spectrum compatible with personal wireless devices in 
accordance with 47 CFR part 15, where operations may occur without an 
FCC individual license.
    (2) The remote identification broadcast module must be designed to 
maximize the range at which the broadcast can be received, while 
complying with 47 CFR part 15 and any other applicable laws in effect 
as of the date the declaration of compliance is submitted to the FAA 
for acceptance.
    (h) Message elements performance requirements. (1) The reported 
geometric position of the unmanned aircraft must be accurate to within 
100 feet of the true position, with 95 percent probability.
    (2) The reported geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft must 
be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95 
percent probability.
    (3) The reported geometric position of the take-off location must 
be accurate to within 100 feet of the true geometric position, with 95 
percent probability.
    (4) The reported geometric altitude of the take-off location must 
be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95 
percent probability.
    (5) The remote identification broadcast module must broadcast the 
latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft no 
later than 1.0 seconds from the time of measurement to the time of 
broadcast.
    (6) The remote identification broadcast module must broadcast the 
message elements at a rate of at least 1 message per second.

Subpart E--Means of Compliance

Sec.  89.401  Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes--
    (a) Requirements for means of compliance with subpart D of this 
part.
    (b) Procedural requirements for the submission and acceptance of 
means of compliance used in the design and production of standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification 
broadcast modules to ensure they meet the minimum performance 
requirements of this part.
    (c) Rules governing persons submitting means of compliance for FAA 
acceptance.

Sec.  89.405  Submission of a means of compliance for FAA acceptance.

    (a) Eligibility. Any person may submit a means of compliance for 
acceptance by the FAA.
    (b) Required information. A person requesting acceptance of a means 
of compliance must submit the following information to the FAA in a 
form and manner acceptable to the Administrator:
    (1) The name of the person or entity submitting the means of 
compliance, the name of the main point of contact for communications 
with the FAA, the physical address, email address, and other contact 
information.
    (2) A detailed description of the means of compliance.
    (3) An explanation of how the means of compliance addresses all of 
the minimum performance requirements established in subpart D of this 
part so that any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
remote identification broadcast module designed and produced in 
accordance with such means of compliance meets the remote 
identification requirements of this part.
    (4) Any substantiating material the person wishes the FAA to 
consider as part of the request.
    (c) Testing and validation. A means of compliance submitted for 
acceptance by the FAA must include testing and validation procedures 
for persons responsible for the production of standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast 
modules to demonstrate through analysis, ground test, or flight test, 
as appropriate, how the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module performs its 
intended functions and meets the requirements in subpart D of this 
part, including any applicable FAA performance requirements for radio 
station operation.

Sec.  89.410   Acceptance of a means of compliance.

    (a) A person requesting acceptance of a means of compliance must 
demonstrate to the Administrator that the means of compliance addresses 
all of the requirements of subparts D and E of this part, and that any 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module designed and produced in accordance 
with such means of compliance would meet the performance requirements 
of subpart D of this part.
    (b) The Administrator will evaluate a means of compliance that is 
submitted to the FAA and may request additional information or 
documentation, as needed, to supplement the submission.
    (c) If the Administrator determines the person has demonstrated 
that the means of compliance meets the requirements of subparts D and E 
of this part, the FAA will notify the person that the Administrator has 
accepted the means of compliance.

Sec.  89.415   Rescission.

    (a) Rescission of an FAA-accepted means of compliance. (1) A means 
of compliance is subject to ongoing review by the Administrator. The 
Administrator may rescind acceptance of a means of compliance if the 
Administrator determines that a means of compliance does not meet any 
or all of the requirements of subpart D or E of this part.
    (2) The Administrator will publish a notice of rescission in the 
Federal Register.
    (b) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part 
13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of 
paragraph (a) of this section.

[[Page 4509]]

Sec.  89.420   Record retention.

    A person who submits a means of compliance that is accepted by the 
Administrator under this subpart must retain the following information 
for as long as the means of compliance is accepted plus an additional 
24 calendar months, and must make available for inspection by the 
Administrator the following:
    (a) All documentation and substantiating data submitted to the FAA 
for acceptance of the means of compliance.
    (b) Records of all test procedures, methodology, and other 
procedures, as applicable.
    (c) Any other information necessary to justify and substantiate how 
the means of compliance enables compliance with the remote 
identification requirements of this part.

Subpart F-- Remote Identification Design and Production

Sec.  89.501   Applicability.

    (a) This subpart prescribes--
    (1) Requirements for the design and production of unmanned aircraft 
with remote identification produced for operation in the airspace of 
the United States.
    (2) Requirements for the design and production of remote 
identification broadcast modules.
    (3) Procedural requirements for the submission, acceptance, and 
rescission of declarations of compliance.
    (4) Rules governing persons submitting declarations of compliance 
for FAA acceptance under this part.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this 
subpart applies to the design and production of all unmanned aircraft 
operated in the airspace of the United States.
    (c) Except for unmanned aircraft designed and produced to be 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, this subpart does not 
apply to the design or production of:
    (1) Home-built unmanned aircraft.
    (2) Unmanned aircraft of the United States Government.
    (3) Unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, 
including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the 
aircraft.
    (4) Unmanned aircraft designed or produced exclusively for the 
purpose of aeronautical research or to show compliance with 
regulations.

Sec.  89.505   Serial numbers.

    No person may produce a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft under Sec.  89.510 or Sec.  89.515 or a remote identification 
broadcast module under Sec.  89.520, unless the producer assigns to the 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module a serial 
number that complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A. ANSI/CTA-2063-A, Small 
Unmanned Aerial Systems Serial Numbers (September 2019) is incorporated 
by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the 
Office of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
All approved material is available for inspection at the FAA's Office 
of Rulemaking (ARM-1), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone 202-267-9677) and is available from Consumer Technology 
Association (CTA), 1919 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202, 
CTA@CTA.tech, 703-907-7600 or at https://www.cta.tech. It is also 
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Sec.  89.510   Production requirements for unmanned aircraft produced 
under a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of 
this chapter.

    After September 16, 2022, no person may produce an unmanned 
aircraft for operation in the airspace of the United States under a 
design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this 
chapter unless:
    (a) All applicable requirements of part 21 of this chapter are met; 
and
    (b) The unmanned aircraft is--
    (1) Designed and produced to meet the minimum performance 
requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft 
established in Sec.  89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance; or
    (2) Equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B) Out equipment that meets the requirements of Sec.  91.225 of this 
chapter.

Sec.  89.515   Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without 
design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this 
chapter.

    Except as provided in Sec.  89.510, after September 16, 2022, no 
person may produce an unmanned aircraft for operation in the airspace 
of the United States unless--
    (a) The unmanned aircraft is designed and produced to meet the 
minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft established in Sec.  89.310 in accordance with an 
FAA-accepted means of compliance; and
    (b) All of the following conditions are met:
    (1) Inspection requirements for production of standard unmanned 
aircraft. A person responsible for the production of standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft must, upon request, allow the 
Administrator to inspect the person's facilities, technical data, and 
any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft the person 
produces, and to witness any tests necessary to determine compliance 
with this subpart.
    (2) Audit requirements. A person responsible for the production of 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must cause independent 
audits to be performed on a recurring basis, and additionally whenever 
the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or potential noncompliance, to 
demonstrate the unmanned aircraft listed under a declaration of 
compliance meet the requirements of this subpart. The person 
responsible for the production of standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft must provide the results of all such audits to the 
FAA upon request.
    (3) Product support and notification. A person responsible for the 
production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must 
maintain product support and notification procedures to notify the 
public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes an unmanned 
aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart, within 15 
calendar days of the date the person becomes aware of the defect or 
condition.

Sec.  89.520   Production requirements for remote identification 
broadcast modules.

    After March 16, 2021, no person may produce remote identification 
broadcast modules unless:
    (a) The remote identification broadcast module is designed and 
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for remote 
identification broadcast modules established in Sec.  89.320 in 
accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; and
    (b) All of the following conditions are met:
    (1) Inspection requirements for production of remote identification 
broadcast modules. A person responsible for the production of remote 
identification broadcast modules must, upon request, allow the 
Administrator to inspect the person's facilities, technical data, and 
any remote identification broadcast modules the person produces, and to 
witness any

[[Page 4510]]

tests necessary to determine compliance with this subpart.
    (2) Audit requirements. A person responsible for the production of 
remote identification broadcast modules must cause independent audits 
to be performed on a recurring basis, and additionally whenever the FAA 
provides notice of noncompliance or potential noncompliance, to 
demonstrate the remote identification broadcast modules listed under a 
declaration of compliance meet the requirements of this subpart. The 
person responsible for the production of remote identification 
broadcast modules must provide the results of all such audits to the 
FAA upon request.
    (3) Product support and notification. A person responsible for the 
production of remote identification broadcast modules must maintain 
product support and notification procedures to notify the public and 
the FAA of any defect or condition that causes the remote 
identification broadcast module to no longer meet the requirements of 
this subpart, within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes 
aware of the defect or condition.
    (4) Instructions. A person responsible for the production of a 
remote identification broadcast module must make available instructions 
for installing and operating the remote identification broadcast module 
to any person operating an unmanned aircraft with the remote 
identification broadcast module.

Sec.  89.525   Labeling.

    (a) No person may produce a standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft under Sec.  89.515 unless it displays a label indicating that 
the unmanned aircraft meets the requirements of this part. The label 
must be in English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed 
to the unmanned aircraft.
    (b) No person may produce a remote identification broadcast module 
under Sec.  89.520 unless it displays a label indicating that the 
equipment meets the requirements of this part. The label must be in 
English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the 
broadcast module.

Sec.  89.530   Submission of a declaration of compliance for FAA 
acceptance.

    (a) Eligibility. A person responsible for the production of a 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under Sec.  89.515 or 
a remote identification broadcast module under Sec.  89.520 must submit 
a declaration of compliance for acceptance by the FAA.
    (b) Required information for standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft. The person responsible for the production of a 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft requesting acceptance 
of a declaration of compliance must declare that the unmanned aircraft 
complies with the requirements of this subpart by submitting a 
declaration of compliance to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to 
the Administrator. The declaration must include at a minimum the 
following information:
    (1) The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address 
of the person responsible for production of the unmanned aircraft.
    (2) The unmanned aircraft's make and model.
    (3) The unmanned aircraft's serial number, or the range of serial 
numbers for which the person responsible for production is declaring 
compliance.
    (4) The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio 
frequency equipment used and integrated into the unmanned aircraft.
    (5) The means of compliance used in the design and production of 
the unmanned aircraft.
    (6) Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial declaration 
or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of compliance is an 
amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
    (7) A declaration that the person responsible for the production of 
the unmanned aircraft:
    (i) Can demonstrate that the unmanned aircraft was designed and 
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements of Sec.  89.310 
by using an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
    (ii) Complies with the requirements of Sec.  89.515(b).
    (8) A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency 
equipment is used and is integrated into the unmanned aircraft without 
modification to its authorized radio frequency parameters.
    (c) Required information for remote identification broadcast 
modules. The person responsible for the production of a remote 
identification broadcast module under Sec.  89.520 that is requesting 
acceptance of a declaration of compliance must declare that the remote 
identification broadcast module complies with the requirements of this 
subpart by submitting a declaration of compliance to the FAA in a form 
and manner acceptable to the Administrator. The declaration must 
include at a minimum the following information:
    (1) The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address 
of the person responsible for production of the remote identification 
broadcast module.
    (2) The remote identification broadcast module's make and model.
    (3) The remote identification broadcast module's serial number, or 
the range of serial numbers for which the person responsible for 
production is declaring compliance.
    (4) The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio 
frequency equipment used and integrated into the remote identification 
broadcast module.
    (5) The means of compliance used in the design and production of 
the remote identification broadcast module.
    (6) Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial declaration 
or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of compliance is an 
amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
    (7) A declaration that the person responsible for the production of 
the remote identification broadcast module:
    (i) Can demonstrate that the remote identification broadcast module 
was designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements 
of Sec.  89.320 by using an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
    (ii) Complies with the requirements of Sec.  89.520(b).
    (8) A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency 
equipment is used and is integrated into the remote identification 
broadcast module without modification to its authorized radio frequency 
parameters, and a statement that instructions have been provided for 
installation of 47 CFR part 15-compliant remote identification 
broadcast module without modification to the broadcast module's 
authorized radio frequency parameters.

Sec.  89.535   Acceptance of a declaration of compliance.

    (a) The Administrator will evaluate a declaration of compliance 
that is submitted to the FAA and may request additional information or 
documentation, as needed, to supplement the declaration of compliance.
    (b) If the Administrator determines that the submitter has 
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this subpart, the FAA 
will notify the submitter that the Administrator has accepted the 
declaration of compliance.

Sec.  89.540   Rescission and reconsideration.

    (a) Rescission of the FAA's acceptance of a declaration of 
compliance. (1) A declaration of compliance is subject to ongoing 
review by the Administrator. The Administrator may rescind acceptance 
of a declaration of

[[Page 4511]]

compliance under circumstances including but not limited to the 
following:
    (i) A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote 
identification broadcast module listed under an accepted declaration of 
compliance does not meet the minimum performance requirements of Sec.  
89.310 or Sec.  89.320.
    (ii) A previously FAA-accepted declaration of compliance does not 
meet a requirement of this subpart; or
    (iii) The FAA rescinds acceptance of the means of compliance listed 
in an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance.
    (2) The Administrator will notify the person who submitted the FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance of any issue of noncompliance.
    (3) If the Administrator determines that it is in the public 
interest, prior to rescinding acceptance of a declaration of 
compliance, the Administrator may provide a reasonable period of time 
for the person who submitted the declaration of compliance to remediate 
the noncompliance. A failure to remediate the noncompliance constitutes 
cause for rescission of the FAA's acceptance of the declaration of 
compliance.
    (4) The Administrator will notify the person who submitted the 
declaration of compliance of the decision to rescind acceptance of the 
declaration of compliance by publishing a notice of rescission in the 
Federal Register.
    (b) Petition to reconsider the FAA's decision to rescind acceptance 
of a declaration of compliance. (1) The person who submitted the FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance or any person adversely affected by 
the rescission of the Administrator's acceptance of a declaration of 
compliance may petition for a reconsideration of the decision by 
submitting a request to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the 
Administrator within 60 calendar days of the date of publication in the 
Federal Register of notification of rescission.
    (2) A petition to reconsider the rescission of the Administrator's 
acceptance of a declaration of compliance must show that the petitioner 
is an interested party and has been adversely affected by the decision 
of the FAA. The petition must also demonstrate at least one of the 
following:
    (i) The petitioner adduces a significant additional fact not 
previously presented to the FAA.
    (ii) The Administrator made a material error of fact in the 
decision to rescind acceptance of the declaration of compliance.
    (iii) The Administrator did not correctly interpret a law, 
regulation, or precedent.
    (3) Upon consideration of the information submitted by the 
petitioner, the Administrator will notify the petitioner and the person 
who submitted the declaration of compliance (if different) of the 
decision on whether to reinstate the Administrator's acceptance of the 
declaration of compliance.
    (c) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part 
13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

Sec.  89.545   Record retention.

    A person who submits a declaration of compliance under this subpart 
that is accepted by the Administrator must retain the following 
information for as long as the standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed on that 
declaration of compliance is produced plus an additional 24 calendar 
months, and must make available for inspection by the Administrator the 
following:
    (a) The means of compliance, all documentation, and substantiating 
data related to the means of compliance used.
    (b) Records of all test results.
    (c) Any other information necessary to demonstrate compliance with 
the means of compliance so that the standard remote identification 
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module meets the 
remote identification requirements and the design and production 
requirements of this part.

0
19. Effective September 16, 2022, add subpart C to part 89 to read as 
follows:
Subpart C--FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
89.201 Applicability.
89.205 Eligibility.
89.210 Requests for establishment of an FAA-recognized 
identification area.
89.215 Approval of FAA-recognized identification areas.
89.220 Amendment.
89.225 Duration of an FAA-recognized identification area.
89.230 Expiration and termination.

Subpart C--FAA-Recognized Identification Areas

Sec.  89.201   Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes procedural requirements to establish an 
FAA-recognized identification area.

Sec.  89.205   Eligibility.

    Only the following persons are eligible to apply for the 
establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area under this 
subpart:
    (a) A community-based organization recognized by the Administrator.
    (b) An educational institution, including primary and secondary 
educational institutions, trade schools, colleges, and universities.

Sec.  89.210   Requests for establishment of an FAA-recognized 
identification area.

    (a) Application. An eligible person requesting the establishment of 
an FAA-recognized identification area under this subpart may submit an 
application in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
    (b) Required documentation. A request under this subpart must 
contain all of the following information:
    (1) The name of the eligible person under Sec.  89.205.
    (2) The name of the individual making the request on behalf of the 
eligible person.
    (3) A declaration that the individual making the request has the 
authority to act on behalf of the community-based organization or 
educational institution.
    (4) The name and contact information of the primary point of 
contact for communications with the FAA.
    (5) The physical address of the proposed FAA-recognized 
identification area.
    (6) The location of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area 
in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.
    (7) If applicable, a copy of any existing letter of agreement 
regarding the flying site.
    (8) Description of the intended purpose of the FAA-recognized 
identification area and why the proposed FAA-recognized identification 
area is necessary for that purpose.
    (9) Any other information required by the Administrator.

Sec.  89.215   Approval of FAA-recognized identification areas.

    The Administrator will assess applications for FAA-recognized 
identification areas and may require additional information or 
documentation, as needed, to supplement an application. The 
Administrator will approve or deny an application, and may take into 
consideration matters such as, but not limited to:
    (a) The existence of any FAA established flight or airspace 
restriction limiting the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, such 
as special use

[[Page 4512]]

airspace designations under part 73 of this chapter, temporary flight 
restrictions issued under part 91 of this chapter, or any other special 
flight rule, restriction or regulation in this chapter limiting the 
operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the interest of safety, 
efficiency, national security and/or homeland security, which overlaps 
with the proposed FAA-recognized identification area.
    (b) The safe and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft.
    (c) The safety and security of persons or property on the ground.
    (d) The need for an FAA-recognized identification area in the 
proposed location and proximity of other FAA-recognized identification 
areas.

Sec.  89.220   Amendment.

    (a) From the time of application until expiration or termination of 
an FAA-recognized identification area, any change to the information 
submitted in the application including but not limited to a change to 
the point of contact for the FAA-recognized identification area or a 
change to the FAA-recognized identification area's organizational 
affiliation must be submitted to the FAA within 10 calendar days of the 
change.
    (b) If the person who has been granted an FAA-recognized 
identification area wishes to change the geographic boundaries of the 
FAA-recognized identification area, the person must submit a request 
describing the change to the FAA for review. The geographic boundaries 
of the FAA-recognized identification area will not change unless the 
requested change is approved in accordance with Sec.  89.215.
    (c) The establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area is 
subject to ongoing review in accordance with Sec.  89.215 by the 
Administrator that may result in the termination of the FAA-recognized 
identification area pursuant to Sec.  89.230 or modification of the 
FAA-recognized identification area.

Sec.  89.225   Duration of an FAA-recognized identification area.

    (a) Duration. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, an FAA-
recognized identification area will be in effect for 48 calendar months 
after the date the FAA approves the request for establishment of an 
FAA-recognized identification area.
    (b) Renewal. A person wishing to renew an FAA-recognized 
identification area must submit a request for renewal no later than 120 
days prior to the expiration of the FAA-recognized identification area 
in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator. The Administrator 
may deny requests submitted after that deadline or requests submitted 
after the expiration.

Sec.  89.230   Expiration and termination.

    (a) Expiration. Unless renewed, an FAA-recognized identification 
area issued under this subpart will expire automatically and will have 
no further force or effect as of the day that immediately follows the 
date of expiration.
    (b) Termination prior to expiration--(1) Termination by request. An 
individual identified as the point of contact for an approved FAA-
recognized identification area may submit a request to the 
Administrator to terminate that FAA-recognized identification area.
    (2) Termination by FAA. (i) The FAA may terminate an FAA-recognized 
identification area upon a finding that--
    (A) The FAA-recognized identification area may pose a risk to 
aviation safety, public safety, homeland security, or national 
security;
    (B) The FAA-recognized identification area is no longer associated 
with a person eligible for an FAA-recognized identification area; or
    (C) The person who submitted a request for establishment of an FAA-
recognized identification area provided false or misleading information 
during the submission, amendment, or renewal process.
    (ii) The Administrator will notify the primary point of contact of 
the decision to terminate the FAA-recognized identification area and 
the reasons for the termination. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 
this section, if the FAA terminates an FAA-recognized identification 
area based upon a finding that the FAA-recognized identification area 
may pose a risk to aviation safety, public safety, homeland security, 
or national security, that area will no longer be eligible to be an 
FAA-recognized identification area for as long as those conditions 
remain in effect.
    (c) Petition to reconsider the FAA's decision to terminate an FAA-
recognized identification area. No later than 30 calendar days after 
the termination of an FAA-recognized identification area, a person may 
petition the Administrator for reconsideration of the decision. The 
petition must state the reasons justifying the request for 
reconsideration and include any supporting documentation. Upon 
consideration of the information submitted by the petitioner, the 
Administrator will notify the petitioner of the decision on the request 
for reconsideration.
    (d) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part 
13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
20. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 
47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International 
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
21. Amend Sec.  91.215 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and 
(c) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.215   ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and 
use.

* * * * *
    (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, 
and except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, no person 
may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an 
operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 
code capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code 
specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to Mode 3/A 
interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S 
interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions specified 
in TSO C-112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure 
altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that 
automatically replies to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure 
altitude information in 100-foot increments. The requirements of this 
paragraph (b) apply to--
* * * * *
    (c) Transponder-on operation. Except as provided in paragraph 
(e)(2) of this section, while in the airspace as specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person 
operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder 
maintained in accordance with Sec.  91.413 shall operate the 
transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply 
on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC, unless otherwise 
directed by ATC when transmitting

[[Page 4513]]

would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
* * * * *
    (e) Unmanned aircraft. (1) The requirements of paragraph (b) of 
this section do not apply to a person operating an unmanned aircraft 
under this part unless the operation is conducted under a flight plan 
and the person operating the unmanned aircraft maintains two-way 
communication with ATC.
    (2) No person may operate an unmanned aircraft under this part with 
a transponder on unless:
    (i) The operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person 
operating the unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with 
ATC; or
    (ii) The use of a transponder is otherwise authorized by the 
Administrator.
* * * * *

0
22. Amend Sec.  91.225 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 
(b) introductory text, (d) introductory text, and (f) introductory text 
and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.225   Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
equipment and use.

    (a) After January 1, 2020, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no 
person may operate an aircraft in Class A airspace unless the aircraft 
has equipment installed that--
* * * * *
    (b) After January 1, 2020, except as prohibited in paragraph (i)(2) 
of this section or unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may 
operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in airspace described in 
paragraph (d) of this section unless the aircraft has equipment 
installed that--
* * * * *
    (d) After January 1, 2020, except as prohibited in paragraph (i)(2) 
of this section or unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may 
operate an aircraft in the following airspace unless the aircraft has 
equipment installed that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of 
this section:
* * * * *
    (f) Except as prohibited in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, each 
person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this 
equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless--
* * * * *
    (i) For unmanned aircraft:
    (1) No person may operate an unmanned aircraft under a flight plan 
and in two way communication with ATC unless:
    (i) That aircraft has equipment installed that meets the 
performance requirements in TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c; and
    (ii) The equipment meets the requirements of Sec.  91.227.
    (2) No person may operate an unmanned aircraft under this part with 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out equipment in transmit 
mode unless:
    (i) The operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person 
operating that unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with 
ATC; or
    (ii) The use of ADS-B Out is otherwise authorized by the 
Administrator.

PART 107--SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

0
23. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 40103(b), 44701(a)(5), 
44807.

Sec.  107.53  [Redesignated as Sec.  107.56]

0
24. Redesignate Sec.  107.53 as Sec.  107.56.

0
25. Add Sec.  107.52 and new Sec.  107.53 to read as follows:

Sec.  107.52   ATC transponder equipment prohibition.

    Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may 
operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with a 
transponder on.

Sec.  107.53   Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
prohibition.

    Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may 
operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with ADS-B Out 
equipment in transmit mode.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 
106(f), 40101, 40103, 44701(a)(5), 44805, 44809, and section 2202 of 
Public Law 114-190.
Steve Dickson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-28948 Filed 1-8-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P