would be accessible by the public. Other comments mentioned that the
requirements would burden smaller producers and, in particular,
individual UAS builders.

    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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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-

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

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

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

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

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