commenters suggested that UAS be excluded from the registration
requirement based on frame size or prop size.
    A number of commenters recommended a combination of factors to
consider when determining what, if any, category of UAS should be
excluded from the registration requirement.
    Aviation Management Associates, Inc., said the FAA should exempt
``any small UAS regardless of weight that is limited by manufacturing
firmware or other acceptable means to operating below 500 feet above
ground level, will not exceed a \1/2\ range mile from the operator and
the associated ground control station, as well as provides geo-fencing
and altitude limitations that meets FAA exclusionary airspace.''
    The Property Drone Consortium stated that micro-drones of some
maximum weight, speed, and altitude should be exempt from registration.
The commenter suggested the following possible thresholds: Weight under
1 pound, 15-20 mph maximum flight speed, and an altitude of under 100
feet. The commenter also stated that an assessment could be made based
on joules of imparted energy. The commenter further stated that region
of operation should also be a point of consideration for a possible
exemption from the registration requirement.
    The Retail Industry Leaders Association said the FAA should adopt a
risk-based approach and only require registration of UAS that present
the greatest safety risks, based on consideration of factors including:
Product weight and overall size, operating range, maximum speed,
maximum altitude, fragility, and GPS and other navigation capability.
Travelers Insurance Company similarly asserted that any unmanned
aircraft that the FAA determines poses a risk to the national airspace
or causes serious bodily injury or property damage should be
registered. The commenter went on to say that the FAA should exercise
discretion with respect to unmanned aircraft ``that are so light in
weight and lacking in capabilities so as to pose no meaningful threat
to persons, property or the national airspace.'' The commenter did not,
however, specify what weight or what limited capabilities should be
used as a threshold for registration.
    Latitude Engineering, LLC asserted that ``there exists a threshold
of mass and speed under which the risk associated with the flight of an
unregistered commercial UAS is more than offset by the value returned
to the public.'' The company stated that it reached this conclusion
after evaluating the kinetic energy of various UAS airframe
configurations from first principals and drawing from studies such as
``UAS Safety Analysis'' by Exponent (Dec. 16, 2014). The company's
specific recommendation was to exempt UAS that are near the following
values: Mass of an upper limit of 1 pound, speed limited to 50 knots,
and altitude limited to 200 feet above ground level or 100 feet from
the highest obstacle within 200 lateral feet. The company also asserted
that no unregulated flights should be allowed within 5 miles of an
airport.
    Delair-Tech asserted that it would make sense for a category of
unmanned aircraft associated with a low risk of accidental damage to be
exempt from registration. The company defined this category as unmanned
aircraft that weigh less than 1 kilogram and have a flight performance
that is limited to 50 meters in height. The company based its
recommendation on the ``toys and mini-drones'' category defined by the
European Aviation Safety Agency in Ref 5, Proposal 14.
    ATA stated that the FAA should exempt from the registration
requirement any UAS that is to be used solely in rural areas, which the
commenter said should be defined as a certain distance from an airport
or a major population center. ATA noted that Canada also has an
exemption for operations in low-risk rural areas.
    EPIC noted that the registration scheme, as currently envisioned,
does little to solve the problem of identifying a UAS or UAS operator
because the only UAS that will be identifiable are those that are
recovered after a crash. EPIC also noted that the current registration
plan does nothing to inform the public of surveillance capabilities of
the drone, which is necessary to make UAS operators accountable to the
public.
    Another individual said the important criteria for a registration
determination are wingspan dimensions, propeller diameter and type,
energy source, and weight. Another individual stated that exemptions
should be based on weight, speed, and operating height. This commenter
suggested the FAA use a formula to calculate a UAS's impact energy,
where ``E'' is the impact energy, ``m'' is the mass, ``v'' is the
maximum flight speed, ``g'' is gravitational acceleration (constant),
and ``h'' is the height. This commenter stated that FAA could conduct a
comprehensive study to determine the critical value of impact energy,
and users could calculate the impact energy of their UAS, simply by
filling the mass, maximum flights speed, and maximum height into an
online formula available on the FAA Web site. Another individual said
most ``hobby class UAS'' should be excluded from registration based on
the empty weight of the aircraft and the potential kinetic energy of
the unit. This commenter asserted that there is precedent for this
method and that it has worked reasonably well with part 103 ultralight
vehicles and light sport aircraft. This commenter claimed that a 55-
pound model aircraft flown at 60 mph has around 12% of the kinetic
energy of a part 103 vehicle traveling at the same speed, even with a
payload of 40% of the empty weight. This commenter further claimed that
a typical motorcycle driven at 40 mph would have nearly 4 times the
kinetic energy of a 55-pound UAS flying at 60 mph. This commenter
asserted that society accepts this level of risk for pedestrians, and
questioned why one-quarter of that level of risk posed by an out-of-
control UAS would also not be acceptable.
    Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force accepted as a baseline
that the registration requirement will only apply to small unmanned
aircraft (i.e.,

aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) that are operated outdoors in
the NAS. Beyond that baseline, however, the FAA asked the Task Force
for recommendations regarding additional minimum requirements for small
unmanned aircraft that would need to be registered. In particular, the
agency asked the Task Force to consider factors including, but not
limited to, technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as
size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as the
age of the operator.
    The safety of the non-flying public and of other users of the NAS
was central to the Task Force's determination of what category of small
unmanned aircraft to recommend for exemption from the registration
requirement. With considerations of safety in mind, the Task Force
addressed the possibility of recommending an exclusion based on various
factors, including: Weight (alone and in combination with altitude or
kinetic energy), mass, speed, kinetic energy, payload, equipage (e.g.,
camera, GPS), and operational capabilities, such as the ability to
navigate the airspace, the ability to operate above a certain altitude
above ground level, the ability to operate beyond the visual line of
sight of the operator, the ability to operate autonomously, and flight
duration.
    The Task Force ultimately agreed to use a mass-based approach to
determine an appropriate category of small unmanned aircraft to
recommend for exclusion from the registration requirement. This was
based upon the probability of a catastrophic event occurring (i.e.,
death or serious injury) due to a collision between a small unmanned
aircraft and a person on the ground. The Task Force further stated that
because of the lack of data on unmanned aircraft-aircraft collisions,
engine ingestion, and propeller impacts by unmanned aircraft, the
probability of a catastrophic event occurring due to those events was
not part of its consideration. Rather, the task force noted that
research in this area continues and as it becomes available, this
threshold should be evaluated and adjusted accordingly. This approach
best satisfied the Task Force's concerns about safety and provided a
minimum weight threshold for registration that is easy to understand
and apply and would therefore encourage compliance.
    The formula considered by the task force is a standard aviation
risk assessment formula used in consideration of manned aircraft
safety. For ease of administration and small unmanned aircraft owner
understanding, the Task Force strongly advised a mass-based approach
for determining the generally safe threshold below which a small
unmanned aircraft system would not need to be registered.
    The Task Force recommended that the FAA should exempt from the
registration requirement any small unmanned aircraft weighing 250 grams
(g) or less. The 250 grams or less exclusion was based on a maximum
weight. The Task Force assumed maximum weight was defined as the
maximum weight possible including the aircraft, payload, and any other
associated weight.
    The Task Force proposed this mass by considering: The maximum free-
fall kinetic energy of a small unmanned aircraft from 500 feet (ft)
above ground level; research papers assessing the lethality of inert
debris based on kinetic energy; and a determination of the probability
that a small unmanned aircraft with potentially lethal kinetic energy
would strike a person on the ground. The Task Force's recommendation
assumed population density for a densely packed urban environment, as
well as a conservative estimate of the percentage of people in that
crowded environment who may be unprotected and susceptible to injury
from a falling small unmanned aircraft. To determine the probability of
an accident, the Task Force provided an estimate of the mean time
between failure (MTBF) for small unmanned aircraft. Mathematically, the
Task Force predicts that the likelihood of a fatal accident involving a
small unmanned aircraft weighing 250g or less is 4.7 x 10-8,
or less than 1 ground fatality for every 20 million flight hours of
small unmanned aircraft 250g or less. The Task Force noted that the
acceptable risk level for commercial air transportation is on the order
of 1 x 10-9, and general aviation risk levels are on the
order of 5 x 0-0.
    The Task Force emphasized that this recommendation is conditioned
on the premise that this and the Task Force's other recommendations
will be accepted, without alteration. Certain members of the Task Force
asked that it be noted that this is a nascent industry with very little
experiential data to inform the assumptions and that periodic review of
the data may be warranted. Certain Task Force members noted that the
FAA's 25 years of bird strike data show that fatal aircraft accidents
caused by small and medium birds (weighing four pounds on average) are
extremely rare despite the presence of billions of birds within the low
altitudes where small UAS typically fly, and urged the FAA to select a
weight that posed a similar safety risk. Task Force members
representing manned aircraft organizations expressed specific concerns
that data on UAS-aircraft collisions, engine ingestion, propeller, and
rotor impacts by UAS was not available when determining the weight
threshold. All members urged the FAA to expedite its work currently
underway in this area. The Task Force also emphasized that 250-gram
weight threshold was agreed to for registration purposes only and was
not a validation of the underlying assumptions for any purpose other
than the registration requirement. All Task Force members agreed that
the threshold should not be used by the FAA as an index for operational
restrictions or categories in any future rulemaking unless safety
concerns require the FAA to take appropriate action.
    IFR Requirement: The FAA has considered the comments received to
the Clarification/Request for Information and the Task Force
recommendations. As noted above, the formula considered by the Task
Force is a risk assessment approach that results in a method to
determine which small unmanned aircraft are required to be registered.
In recognition of the potential risks posed by small unmanned aircraft
highlighted by the Task Force's work, the FAA agrees with the Task
Force recommendation and generally agrees with its approach for
purposes of aircraft registration only. The Task Force recommendation
results in a simple, straight forward method to determine which
aircraft should be registered. Accordingly, this rulemaking adopts the
Task Force recommendation to exclude small unmanned aircraft weighing
an equivalent of 250 grams or less. (FAA is using the pound equivalent
of 250 grams-0.55 pounds.) The agency emphasizes, however, that the
Task Force approach may be different from the approach that will be
used in the sUAS Operation and Certification rulemaking to develop
operating requirements.
    The FAA recognizes that the Task Force recommendation strikes a
balance between many stakeholders, including modelers, unmanned
aircraft manufacturers, operators, retailers, and the manned aviation
community. As this aviation sector continues to develop, operating
experience and new technologies may compel the agency to reconsider the
appropriate weight threshold for unmanned aircraft registration.
Additionally, new research may necessitate a change from the weight-
based approach recommended by the Task Force. Since the Task Force's
methodology only assessed the

risk to individuals on the ground, the agency recognizes that
additional research is necessary to evaluate the risk of collisions
between small unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft. The FAA has
several tests, both in-progress and planned, in collaboration with our
UAS Test Sites and UAS Center of Excellence.
    The FAA considered comments that advocated for the use of weight in
combination with other factors and determined that these scenarios
would be more difficult to implement and could cause confusion. The FAA
also considered comments that recommended exclusions from the
registration requirement based on operational limitations, e.g.,
altitude, speed, visual line of sight operations only. However, at this
time, the FAA is concerned that these approaches could stifle
innovation in the ongoing and rapid development of sUAS technology.
Thus, the FAA determined that these were not viable methods to create
exclusions.
    Regarding commenters who recommended that the FAA exclude certain
aircraft from the requirement of registration based on the locations at
which those aircraft would be operated (e.g., private property), such
an approach would defeat the purpose of registration, which is to
identify aircraft throughout the NAS and the owners of such aircraft.
Registration based on intended location would not address that intent
because the NAS extends over private property. In response to the
comments urging the exclusion of some or all model aircraft from the
registration requirement, the FAA has determined that doing so would be
contrary to the policy adopted in the October 22, 2015 Clarification/
Request for Information.
    In response to the comments urging the exclusion of some or all
model aircraft from the registration requirement, as stated in the
Clarification/Request for Information, model aircraft are indeed
aircraft and thus they are subject to the statutory requirement of
aircraft registration. 80 FR at 63913-63914.
    In response to the commenters who advocated for a limited exemption
for unmanned aircraft operated exclusively indoors, the FAA reiterates
that the requirement of registration pertains to aircraft operated in
the NAS, thus outdoors. An exception is not required to stipulate that
small unmanned aircraft operated exclusively indoors are not required
to register with the FAA.
    Regarding comments received to the Clarification/Request for
Information pertaining to the micro UAS proposal contained in the sUAS
Operation and Certification NPRM, the FAA notes that issues pertaining
to weight classifications for purposes of sUAS operation and
certification purposes are outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
    Regarding comments pertaining to privacy and operational concerns,
the agency clarifies that this rulemaking is intended only to provide
relief from the existing part 47 registration requirements. Pursuant to
the Presidential Memorandum issued on February 15, 2015, Promoting
Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of UAS, the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) is leading a multi-stakeholder
engagement process to develop and communicate best practices for
privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial
and private use of UAS in the NAS, and will address these issues
through that process.

D. Eligibility To Register

1. Citizenship
    This final rule includes the statutory eligibility requirements for
aircraft registration as required by 49 U.S.C. 44102. An aircraft may
be registered under 49 U.S.C. 44103 only when the aircraft is not
registered under the laws of a foreign country and is owned by (1) a
citizen of the United States; (2) an individual citizen of a foreign
country lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
or (3) a corporation not a citizen of the United States when the
corporation is organized and doing business under the laws of the
United States or a State, and the aircraft is based and primarily used
in the United States. The FAA may also register aircraft owned by the
United States government or a State or local governmental entity. See
49 U.S.C. 44102. Part 47 includes these statutory eligibility
requirements.
    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM addressed the applicability of the statutory
aircraft-registration requirement by proposing to require all small
unmanned aircraft subject to the proposal to be registered pursuant to
the existing registration process of part 47. See 80 FR 9574. The NPRM
did not address issues pertaining to the eligibility to register
(including citizenship).
    Although the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM did not address
the issue of aircraft owner citizenship as it relates to small unmanned
aircraft in part 47, one commenter to the NPRM raised the issue. DJI
acknowledged the constraints the statutory aircraft registration
requirements place on the FAA, but believed that those restrictions
prevent most foreign citizens from operating a small UAS commercially
in the United States. DJI presumed that tourists operating small UAS as
model aircraft would be allowed to do so. DJI urged the FAA to consider
asking Congress either to drop the aircraft registration requirement
for all small UAS altogether or to withdraw the citizenship requirement
(including its limited exceptions).
    Clarification/Request for Information: Rotor Sport recommended
against requiring U.S. citizenship for registration of small UAS
because it would be ``severely detrimental'' to the rotor sport
industry. In particular, Rotor Sport stated that requiring citizenship
for small UAS that are already governed by the Amateur Competitive
Sport regulations of the AMA ``would severely and financially impact
international drone racing events, including the 2016 World Drone
Racing Championship being held in Hawaii.''
    Task Force: As part of its discussions regarding who should
register a small unmanned aircraft, the Task Force addressed the issue
of citizenship status of applicants for registration. Considering the
goals of encouraging the growth of the UAS industry and compliance with
the registration requirement, the Task Force recommended there be no
U.S. citizenship or residency requirement for registration eligibility.
If, however, the FAA does include a U.S. citizenship requirement, the
Task Force recommended that the agency use its discretion to permit
non-citizen owners to operate in the U.S. by applying for a waiver from
the registration requirement for a specified period of time (consistent
with 49 U.S.C. 41703(a)(4)). The Task Force believed that eliminating
the citizenship requirement would help achieve the goal that small
unmanned aircraft owners are known to the FAA for safety purposes.
    IFR Requirement: While the FAA can make certain changes to the
registration system regarding the types of information to be collected,
and how that information is collected, the statutory requirements
pertaining to citizenship in 49 U.S.C. 44102 are clear. The statutory
citizenship criteria must be satisfied in order to obtain a certificate
of U.S. registration.
    As noted above, registration is just one requirement that must be
satisfied in order to operate an aircraft in the U.S. With respect to
the operation of unmanned aircraft, Article 8 of the

Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7
December 1944 and amended by the ICAO Assembly (Doc 7300) addresses
`pilotless aircraft' and states that:

No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be flown
without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State without
special authorization by that State and in accordance with the terms
of such authorization. Each contracting State undertakes to insure
that the flight of such aircraft without a pilot in regions open to
civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil
aircraft.

    For those that do not satisfy the citizenship requirements for U.S.
registration, consistent with the authority in 49 U.S.C. 41703, the
Secretary may authorize certain foreign civil aircraft to be navigated
in the U.S. only (1) if the country of registry grants a similar
privilege to aircraft of the U.S.; (2) by an airman holding a
certificate or license issued or made valid by the U.S. government or
the country of registry; (3) if the Secretary authorizes the
navigation; and (4) if the navigation is consistent with the terms the
Secretary may prescribe. See also 14 CFR part 375, Navigation of
Foreign Civil Aircraft in the United States.
    In this instance, with respect to those individuals who do not
satisfy the citizenship requirements and yet wish to conduct model
aircraft operations in the U.S., the Secretary has determined,
consistent with Article 8, and the authority under 49 U.S.C. 41703, as
implemented in 14 CFR part 375, that it is appropriate to allow these
operations to occur provided that individuals complete the process set
forth in 14 CFR part 48 and comply with the statutory requirements for
conducting model aircraft operations in Public Law 112-95, section 336
(Feb. 14, 2012). For these individuals, recognizing that most ICAO
member states have not imposed a registration or airworthiness
requirement for these small unmanned aircraft, we will recognize these
aircraft as ``other foreign civil aircraft'' as defined in 14 CFR
375.11. Consistent with the Secretary's authority in section 333 of
Public Law 112-95, provided the aircraft are operated exclusively as
model aircraft in accordance with section 336 of Public Law 112-95, an
airworthiness certificate will not be required. Section 375.38 will
require individuals to comply with Sec.  48.30 and pay a $5 fee,
complete the application and the registration process in Sec. Sec.
48.100(b) and (c), 48.105, and 48.115; mark the aircraft in accordance
with the provisions in Sec. Sec.  48.200 and 48.205, and comply with
the statutory model aircraft requirements in section 336 of Public Law
112-95. The agency will consider the certificate that is issued to be a
recognition of ownership rather than a certificate of U.S. aircraft
registration. These conditions are consistent with and impose no
greater burden than the requirements imposed on U.S. citizens
conducting model aircraft operations in the U.S.
2. Commercial Activity Conducted by Non-U.S. Citizens
    A corporation that is not a citizen of the United States may
register an aircraft in the United States when the corporation is
organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or a
State, and the aircraft is based and primarily used in the United
States. 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(1)(C). This statutory limitation exists in
order to prevent the United States registry from ``becoming an
international registry'' and ``United States aircraft registration from
becoming a so-called `flag of convenience.' '' See 44 FR 61937, 61937-
61938 (October 29, 1979).
    Part 47 implements the requirement to define ``based and primarily
used in the United States.'' Under part 47, aircraft are deemed to be
``based and primarily used in the United States'' if one of the
following conditions is satisfied: (1) The aircraft is used exclusively
in the United States during the period of registration; or (2) the
aircraft flight hours accumulated within the United States amount to at
least 60 percent of the total flight hours of the aircraft, measured
over six month intervals. Sec.  47.9. Because operations by small
unmanned aircraft registered in accordance with part 48 are limited to
operations within the United States, it is not necessary to further
define ``based and primarily used in the United States'' as provided in
part 47.
    With respect to foreign-owned or controlled entities or individuals
who want to conduct non-recreational UAS operations but who do not
satisfy the definition above and thus cannot register their aircraft in
the United States under either 14 CFR part 47 or part 48, the
Department and the FAA may consider allowing these operations to occur
with additional authorization under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 41703,
the provisions of 14 CFR part 375, and other safety authorizations as
deemed necessary by the FAA. Comments are requested on what factors the
FAA or the Department should consider in determining whether and when
to grant such authorizations. The Department will address these
authorizations in more detail in the sUAS Operation and Certification
final rule, the final rule on sUAS registration, or other rulemaking as
appropriate. For more information and guidance regarding authorities
for non-U.S. citizens, please contact the Department's Foreign Air
Carrier Licensing Division.
3. Minimum Age To Register
    Clarification/Request for Information: In the Clarification/Request
for Information document, the agency sought comments on whether there
should be a minimum age at which a person would be permitted to
register a small unmanned aircraft. An individual commenter opposed a
minimum age requirement, noting that a 10 year old can be safer than a
30 year old. A few other individual commenters did, however, recommend
a minimum age requirement to register and operate a UAS--one commenter
recommended 21 years old (to purchase and operate a UAS), two
commenters recommended 18 years old (to register a UAS), and one
commenter recommended 16 years old (to register a UAS). Another
individual commenter said there should be an age requirement to
purchase UAS weighing more than 4 pounds. That commenter did not,
however, suggest an age at which this requirement should be set. One
commenter pointed to the existence of child protection laws and
questioned how the FAA will protect privacy interests in the
registration process.
    Task Force: Due to the anticipated use of a Web-based application
process for part 48, the Task Force considered age-related limitations
applicable to Web-based information collection. Consistent with the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. 6501-6505,
the Task Force recommended a requirement that individuals be 13 years
or older to register a UAS.
    IFR Requirement: In response to the comments from the
Clarification/Request for Information, the agency notes that the
comments did not provide justification for an age restriction for
purposes of registration given that there is no minimum age for the
operation of some sUAS and the agency proposed a minimum age of 17 for
operation of sUAS used for commercial (non-hobby or non-recreational)
purposes. Although one commenter proposed that the registration age
should be linked to the weight of the aircraft, given that the
registration process provided by this final rule is exclusively Web-
based, protections for minor registrants must control. The FAA agrees
with the Task Force recommendation to limit Web-based small unmanned
aircraft registration to persons age 13 and older and has included this
requirement in this IFR.

    As a matter of policy (OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy
Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002), all Web sites and online
services operated by the federal government and contractors operating
on behalf of federal agencies must comply with the standards set forth
in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (16 CFR part 312).
COPPA applies to Web site operators (including mobile apps) directed to
children under 13 that collect, use, or disclose personal information
from children. It also applies to operators of general audience Web
sites or online services with actual knowledge that they are
collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children
under 13. COPPA also applies to Web sites or online services that have
actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information directly
from users of another Web site or online service directed to children.
Operators who are covered by COPPA must:
    1. Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing
their information practices for personal information collected online
from children;
    2. Provide direct notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental
consent, with limited exceptions, before collecting personal
information online from children;
    3. Give parents the choice of consenting to the operator's
collection and internal use of a child's information, but prohibiting
the operator from disclosing that information to third parties (unless
disclosure is integral to the site or service, in which case, this must
be made clear to parents);
    4. Provide parents access to their child's personal information to
review and/or have the information deleted;
    5. Give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online
collection of a child's personal information;
    6. Maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of
information they collect from children, including by taking reasonable
steps to release such information only to parties capable of
maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
    7. Retain personal information collected online from a child for
only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was
collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to
protect against its unauthorized access or use.
    The Registry, through the small unmanned aircraft registration Web
site, is expected to gather personal information as defined by COPPA,
such as first and last name, a physical or mailing address and online
contact information. In light of these requirements, the registration
Web site will require a responsible person age 13 or over to complete
the registration application, providing their name in place of the
child's name when the aircraft owner is a child under 13, as required
by Sec.  48.15.
    All aircraft owners who are age 13 and older will be required to
register in their name as the aircraft owner. The agency does not
expect a person who turns 13 after the date on which the Certificate of
Aircraft Registration is issued but before renewal is required, to
reregister their small unmanned aircraft in their own name. The agency
expects this change to take place at the time of registration renewal.
Until such time, the responsible person can continue to meet the
obligations of the owner for purposes of device identification.
    We recognize that in order to register in the system, the payment
of the fee requires the use of a credit, debit, gift, or prepaid card
using the Visa, MasterCard, American Express, JCB, Discover, or Diners
Club network. For owners who are age 13 and older who do not have
access to one of these payment methods, a parent, guardian, or
responsible person could submit payment on their behalf using one of
these options.

E. Registration Required Prior to Operation

1. Registration Prior to Operation
    Clarification/Request for Information: The FAA requested comments
on the point at which registration should occur (e.g., point-of-sale or
prior to operation). Several trade associations whose members use UAS
(News Media Coalition, Air Medical Operators Association, Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA), and Property Drone Consortium),
Modovolate Aviation, LLC, and Morris P. Hebert, Inc. supported point-
of-sale registration. A number of individuals stated that registration
at point of sale was the only approach that would ensure that
registration would occur at least for ready-to-fly UASs. These
commenters stated that many operators would not register later. Some of
these commenters, however, questioned whether point-of-sale
registration could be applied to home-built or traded UASs. A few
commenters compared the registration process to that which occurs for
car and gun sales. Some commenters stated that an unlock process should
be included so that the UAS could not be used until registration was
complete. Another suggested registering the beacon, not the UAS.
Commenters stated that point-of-sale registration, with the seller
handling the information, would reduce the burden on buyers. Some
individuals stated that purchasers should have to demonstrate that they
were familiar with the rules for operation.
    Chronicled, Inc. stated that a registration system should be
designed to integrate all POS systems that currently exist; this
commenter assumed that each buyer would have an email address and
government ID number that could be used to set up a registration
account by downloading a mobile app. This company also assumed that the
product would include a public key infrastructure (PKI) chip. The Real
Time Technology Group stated that vendors could easily verify IDs
presented by checking public records, and government watch lists.
    The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), the Colorado
Agricultural Aviation Association, and an individual stated that the
burden on vendors would be no greater than submitting credit card
charges. NAAA recommended that initial registration occur at the
manufacturers, with all subsequent sales involving a transfer of
ownership. A law firm and individual commenters generally supported
having the vendor submit the information because, they argued, this
would ensure that the registration occurred. One suggested that the
vendor submit a temporary registration with the purchaser required to
submit a final version.
    Most commenters that addressed this issue expressed either
opposition to the approach or concerns about the viability of point-of-
sale registration for some sales. AT&T Services, Inc. questioned the
FAA's legal authority to impose a registration requirement at the
point-of-sale, given that the statutory authority underlying the UAS
registration requirement, as well as its implementing regulation,
applies to persons who ``operate'' aircraft. In this case, AT&T
asserted, it is the owner of the UAS who ``operates'' it, and should
therefore be responsible for registering it.
    The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) stated that point-
of-sale registration would require the FAA to build new information
technology systems to collect the information and retail outlets would
have to build and test systems to link to the FAA. RILA stated that
this was unlikely to happen in the short timeframe the FAA is
proposing. RILA further stated that the practical realities of
implementing a

point-of-sale registration system in time for this holiday season would
impose heavy and costly administrative burdens on the FAA and retailers
while at the same time raising serious consumer privacy concerns.
    The National Retail Federation (NRF) stated that many retail point-
of-sale systems are not configured to capture individual product
identifying information. From a product's UPC code, many point-of-sale
systems will identify the type of item, but cannot be configured to
automatically capture information identifying each unique instance of
an item type, such as a serial number. NRF stated that point-of-sale
registration would require retailers to build a manual intervention
process into their point-of-sale systems; cashiers would have to
manually capture the serial number of the UAS and other required
registration information. The commenter said this process would require
training sales personnel, which imposes labor costs.
    RILA and NRF stated that collecting personal information in a
checkout line was problematic and presented data safety issues. RILA
stated that it would cause significant delays in checking out for both
UAS buyers and other customers. For both store and online sales, RILA
stated that the retailer would have to explain the requirements to the
customers because many would not be aware of the FAA rule. RILA also
stated that point-of-sale registration would not capture the needed
information for those UAS that are bought as gifts. Finally, RILA
stated that a point-of-sale requirement would regulate sales rather
than operations and questioned whether the FAA has the authority to
regulate sales.
    A number of individual commenters stated the point of sale would
not work for people who build their own models from purchased parts or
3D-generated parts, for many online sales, and for purchases from
foreign Web sites. One commenter stated that he bought parts without
necessarily knowing exactly what kind of model he will build. Another
commenter stated that some kits are sold by individuals operating small
businesses from their homes. Several individuals suggested that the FAA
provide identification numbers to purchasers so that the seller would
only need to record the numbers. Other commenters recommended that AMA
membership or proof of registration with the FAA be required at point
of sale.
    RILA, Horizon Hobby, and many individual commenters supported
registration prior to operation. They stated that this approach would
make it possible to capture the many UAS that are purchased as gifts,
from foreign Web sites, or sold privately and those that are
constructed by the operator. A number of commenters suggested that this
would allow the operator to affix the registration number on the UAS.
Other commenters stated that they own multiple aircraft and asked that
the operator, rather than the aircraft, be registered. A few
individuals stated that the registration process could be handled when
the owner filed the warranty card. One commenter stated that a prior to
operation placement of name and contact information in the aircraft
would be a more efficient means of ensuring the identity of the person
piloting the aircraft is tied to the aircraft. Another individual
stated that in some cases models are started by one person, passed on
to others, and perhaps never finished or flown; including such models
would serve no purpose.
    The NRF stated UAS should be manufactured so that they can only be
turned on and operated after the consumer registers the UAS and
receives and applies an activation code. A manufacturer, Drone House
Joint Stock Company, stated that this approach is its model for
registration.
    Another individual questioned how the FAA has authority to require
registration of UAS that are ``on the ground, not being flown, with the
drone being turned off, in a box, and inside a building.'' This
commenter asserted that, consistent with 14 CFR parts 1, 47, and 91 and
49 U.S.C. 44101(a), the FAA only has jurisdiction over a UAS that is in
operation.
    Task Force: The Task Force approached its discussions of the
registration process with two goals in mind--to ensure accountability
by creating a traceable link between aircraft and owner, and to
encourage the maximum levels of regulatory compliance by making the
registration process as simple as possible. To achieve the twin goals
of accountability and compliance, the Task Force recommended the FAA
institute a simple, owner-based registration system in which the FAA
issues a single registration number to each registrant which covers all
unmanned aircraft owned by that registrant.
    The Task Force also addressed the question of registration process
design. Because 49 U.S.C. 44101(a) stipulates that a person may only
operate an aircraft when it is registered with the FAA, the majority of
Task Force members believed the FAA cannot require registration of
unmanned aircraft at the point-of-sale. Some members of the Task Force
expressed the opinion that maximum compliance can best be achieved with
point-of-sale registration and those members therefore encouraged the
FAA to include it as one of several options for registration. Several
other members of the Task Force pointed out that, because the FAA's
authority extends only to operation of aircraft, point-of-sale
registration cannot be mandated.
    IFR Requirement: The FAA agrees with the Task Force recommendation
and comments stating that registration should be required prior to
operation of the small unmanned aircraft, as opposed to at the point of
sale. As referenced by the Task Force report, 49 U.S.C. 44101(a)
stipulates that a person may only operate an aircraft once it is
registered with the FAA.
    Registration prior to operation as opposed to point-of-sale
registration also avoids a number of logistical considerations
associated with consumer product purchases identified by commenters,
such as distinguishing the purchaser from the ultimate owner, and the
burden placed on retailers when such a transaction occurs at a cash
register in a store.
    The agency emphasizes, however, that conformance to the statutory
requirement to register prior to operation does not foreclose the
opportunity for the development of a point-of-sale web-based
application for registration that relieves the associated burdens
identified by commenters. The agency encourages innovation in point-of-
sale registration as it may provide the agency with a means by which to
receive information regarding small unmanned aircraft in a seamless
fashion, and hopes to work with retailers and manufacturers in the
future to make the process as simple as possible.
    In response to commenters' concern about whether a small unmanned
aircraft that is not used in the NAS (i.e. indoors) would be
inadvertently registered via point-of-sale registration, the agency
confirms that only those small unmanned aircraft that are operated
outdoors must register. Further, there is no obligation to register a
small unmanned aircraft that will not be operated outdoors.
2. Registration of Each Aircraft
    Clarification/Request for Information: Most commenters favored a
requirement to register the owner \36\ of the UAS

instead of a requirement to register the UAS itself. Under this
registration scheme, each owner would receive a single, unique
registration number that would cover every UAS that person owns. Many
commenters pointed out that this is how the AMA handles registration.
Commenters asserted that a requirement to register each individual UAS
is impractical and overly burdensome, particularly in light of the fact
that most recreational users own multiple (often many) UAS. Commenters
also pointed out that many UAS owners, especially those who build their
own aircraft, regularly replace parts, as well as trade and sell their
aircraft with other UAS owners. Those commenters asserted that a
requirement to register the owner instead of the aircraft would
alleviate the burdens associated with re-registering an aircraft each
time such an event occurs. Commenters also claimed that registration of
the owner of a UAS is all that is necessary to satisfy the DOT and FAA
goals of traceability and accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Some commenters said the registration requirement should
apply to the ``owner'' while other commenters said it should apply
to the ``pilot'' or ``operator.'' Because these commenters were
largely members of the model aircraft community, and therefore both
the owners and operators of their aircraft, this seems to be a
distinction without a difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPIC stated that a UAS registration requirement is an ``absolutely
essential'' requirement to establish accountability for use of
``autonomous surveillance devices'' in the United States. EPIC further
stated, however, that to ensure that the registry fosters
accountability and responsibility among UAS operators, the registry
must include provisions addressing privacy issues ``to ensure a
comprehensive baseline set of protections that facilitate the safe
integration of drones.''
    Union Pacific Railroad similarly stated support for ``reasonable
measures by the FAA to encourage accountability and responsibility
among all UAS operators, including recreational users of sUAS.''
    A number of commenters recommended that the FAA implement a
licensing system like the FCC uses to register amateur radio operators.
Commenters drew comparisons between amateur radio operators, most of
whom own many different pieces of radio equipment, and hobby aircraft
modelers, many of whom own many different model aircraft. Commenters
explained that under the FCC licensing system the operator, not the
equipment, is licensed for non-commercial operations after passing a
safety test. Commenters asserted that registration alone does not
guarantee a model aircraft operator understands the rules of safety for
operating in the NAS, so a licensing system with a testing component
may be the best way to ensure safe operations in the NAS. One commenter
acknowledged that licensing model aircraft operators would require a
change in the law, but stated his belief that there is wide support for
this in both Congress and the modeling community.
    One commenter recommended that individuals be required to pass a
background check before getting a license for UAS operations. Other
commenters said the registration system should be more like the systems
to obtain a license to hunt or to operate a boat, and less like firearm
registration.
    In contrast to those commenters who advocated for an owner-based
registration system, Delair-Tech stated that each entry in the
registration database ``should be attached to exactly one UAV.''
Aviation Management said the FAA should consider independent
registration for a UAS operator in addition to registration of the
unmanned aircraft and all of its support systems, including the ground
control station.
    The National Air Transportation Association expressed its support
of the registration requirement, but acknowledged the ability to track
an unsafe or noncompliant UAS back to the operator is limited to
incidents in which the UAS is disabled, but not too damaged to obtain
registration information. Several commenters, including the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, questioned the usefulness of a registration
number for identification purposes asserting a registration number
would be impossible to read during flight, would only be useful after
an incident has occurred and only if the UAS is recovered. Some
commenters said affixing the name and contact information of the owner
to or in the aircraft will serve the same purpose with much less
expense. Other commenters said because it will be very easy for an
individual to ignore the registration requirement, the small benefit of
registration will be greatly outweighed by the burden placed on the
model aircraft industry and the cost of implementing and maintaining
the system.
    NAAA and CoAA said registration will help track down who is
responsible after an accident, but noted that FAA will not be able to
enforce illegal and unsafe operations without requiring UAS to be
equipped with an ADS-B like system through which to trace them.
    Task Force: The Task Force recommended an owner-based registration
system to achieve the goals of accountability and compliance. Under the
Task Force scheme, the FAA would issue a single registration number to
each registrant that would be used to identify all unmanned aircraft
owned and operated by that registrant.
    IFR Requirement: The FAA sought to integrate the Task Force
recommendation and comments regarding an owner registration approach
while also considering the best public policy with respect to small
unmanned aircraft registration. As addressed in the preamble discussion
``Registration Process,'' the registration system will differentiate
between small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively as
model aircraft and small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as other
than model aircraft in that different information will be collected for
each population.
    Small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively as model
aircraft will be registered with a single Certificate of Aircraft
Registration issued to the aircraft owner. As with all other small
unmanned aircraft, registration must be completed prior to operation of
a small unmanned aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft. Owners of
small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as model aircraft must
complete the registration application process by submitting basic
contact information, such as name, address, and email address. The
owner will receive a Certificate of Aircraft Registration with a single
registration number that constitutes the registration for each of this
particular owner's aircraft. There would be no limit to the number of
small unmanned aircraft registered under the owner's registration. This
approach serves the purpose of the statutory aircraft registration
requirement because each small unmanned aircraft must bear the owner's
registration number, thus allowing for the aircraft and its owner to be
identified.
    The agency notes that, once an aircraft is no longer exclusively
used as a model aircraft, then the owner must complete a new
registration application in accordance with the requirements for
aircraft used as other than model aircraft.
    The owner of a small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as other
than a model aircraft must complete the registration application by
providing aircraft-specific information in addition to basic contact
information. The owner will receive a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration with a registration number for each individual aircraft
registered.
    The agency determined that this registration approach is necessary
for entities intending to use small

unmanned aircraft as other than model aircraft because, based on the
agency's experience with exemptions issued under section 333 of Public
Law 112-95, these entities are expected to conduct a higher volume of
operations, utilize multiple aircraft and at times conduct multiple
simultaneous operations across the country, which introduces more risk
into the NAS. In contrast, a small unmanned aircraft owner who operates
small unmanned aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft is expected to
use only one of his or her aircraft at a time and to do so on a less
frequent basis than a person conducting operations with small unmanned
aircraft intended to be used as other than as a model aircraft.
    Components of the owner registration approach will still be
available for small unmanned aircraft used as other than model aircraft
in that the agency will utilize an owner profile for the registration
Web site under which multiple aircraft can be registered. Owners will
have a single profile that contains all of their aircraft, and although
they may register multiple aircraft under that profile, each aircraft
must have a unique number that exists under that profile. The FAA notes
that persons using small unmanned aircraft other than as model aircraft
will not be able to use the part 48 registration system until March 31,
2016.
    The FAA notes that commenters comparing the registration
requirement to licensure misconstrue the purpose of registration. While
registration allows the agency an opportunity to educate sUAS
operators, the primary purpose of registration is to identify the
aircraft owner.

F. Registration Process

1. Design of Registration System
    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM requested comments on the registration process. Both
supporters and opponents of the proposed registration provision said
FAA should take steps to ease the registration process. The Property
Drone Consortium stated that a streamlined registration process was
necessary to ensure growth in the UAS industry. Amazon, Association of
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, and several others urged FAA to allow online registration
of aircraft. Similarly, Small UAV Coalition and AUVSI, among other
commenters, urged FAA to establish an electronic UAS registration
database.
    Clarification/Request for Information: In the Clarification/Request
for Information, the Administrator and the Secretary requested
information related to the logistics of the small unmanned aircraft
registration process. Specifically, the FAA and DOT requested comments
on how the registration process should be designed to minimize burdens
and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry.
The FAA and DOT also requested comments on whether registration should
be electronic or web-based, and whether there were existing tools that
could support an electronic registration process.
    In response to issues raised in the October 22, 2015 Clarification/
Request for Information, commenters provided numerous suggestions for
designing the registration process to minimize burdens and best protect
innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry. Suggestions
included: Registering operators instead of individual aircraft;
providing a variety of ways to register, including online, via
telephone, through a mobile application, or at various locations, such
as post offices or retail outlets; implementing a licensure procedure
similar to that required by FCC for ham radio operators; allowing
aircraft that already comply with AMA or FCC labeling practices to meet
the labeling requirements to avoid conflicting requirements; and
permitting operation of UAS upon submission of registration information
rather than instituting a waiting period. Some commenters recommend
that small unmanned aircraft manufacturers provide information to the
FAA or assist owners in providing information to the FAA.
    A law firm recommended the agency use the same registration system
it uses for registering manned aircraft. The commenter noted the
current registration system requires the following information: A
notarized statement by the builder, manufacturer, or applicant for
registration describing the UAS in detail, evidence of ownership, and
an Aircraft Registration Application (FAA AC Form 8050-1), which
identifies UAS and the owner. This commenter suggested manufacturers
provide the information regarding the UAS and its capabilities, which
would reduce burdens on retailers and consumers and result in a high
degree of compliance.
    Comments submitted as part of the AMA form letter campaign stated
that the registration process should be as automated as possible and
minimally intrusive. Those commenters stated that the system of
aircraft identification used by AMA members (i.e., where members place
their names and addresses or AMA numbers on their model aircraft)
should be acceptable for AMA members as an alternative means of
complying with the registration requirement. The Experimental Aircraft
Association agreed that the identification used by AMA members could be
allowed to meet the UAS registration requirements, which would
alleviate some of the burden on the FAA while maintaining the
accountability that DOT seeks through registration. However, EAA
expressed doubts about the practicality of requiring registration of
millions of UAS and model aircraft currently in use in the United
States and feared the magnitude of the system would overshadow other
safety measures.
    An individual stated the main problem registration is intended to
solve is the unsafe use of UAS by inexperienced or uninformed
operators; therefore, the commenter recommended registrants be required
to pass a test as part of the registration process.
    The National Agricultural Aviation Association and the Colorado
Agricultural Aviation Association stated FAA should focus on its
aviation safety mission, including focusing on the safety of manned
aircraft even if that resulted in requiring registration and more
safety equipment for unmanned aircraft. These commenters said requiring
items, such as indestructible data plate, ADS-B, and visible strobes,
in addition to registration would encourage growth of the industry
through accident prevention. In contrast, several individual commenters
contended any registration requirement will stifle innovation and
discourage growth.
    Several individual commenters questioned whether the agency can
handle the registration of millions of recreational UAS. One commenter
noted that the registration database could become overloaded and
unmanageable if every person registers every model aircraft they
purchase or receive--many of which will not last past a single flight--
but then fail to notify the FAA when a model is lost, destroyed, or
sold. Also pointing to the short life span of most small UAS, another
commenter similarly said the registration system will become
overwhelmed if recreational users are required to register and re-
register each model aircraft they obtain. Another commenter said that
requiring UAS owners to renew their registration will ``complicate
everything'' and lead to people involuntarily breaking the law when
they forget to re-register their UAS.

    Task Force: The Task Force broadly agreed that in order to promote
greater acceptance of the registration requirement, the registration
process should be as quick and easy as possible. The Task Force
encouraged the FAA to consider implementing additional methods and
strategies to maximize compliance with the registration requirement but
without adding cumbersome steps into the process.
    IFR Requirement: As has been noted previously, the FAA has
developed and, by this rule, is creating an alternative, web-based
registration system to register small unmanned aircraft prior to their
operation. This web-based registration system is responsive to comments
seeking an automated approach that is capable of managing the expected
volume of registration. The agency expects that the web-based
registration system will facilitate compliance with the aircraft
registration requirement because of its accessibility and ease of use.
Additionally, an electronic registration system complies fully with the
Government Paperwork Elimination Act, Public Law 105-277, which
requires that when practicable, federal agencies use electronic forms,
filing, and signatures to conduct official business with the public.
    As has been noted, the agency considered a point-of-sale
registration approach, but ultimately determined that it would be not
be feasible for manufacturers, retailers, and the agency to implement
at this time. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the agency is
evaluating how to address the burdens associated with point-of-sale
registration identified by commenters.
2. Web-Based Registration Application
    The FAA received many comments regarding whether or not the agency
should create an online registration system to register UAS or their
operators. The vast majority of commenters were supportive of the use
of an electronic or web-based registration system to collect
registration information. However, commenters articulated significant
differences in how they preferred the system be established,
implemented, and enforced. Several commenters said that web-based
registration would be the least intrusive and burdensome method of
registration. These commenters also suggested that an online system may
be the cheapest way to register individuals, reducing paperwork and
processing time.
    Clarification/Request for Information: In responding to the
Clarification/Request for Information, multiple commenters, including
Horizon Hobby LLC, recommended that FAA create a registration platform
that would be accessible from anywhere and any web-based device,
including mobile devices. As stated by commenters, this platform could
then be accessed repeatedly by individuals, allowing them to update
registration information as their device specifications change.
Commenters said that this type of online system would allow individuals
to add new small unmanned aircraft to the registry easily and in a
minimally burdensome fashion.
    ATA stated that an electronic registration system would
dramatically shorten the registration process and make it more
manageable for the FAA. ATA also noted that any cost associated with
updating the FAA's system is likely to be fairly minimal and could be
offset by charging a small registration fee.
    Other commenters suggested that web-based registrations be
integrated into online points of sale to ensure that those devices
purchased from kits are registered without placing an outside burden on
operators. Commenters said that this registration would be a part of
the retailer's sale process and would be a requirement of purchase;
however, registration and approval would be instantaneous. These
commenters, including Aviation Management Associates, indicated that
this type of online registration could also include educational
material and a quiz that must be passed as a condition of registration.
According to the commenters, the educational material and quiz could
serve as a mechanism to ensure that operators understand basic aviation
laws and safety guidelines.
    While most commenters were supportive of electronic or web-based
registrations, some expressed concern with an entirely electronic
system. Many commenters expressed concern for the registration needs of
those without consistent internet access. They instead recommended a
paper alternative, in conjunction with online registration, be
implemented to ease the registration burden of some operators.
    Multiple commenters suggested that outside of new technologies, the
agency could use existing electronic registration systems as a template
from which to craft a specific FAA registration program. For example, a
few commenters recommended using existing e-commerce registration
templates as a model. One commenter suggested that FAA work with
commercial retailers like DJI to use their current registration
platforms as a basis for point of sale registration. Other commenters
suggested that FAA implement the registration procedures of the AMA for
all operators, or use the AMA system as a template upon which the FAA
can develop an equivalent system.
    NetMoby and other commenters suggested that FAA leverage existing
FAA and other Federal agencies' electronic registration systems to
build a registration system unique to UASs. Examples provided by these
commenters included creating a registration system similar to the one
currently in place for FAA tail numbers, or developing a registration
Web site with similar functionality to radio licensing sites. Skyward
Inc, for example, recommended that FAA leverage its current FAA IT
systems that it uses for other programs for use with UAS.
    Several commenters remarked that there are multiple available
technologies that FAA could use to aid an electronic registration
process. Some of these included QR codes and RFID technologies.
Commenters stated that both could be used to register and track the
flight paths of UAS in the NAS. They said an RFID can be placed on
aircraft that can then be read by interested parties from long
distances. However, these same commenters indicated that there are
potential security concerns with using RFID technology as well. Along
with these technologies, commenters asserted that there are several
private software development companies in operation that could produce
a sufficient web-based registration product for FAA to use and
implement. Two individuals noted the cost to design, implement, and
maintain a centralized registration system will be significant, without
an increase the safety of the NAS. Another individual said the cost of
the registration program will hurt small businesses by adding an
external expense to their operations.
    Task Force: The Task Force also addressed the question of whether
registration should be electronic or web-based, and what tools exist to
support an electronic registration process. The Task Force believed the
registration process should be web-based, and that the FAA should
create an online registration system that allows for multiple entry
points through an application programming interface (API). This would
allow, for example, a sUAS manufacturer or trade organization to
develop an application that communicates through an API by which it can
register its customers or members by submitting registration
information directly to the FAA database on their behalf. The
registration information required and the certificate of registration
received

would be the same regardless of what point of entry is used into the
registration system. The online registration system should provide for
an option for owners to edit and delete their registration information,
as well as to view and print physical copies of their registration
certificates through access to a password-protected web-based portal.
    IFR Requirement: In Sec.  48.30, the FAA sets out a process for
streamlined registration of small unmanned aircraft. This streamlined
process is exclusively web-based. The FAA agrees with commenters and
the Task Force that a web-based system is much more functional than a
paper system would be, and also agrees that registration compliance
rates will increase dramatically when registration can be accomplished
through a simple, web-based system. Additionally, the current FAA
Registry would be unable to quickly process the dramatic increase in
paper volume that the FAA would receive from small unmanned aircraft
registration. With the implementation of the small unmanned aircraft
registration process, small unmanned aircraft registration will be
fully automated, allowing for the registration of small unmanned
aircraft without delay. Therefore, a web-based system benefits both
applicants and the FAA. The paper-based part 47 process will remain
available for those applicants who are unable to avail themselves of
the part 48 process.
    The web-based registration system itself will be simple, easy to
use, and mobile friendly. To complete the registration process, the
owner of a small unmanned aircraft will enter the information
identified in Sec.  48.100 (identified within the registration system
as data fields) and pay a fee through the web-based registration
system. A Certificate of Aircraft Registration will be available to
print within the registration system or sent to the registrant via
email following the initial registration and subsequent renewals. The
applicant will have 24 hours to correct registration information after
the initial payment without having to pay a second time.
    Once registered, owners will be able to access the registration Web
site to update the information provided to register the aircraft as
well as cancel registration as circumstances require (e.g., aircraft
destruction, transfer, sale, change in owner eligibility to register).
Aircraft owners may also view and print physical copies of their
registration certificate through access to this password-protected web-
based portal, but must only pay a fee for the initial registration and
renewals. There is no fee for updating personal information or
accessing the registration certificate. For the initial release the
user can add an alternate email address which can be used to reset the
account password and all functionality of the system could still be
utilized if the user lost access to their primary email address. For
future releases we will have the ability to change the primary email
address on file and revalidate the new one.
    Canceling a registration would change the state of the registration
in the database to ``cancelled'' or another state that is not
associated with an active registration. Aircraft registration records
are permanent records and would not be deleted or destroyed. Please
refer to the NARA schedule for additional details
    With respect to Task Force and Federal Register comments regarding
different technical aspects the database should contain, the agency
expects to continuously evaluate the database and the web-based
registration process and look for opportunities to further develop the
technical functionality of both. The FAA's goal in utilizing the least
burdensome approach is to encourage prompt compliance by removing
barriers. As with other aspects of sUAS integration into the NAS, our
approach to registration will be incremental. The Administrator may
authorize expanded technical capabilities going forward, but the
initial goal is to make this process as minimally burdensome as
possible to encourage compliance with the registration requirement, and
provide the FAA and law enforcement the ability to quickly connect
individuals to their aircraft with the least amount of steps possible.
    With regard to comments addressing the use of RFI technology or use
of small unmanned aircraft beacons to assist with registration and
identification, the FAA believes that RFI and other technology could be
cost prohibitive, and could add weight to smaller aircraft. The FAA
believes that the same goal--identification of small unmanned aircraft
and their owners--can be achieved through an online registration
process with less expense and less technological investment.
3. Information Required
    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM requested comments on what information should be
required for registration. A few commenters provided feedback as to
whether small UAS owners should be required to provide additional
information during the registration process so that UAS could be
categorized. Amazon, American Farm Bureau Federation and an individual
stated that small UAS owners should not be required to provide any
additional information beyond what is currently required of manned
aircraft. The University of North Dakota's John D. Odegard School of
Aerospace Sciences recommended that FAA adopt a simplified information-
gathering process to include the following data: Manufacturer
identification (if applicable); known performance and limitations;
physical size, weight, and characteristics; and, if self-built, a list
of major components similar to that provided by commercial
manufacturers. The commenter stated that this minimal information would
allow for future safety-related research by establishing base
categories from which comparisons could be made. NOAA and Schertz
Aerial Services, Inc. suggested that FAA impose similar requirements as
those imposed on amateur-built aircraft. According to NOAA, UAS owners
should be required, at a minimum, to describe the aircraft by class
(UAS), size, color, number of motors/props/wings, serial number, make,
and model. Predesa, LLC recommended that digital photos or video
recordings of the aircraft, as well as written records of
manufacturers' part numbers of supporting equipment used by the
operator, can satisfy the need for additional information to accurately
describe a non-standardized small UAS.
    Clarification/Request for Information: A majority of commenters
stated that only basic information should be collected during the
registration process because of commenters' concerns about data
security. Several commenters suggested that commercial UAS operators
should provide more in-depth information than recreational operators.
The vast majority of commenters, including individuals and
organizational stakeholders, stated that owner/business name, address,
telephone number, email address, and description of the UAS should be
collected during the registration process. Some commenters further
broke down the UAS's description to include make, model, manufacturer's
serial number, weight, range, performance capability, flight controller
serial number and whether the UAS was purchased or home-built. Many
commenters also suggested that registrants should upload a picture of
the UAS. Several commenters suggested that date of sale/purchase, point
of sale, date of operation, intended use and geographic location of
primary use would also be helpful information.

AMA members also stated that their AMA member numbers should be
collected.
    To provide further information about the aircraft owner, many
commenters suggested that the operator's date of birth, driver's
license, Social Security Number, and number of aircraft owned should be
provided during the registration process. Other commenters specifically
objected to providing their Social Security Numbers because of concerns
about data security. A few individuals who identified as hobbyists
stated that insurance information and professional license numbers
should also be collected during registration. A small number of
commenters suggested registrants should provide their passport numbers,
credit card numbers, nationality, and proof of citizenship.
    EPIC stated that the FAA should limit the collection of registrant
information to what is necessary to maintain the aircraft registry and
UAS safety. In particular, EPIC stated that the FAA should not collect
``highly restricted personal information,'' including ``an individual's
photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability
information.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ To support its position, EPIC cited to and quoted from 18
U.S.C. 2725(4). Title 18 of the United States Code covers Crimes and
Criminal Procedure. Section 2725 covers the definitions used in
Chapter 123--Prohibition on Release and Use of Certain Personal
Information from State Motor Vehicle Records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPIC also recommended that the FAA require disclosure of each UAS's
technical and surveillance capabilities, including data collection and
storage. EPIC asserted that UAS are ``surveillance platforms'' that are
able to carry a multitude of different data-collection technologies,
including high-definition cameras, geolocation devices, cellular radios
and disruption equipment, sensitive microphones, thermal imaging
devices, and LIDAR. EPIC further asserted that UAS owners should be
required to make clear at registration the specific capabilities of any
video or audio surveillance technologies the UAS is carrying. EPIC
stated that the public should not be left to wonder what surveillance
devices are enabled on a UAS flying above their heads. EPIC further
stated that the registration framework the FAA is considering does not
go far enough, and should include a requirement that a UAS broadcast
its capabilities and its registration number during operation, to allow
members of the public and law enforcement officials to easily identify
the operator and responsible party.
    EPIC also suggested that the FAA consider collecting aggregate data
to assist research into UAS flights and usage. EPIC clarified, however,
that such research data should not include personal information.
    Task Force: To ensure accountability, the Task Force recommended
the FAA require all registrants to provide their name and street
address, with the option to provide an email address or telephone
number. While the Task Force recognized that a registrant's email
address and telephone number may be useful for the FAA to disseminate
safety-related information to UAS owners, the Task Force nevertheless
believed disclosure of such information should be optional.
    Because the Task Force recommended the FAA institute an owner-based
registration system, it believed registrants should not be required to
provide any vehicle information, such as serial number or make and
model of the UAS, during the registration process. Registrants should,
however, have the option to provide the aircraft's manufacturer serial
number, so that the serial number can then be used to satisfy the
marking requirement. Additionally, to ensure the broadest possible
participation, this registration system should make no distinction for,
or impose additional requirements upon, sUAS manufactured or purchased
outside the United States.
    IFR Requirement: For small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as
model aircraft, the FAA adopts the Task Force recommendation to provide
only basic contact information (name, address, and email address) for
the small unmanned aircraft owner. This basic contact information is
appropriate for registration of small unmanned aircraft intended to be
used exclusively as model aircraft because owners typically only
operate one aircraft at a time, which limits the variables in terms of
owner identification. Accordingly, the FAA is requiring an applicant's
name, physical address, mailing address if the applicant does not
receive mail at their physical address, and email address. An accurate
mailing address is necessary because the FAA often relies on regular
mail via the United States Postal Service to provide notice of
administrative actions, serve enforcement documents and provide other
information. Although email will reduce the agency's reliance on
regular mail for certain purposes such as the provision of educational
material, a mailing address is still required to support the agency's
compliance and enforcement actions.
    At this time, the FAA will not be accepting manufacturer name,
model name, and serial number from individuals registering small
unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively as model aircraft.
However, as discussed in the preamble discussion on registration
marking, the Administrator will continue to evaluate whether serial
number can serve the purpose of aircraft identification and in the
future, may require use of serial number for aircraft marking purposes
in place of an FAA-issued registration number. In that case, this
information would be acquired at point of sale by a manufacturer.
    The agency considered comments pertaining to the use of a
membership number issued by an aeromodeling club such as the AMA as the
registration number for an individual. After considering the design of
the web-based information system, which will automatically assign a
registration number to each individual applying for registration, the
FAA determined that use of an aeromodeling club registration number
would add unnecessary complexity.
    For persons expecting to operate small unmanned aircraft as other
than model aircraft, in addition to the same basic contact information
required for model aircraft, registrants must provide aircraft-specific
information. A manufacturer and model name, and serial number must be
provided for each aircraft being registered. As previously noted, based
on the agency's experience with exemptions issued under section 333 of
Public Law 112-95, persons seeking to operate small unmanned aircraft
other than as model aircraft are expected to conduct a higher volume of
operations, utilize multiple aircraft and at times conduct multiple
simultaneous operations across the country, which thereby introduces
more risk into the NAS. Moreover, these entities may operate multiple
identical small unmanned aircraft at one time in different locations,
with different persons operating the owner's aircraft. Accordingly, the
FAA has determined that aircraft data is necessary to identify aircraft
used as other than model aircraft due to the range of variables with
respect to the operations they conduct. The aircraft-specific data will
also allow the agency to assess the demand of these small unmanned
aircraft on the NAS and whether additional safety-related actions are
necessary as the FAA works to integrate sUAS into the NAS.
    With respect to the Task Force's recommendation that the provision
of an email address should be optional, the FAA generally agrees that
personal information that is not necessary for law enforcement and FAA
to identify an owner should not be a mandatory entry. However, in this
instance, an email

address is necessary to create an account for a web-based registration
system that includes email delivery of the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration. Additionally, email allows for targeted delivery of
educational other safety-related materials directly to small unmanned
aircraft owners. Thus, the FAA has determined that an email address
will be required for registration under part 48. However, individual's
email addresses would not be released to the general public. For more
information regarding the privacy protections afforded to this system
and intended use of the data, please review the privacy impact
assessment for this rulemaking, as well as the accompanying System of
Records Notice (SORN), available for review in Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-
0235.
    Regarding other suggested information, such as date of birth,
Social Security number, driver's license number, or specific
information about components or capabilities of small unmanned aircraft
being registered, the FAA believes the data identified in new part 48
is sufficient for the purposes of this registry and is the minimum that
would be necessary for connecting an individual to their aircraft.
4. Fee for Registration
    Currently, the FAA assesses a fee of $5 for a Certificate of
Registration for each aircraft. See 14 CFR 47.17(a). The FAA has not
updated this fee since it was initially established in 1966. See 31 FR
4495 (Mar. 17, 1966).
    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM did not differentiate the process of registering a
small unmanned aircraft from that of a manned aircraft and thus did not
directly address fees. Under that proposed rule, an applicant
registering a small unmanned aircraft would pay the same $5 fee as an
applicant seeking a Certificate of Registration for a manned aircraft.
    Three commenters responded to the issues related to fees for
aircraft registration. One individual recommended FAA require all
``amateur enthusiasts'' to pay a fee to use the NAS. Another individual
argued that the fees associated with any licensing, required yearly
maintenance, and registry should be kept affordable for the small
business operator.
    Clarification/Request for Information: Commenters also responded to
the issue of a registration fee and how the fee should be collected
based on questions posed in the Clarification/Request for Information.
Of the commenters that supported a registration fee, the majority
stated that the fee should be nominal and suggested between $1 and $40.
Other commenters suggested fees as high as $250 for hobbyists and
$1,000 for commercial users. Several commenters stated that the amount
of registration fee should be based upon the value of the UAS e.g., a
more expensive UAS would necessitate a higher registration fee. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation stated that its department
charges registration fees commensurate with the base price of the
aircraft. This commenter explained that it charges $100 for
registration for UASs valued less than $500,000. Other commenters
proposed that only commercial operators should pay a registration fee.
Several AMA members stated that registration should be free for AMA
members. Many commenters stressed that the fee should only be used for
maintenance of the Web site, education, and enforcement actions.
    Many commenters said registration should be free. A number of
commenters participating in a form letter campaign stated that a
registration fee ``would place an unfair burden on those who may barely
be able to afford to purchase model aircraft in the first place and may
place barriers to continued education and technological advancement.''
    A large number of commenters were concerned that registration fees
for each individual UAS would be unduly burdensome because many
hobbyists own several UASs and the cumulative cost of registration
would be prohibitively expensive. As an alternative, many commenters
suggested that the FAA should charge one registration fee per operator
and allow the operator to register multiple UASs.
    The vast majority of commenters objected to the imposition of any
registration fee. Many commenters expressed concern that imposition of
a fee would only serve to increase the size of the Federal Government
and not contribute in any way to the safe operation of UASs. Commenters
stated that a fee will deter registration and place an unnecessary
financial burden on hobbyists. Several commenters suggested that
instead of charging a registration fee, the FAA should collect fines
from operators who fail to register.
    The majority of commenters suggested that if registration occurs at
point of sale, the cost of registration should be collected in the same
manner as a sales tax. Other commenters suggested that registration
fees should be collected by the retailer or built in to the purchase
price. Retail Industry Leaders Association and National Retail
Federation expressed opposition to point of sale registration and
collection of registration fees by retailers. They cited concern about
collecting personal information from customers in a checkout line and
the complexity of refunding the registration fee if the UAS is returned
by the customer. Commenters also expressed concerns that foreign
vendors would not comply with registration requirements and consumers
would be adversely impacted.
    Many commenters commented generally on the collection of a
registration fee and expressed that UAS operators should be able to pay
the registration fee online. Commenters specifically identified support
for online payments via PayPal, Amazon payments, and Bitcoin.
Commenters also stated that mailing in checks or money orders should
also be supported.
    Skyward, Inc. and individual commenters said the system must have
safeguards against false registrations, unauthorized ownership
transfers, and other malicious activity.
    Task Force: The Task Force believed the FAA should not impose a
registration fee so as to encourage the highest level of compliance
with the registration requirement. In the event that the FAA must
charge a fee, the Task Force suggested a fee of 1/10th of one cent
($0.001).
    IFR Requirement and Responses to Comments/Recommendations: Although
the Task Force and some commenters recommended no fee for small
unmanned aircraft registration for varying reasons, the FAA is required
by statute to charge a fee for registration services. Section 45305 of
title 49 U.S.C. directs the FAA to establish and collect fees for
aircraft registration and airman certification activities to recover
the cost of providing those services. Accordingly, the revenue stream
generated by the fees collected under this IFR support the development,
maintenance and operation of the Registry. The agency notes that
section 45305 also directs the FAA to adjust these fees when the
Administrator determines that the cost of the service has changed.
    Given that the registration process established under part 48
differentiates between registration of small unmanned aircraft used
exclusively as model aircraft and registration of small unmanned
aircraft used as other than model aircraft, registration fees also
differ between the two populations.
    An individual owner registering small unmanned aircraft operated
exclusively as model aircraft must pay a single fee of $5 for the
issuance of a Certificate of

Aircraft Registration and registration number and an additional $5 fee
every three years for renewal of the registration. As previously noted,
for owners of small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model
aircraft, this registration constitutes registration for all small
unmanned aircraft of a single owner, provided those aircraft are all
used exclusively as model aircraft. Thus, for this population, part 48
provides cost reduction as compared to part 47, which requires aircraft
owners to submit a separate application and $5 fee for each aircraft
the owner would like to register.
    The FAA will require persons owning small unmanned aircraft used as
other than model aircraft (e.g., for a commercial purpose) to pay a fee
of $5 to register each aircraft in accordance with part 48, and a $5
fee every three years for renewal of each aircraft registration. The
fees for small unmanned aircraft registration and renewal for this
population is the same as that currently required by part 47.
    This fee structure is in line with the recommendations from
commenters who believed that the FAA should charge one fee for
individuals who own small unmanned aircraft for hobby or recreational
purposes. As sought by commenters, the registration requirement and fee
structure for small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model
aircraft alleviates the need for these owners to complete frequent,
multiple registration applications and submit a new fee each time they
build or rebuild an aircraft or change out parts.
    The fee for small unmanned aircraft registration must be submitted
through the web-based registration application process. The
registration system will permit the use of any credit, debit, gift or
prepaid card using the Visa, MasterCard, American Express, JCB,
Discover, or Diners Club network. If none of these methods of payment
are available to the small unmanned aircraft owner, that owner may
register the aircraft using the existing paper-based system under 14
CFR part 47, which allows payment by check or money order. Credit card
payment is one of the attributes of the part 48 registration process
that streamlines the registration process. Consistent with the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 45305, the fees are based on the estimated
costs to develop and maintain the registry under 14 CFR part 48. The
FAA will adjust these fees based on the actual costs of the system.
    Regarding the Minnesota Department of Transportation's
recommendation for a fee structure based on the value of the small
unmanned aircraft, FAA's statutory authority for charging a fee for the
registration of a small unmanned aircraft relates to the amount it
costs for the FAA to maintain the registry, and not the value of an
unmanned aircraft.
    In response to comments stating that, in place of the registration
fee, the FAA should collect fines for failure to comply with
registration requirements, the FAA clarifies that such a fine would
constitute a civil penalty. Civil penalties for failure to register are
discussed in the Enforcement section of this preamble. In addition to
civil penalties, however, the law requires the FAA to collect a fee for
registration of aircraft. 49 U.S.C. 45305. Congress requires this fee
assessment in order for the agency to offset the cost of registration.
The agency does not have authority to use civil penalties to offset its
costs.
5. Transfer of Ownership
    Clarification/Request for Information: Commenters to the
Clarification/Request for Information responded to the FAA's request
for input on transfer of small unmanned aircraft.
    The Aerospace Industries Association stated that transfer of
ownership would require that the new end-user registers his or her
identification and the platform registration. This would allow a re-
check of intended use, changes/modifications to the platform, and the
indication that the new user is aware of the rules of use. Delair-Tech
stated that the seller should surrender ownership by deactivating the
ground control software; the new owner would then register to
reactivate it.
    A law firm stated that the existing FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale and
Aircraft Registration Application would be equally applicable to UAS.
The firm also said that the current regulatory framework contains an
aircraft registration renewal requirement that would be beneficial for
updating records regarding ownership of UAS. The firm went on to say
that the regulatory obligation to collect and submit the registration
information should be placed on the seller who would have an incentive
to properly transfer the registration, or otherwise risk facing certain
penalties or fines related to the illegal operation of the UAS by a
future owner.
    Individual commenters stated that if the registration database is
available online, the seller could easily record transfers of
registration. A few commenters stated that the FAA should impose a fee
for transfers. Individuals differed on whether the seller or buyer
should be responsible for registering the transfer. A few commenters
stated that the seller could remove the identification markings before
sale. One suggested that the seller remove the beacon before sale.
Another stated that the only registration should be the name and
contact information placed on the UAS.
    Modovolate Aviation stated that recording transfers would be
burdensome and unenforceable. An individual stated that UASs are often
altered after purchase so that transferring a registration for the
original UAS may not accurately reflect the UAS that is being resold.
The commenter also stated that there is no way for the seller to ensure
that the buyer will register.
    Task Force: Because the Task Force recommended an owner-based
registration system, it believed that questions concerning how to deal
with transfers of ownership are easily addressed by the registrants'
marking methods.
    IFR Requirement: The registration requirements in part 48 do not
differentiate between methods of aircraft transfer. The registration
requirements are the same whether a person or other entity acquires an
aircraft by gift, purchase or other method.
    The FAA agrees in part with the commenters who state that the
seller should register or take other action upon a transfer and in part
with the commenters who state that the buyer must register. Different
actions will be necessary upon transfer or sale of a small unmanned
aircraft, because the registration system differentiates between
aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft and aircraft used other
than as model aircraft and thus collects different information for each
population.
    As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, individual owners of small
unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft are not required
to submit aircraft-specific information. Thus, there is no need to
update the registration system upon a transfer or sale. The owner,
however, should remove his or her unique identifier from the aircraft
before transfer or sale. The buyer or recipient of a transfer must
create a new registration prior to operation only if that buyer does
not already have an owner registration number. A buyer or recipient of
a transfer of a small unmanned aircraft who wishes to use the aircraft
as other than a model aircraft must register that aircraft and obtain a
registration number specific to that aircraft. The only time a fee
would be required is if the buyer or recipient must create a new
registration.

    Part 48 requires owners of small unmanned aircraft used other than
as model aircraft to update the registration system upon transfer of
ownership, destruction or export of a registered small unmanned
aircraft. Thus, once a transfer of ownership has taken place, the
aircraft owner must access their profile on the registration system and
update the aircraft information to indicate that the aircraft has been
transferred. By indicating that the aircraft has been transferred, the
registration of that aircraft will be cancelled in its entirety.
    Any new owner, who acquires a small unmanned aircraft by any means,
and intends to use the aircraft other than as a model aircraft must
register that aircraft prior to operation and mark the device with the
appropriate information as discussed in the preamble discussion
entitled, ``Marking.'' Consistent with the comment on the payment of a
fee for a transfer, a new owner intending to use a small unmanned
aircraft other than as a model aircraft must register the aircraft and
thus pay the same registration fee as any other person who acquires
such a device and wishes to operate it in the NAS.
    In response to commenters' concerns about the identification of a
transferred aircraft, owners may determine the best approach for
ensuring that once they transfer an aircraft, that they are no longer
identified as the owner. One commenter noted that the seller may want
to remove the registration information from the aircraft. The agency
supports this as a best practice but it is not required.
    The agency considered comments suggesting other methods to approach
the registration of transferred small unmanned aircraft (e.g.,
deactivation of ground control software), but has determined that this
approach will ensure complete and current registration information for
each aircraft in the least burdensome manner.

G. Certificate of Aircraft Registration

    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The agency received comment
on issues pertaining to certificates of registration from commenters to
the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM. In the sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM, the agency proposed to extend the part 47
registration process to sUAS but did not propose any changes to the
delivery, content, or duration of registration. In the NPRM preamble,
however, the agency specifically addressed its intent to retain the
existing requirement for registration renewal every three years for
small unmanned aircraft registration because it would increase the
likelihood that the FAA's registration database contains the latest
information on small unmanned aircraft and aircraft owners.
    An individual recommended that aircraft registration for small UAS
expire after a period of 12 to 24 months, reasoning that an annual or
bi-annual renewal of registration will ensure the registration system
does not become bogged down with UAS's that are no longer in operation.
Furthermore, the commenter argued that the renewal process would give
FAA a secondary means of verifying that operators are current and/or
maintaining their licensing requirements to operate. The Kansas Farm
Bureau suggested lengthening the time before a registration would
expire to 6 years to assist in managing program costs from both the FAA
and the small UAS operator standpoint. The News Media Coalition
encouraged FAA to consider requiring re-registration only upon the sale
of a UAS.
    Another individual commenter suggested that UAS operators be
required to store their ``official registration document'' on the card
reader contained in the UAS's camera. That commenter also recommended
that the ``official registration document'' contain the registrant's
name, registration number, date of registration, and type of operator
license (i.e., commercial or hobby).
    Clarification/Request for Information: Commenters to the
Clarification/Request for Information also provided comments related to
the Certificate of Aircraft Registration. One individual commenter
recommended that UAS operators should be issued a registration card
that contains basic safety information and UAS rules and regulations.
Another individual suggested that UAS operators be required to store
their ``official registration document'' on the card reader contained
in the UAS's camera. This commenter also recommended that the
``official registration document'' contain the registrant's name,
registration number, date of registration, and type of operator license
(i.e., commercial or hobby).
    Task Force: The Task Force developed and recommended methods for
proving registration and marking of small unmanned aircraft. In doing
so, it addressed the issue of how Certificates of Aircraft Registration
would be issued. The Task Force recommended that the FAA issue a
certificate of registration to each registrant at the time of
registration and that the certificate should be issued electronically
(perhaps in PDF form), unless the registrant specifically requests a
paper copy.
    The Task Force also provided recommendations regarding the content
of the certificate. The certificate should contain the registrant's
name, the registrant's FAA-issued registration number, and the address
of the FAA registration Web site that is accessible by law enforcement
or other authorities for the purposes of confirming registration
status. For registrants who elect to provide the serial number(s) of
their aircraft, the certificate should also contain those serial
number(s). The Task Force encouraged the FAA to include safety and
regulatory information with the certificate of registration. Any time a
registered sUAS is in operation, the operator of that sUAS should be
prepared to produce a legible copy of the certificate of registration
for inspection, in either electronic or printed form.
    IFR Requirement: The agency agrees with Task Force recommendations
and comments recommending delivery and availability of the Certificate
of Aircraft Registration. Since the part 48 registration process is
exclusively web-based, the FAA can immediately issue an electronic
Certificate of Aircraft Registration, an efficiency not available under
part 47.
    Recognizing the prevalence of handheld electronic devices, once the
registrant completes the part 48 registration process, the Certificate
will be available for download. Owners may also print a hard copy of
the Certificate if they wish. The applicant will also receive a copy of
the Certificate via email, with accompanying educational information.
Although some commenters addressed certificate storage options, the
final rule does not restrict how the Certificate is stored as long as
the certificate is readily available to the owner or operator, as
applicable. See Sec. Sec.  91.9(b) and 91.203(a)(2); see also Legal
Interpretation from Mark W. Bury to John Duncan, August 8, 2014.
Persons operating a small unmanned aircraft are required under 49
U.S.C. 44103(d) to present the certificate of registration when
requested by a United States Government, State, or local law
enforcement officer.
    The Certificate of Aircraft Registration will include information
that will allow the FAA and law enforcement agencies to identify the
owner of each small unmanned aircraft registered under part 48. As a
result, although the FAA received comments suggesting varying
information that should appear on the Certificate, the FAA has
determined that the Certificate will include the small unmanned
aircraft owner name and FAA-issued registration number. At this

time, these two pieces of information suffice to identify the small
unmanned aircraft and its owner. The agency does not agree with the
comment suggesting that the Certificate include information pertaining
to the ``type of operator license'' because this information is not
relevant to the identification of the aircraft's owner and notes that
at the time of this rulemaking, there is no ``license'' required for
sUAS operations. Additionally, the FAA emphasizes that the Certificate
does not imply authorization to operate.
    Certificates of Aircraft Registration issued to owners who are
using their small unmanned aircraft exclusively as model aircraft
constitute valid registration for all of the small unmanned aircraft
owned by the individual specified on the application, regardless of how
many small unmanned aircraft the owner owns, though all being operated
are required to be marked with the registration number. Certificates of
Aircraft Registration issued to owners who are not using their aircraft
exclusively as model aircraft constitute valid registration only for
the specific aircraft identified on the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration.
    A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued in accordance with
part 48 will be effective once the registration process is complete and
must be renewed every three years to provide for regular validation of
aircraft registration and owner contact information. To facilitate the
identification of a valid Certificate of Aircraft Registration, each
Certificate will contain the issue date.
    The agency agrees with comments suggesting that aircraft
registrations should be renewed but does not agree with the purpose of
the renewal and the time frame for renewal provided by commenters. The
registration process does not collect information on airman
qualifications so it may not be used to validate any related
requirements. A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued to a person
using their small unmanned aircraft as a model aircraft must simply be
renewed by the owner every three years, regardless of when aircraft are
added to the owner's registration. Certificates of Aircraft
Registration issued for aircraft used for other than model aircraft
purposes must be renewed for the specific aircraft designated on the
Certificate every three years.
    Further, the agency has determined that three years is the
appropriate duration of a certificate. This period of time is
consistent with the aircraft registration renewal requirement in part
47. It also balances the cost concerns raised by the Kansas Farm Bureau
with the individual's comments suggesting renewal on 12-24 month
intervals.
    The renewal process consists of a simple verification of existing
registration information. The renewal must be completed through the
web-based registration system at any time within 6 months prior to the
expiration date. The system will send out a reminder at 6 months prior
to certification expiration. Once completed, the Certificate will be
extended for three years from the expiration date. The agency expects
renewal to be efficient, particularly if the aircraft owner has ensured
that the information provided to the Registry in accordance with the
final rule registration process remains current during the term of the
registration. If the information provided to register the aircraft
changes during the period of registration, the aircraft owner must
update the Registry through the web-based registration system within 14
days of the change. No fee is charged for updating information during
the period of registration.
    The agency agrees with the intent of the recommendation from the
Task Force and the commenter to the Clarification/Request for
Information regarding owner and operator education. One of the purposes
of small unmanned aircraft registration is to educate sUAS owners
regarding safe operations within the NAS as well as other safety
information relevant to UAS operations and equipment. As discussed
later in this preamble, the agency expects to accomplish its sUAS
education goals by providing information to the aircraft owner during
the registration process and through follow-up email communication.
    Although the News Media Coalition suggested reregistration only
upon a sale, there are other circumstances that would result in a need
to re-register an aircraft (e.g., expiration of registration due to
failure to renew) and have been captured in the final rule.

H. Registration Marking

    The purpose of aircraft registration marking is to provide a means
for connecting an aircraft to its owner. The agency received comments
on the information that should be used to identify that the aircraft is
registered as well as the methods by which to display the identifying
information.
    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM proposed a requirement for small unmanned aircraft
to be marked in accordance with part 45, subpart C. Subpart C provides
requirements for size, spacing, and location of nationality and
registration marks.
    Many commenters, including the Small UAV Coalition, Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association, California Agricultural Aircraft Association,
Aerospace Industries Association, Modovolate Aviation, LLC,
Professional Photographers of America, Airlines for America, National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of
Realtors, DJI, and Google, generally supported the marking requirement
as proposed in the NPRM.
    Information that may be used for aircraft identification: Other
commenters suggested alternatives to the marking requirement proposed
in the NPRM. Commenters including the Association of Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International, Associated General Contractors of America, the
University of North Carolina System, Property Drone Consortium and
Cherokee Nation Technologies suggested the FAA require registration
based only on the manufacturer's serial numbers, instead of requiring
an ``N'' registration number. Several individuals proposed the use of
cell phone numbers in lieu of, or to augment, the registration number.
The Virginia Department of Aviation supported the use of a bar code
system, while Schertz Aerial Services, Inc., favored a parts-tracking
requirement to facilitate a more efficient and accurate assessment of
responsibility in the event of an accident. An individual commenter
recommended a labeling requirement for all UAS, similar to the labeling
the FCC requires for all transmitters that can be purchased at
electronic outlets. Another individual commenter said that instead of
requiring small unmanned aircraft to be registered with ``N'' numbers,
the aircraft should be identified with an exterior label with the
owner/operator's name, address, and phone number, as well as an
operator certificate number where appropriate. Several other individual
commenters suggested that affixing operator name and phone number to a
small unmanned aircraft is a more efficient way to identify the
aircraft in the event of an incident.
    The New Jersey Institute of Technology and the Kansas State
University UAS Program recommended the FAA add a unique designator to
the ``N'' registration number (e.g., ``NX'') to clearly identify the
aircraft as a UAS. ASTM pointed out that it is in the process of
developing consensus practice standards for the registration and
marking of unmanned aircraft systems, which an individual

commenter recommended the FAA follow.
    Methods to display aircraft identification: Another individual
commenter said the marking requirement should be consistent with recent
certificates of waiver or authorization provided to persons issued
exemptions under section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act,
which allow for ``appropriate'' sized markings, or as large as
practicable for the particular aircraft. Other commenters, including a
joint submission from the State of Nevada, the Nevada Institute for
Autonomous Systems and the Nevada FAA-designated UAS Test Site,
similarly said small unmanned aircraft should be required to display
registration numbers in the largest size that is appropriate. An
individual commenter questioned whether the markings should be on the
underside of the small unmanned aircraft to increase visibility from
the ground. The University of North Dakota's John D. Odegard School of
Aerospace Sciences urged the FAA to require small UAS manufacturers to
provide at least one additional manner of identifying a device other
than the registration number. The commenter suggested a VIN-type system
or simply etching the manufacturer's serial number on a substantial
component of the small UAS.
    Several commenters proposed various electronic means to aid in
small unmanned aircraft identification. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Aviation Division and Drone Labs proposed having the
registration numbers transmitted as part of the transponder signal or
other means. The Center for Democracy and Technology advocated for an
unmanned aircraft to emit a signal, such as a radio signal, to aid in
identification. SkyView Strategies, Inc., recommended a microchip on
each unmanned aircraft programmed with the registration number so that
a device, such as a smart phone app, could read the microchip and
display the aircraft's registration number. SkyView recognized this
requirement could not go into effect until it is technologically
feasible.
    Several commenters opposed the requirement that small unmanned
aircraft display their registration numbers because it would be
impractical due to the small size of the aircraft. Some of those
commenters, including the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, noted that many small unmanned aircraft have limited
surface area available and often have no adequate fuselage for
placement of registration markings. Those commenters said the FAA
should develop alternative means of displaying a registration number
more conducive to small unmanned aircraft. An individual commenter
pointed out that for small unmanned aircraft with no ``hull'' or
fuselage, the only place available for markings is on the booms, which
are not permanently attached to the hub plate. Thus, the commenter
noted, the marking would not be permanent, but, rather, on an ``easily
removed and easily replaced'' component. Associated General Contractors
of America said the requirement ``would serve little or no useful
purpose'' because even when displayed in the ``largest practicable
manner'' such numbers would be invisible from anything more than a few
feet away.
    Kansas State University UAS Program said the final rule should
describe acceptable means for locating registration markings for
nontraditional aircraft (or reference an industry consensus standard
that does so) that cannot meet current subpart C in part 45
requirements. Prioria Robotics, Inc. also expressed concern about the
applicability of the markings requirement to certain small unmanned
aircraft airframes, and questioned whether, if a vehicle undergoes
repair and a fuselage is changed, the operator will need to re-register
the aircraft.
    Several commenters recommended the sUAS operator make the
aircraft's registration number visible to others on the ground. Trimble
Navigation Limited and Federal Airways & Airspace favored having the
sUAS operator display an ID badge with the registration number of the
aircraft on their person. Trimble Navigation clarified that a badge
display would be helpful if the FAA intends to use registration of an
aircraft to identify the operator, but that visual or electronic
identification of the aircraft is appropriate if the intent is to
assist in the investigation of accidents. Federal Airways & Airspace
clarified that this may be useful for very small unmanned aircraft but
may not be necessary if the unmanned aircraft is large enough to
display markings to the standard size. Predesa, LLC stated that the
sUAS operator should be required to post aircraft registration
information in their vicinity on the ground.
    Regarding whether the rule should require small unmanned aircraft
to have a fireproof identification plate, as required by part 45
subpart B, the Small UAV Coalition, Aviation Management Associates,
Predessa, LLC, and the University of North Dakota's John D. Odegard
School of Aerospace Sciences agreed with the FAA that a requirement for
small UAS manufacturers to install a fireproof identification plate
would not be cost-effective. The National Business Aviation
Association, DJI, Modovolate Aviation, LLC, and several individual
commenters also agreed that fireproof plating should not be required.
    Crew Systems, on the other hand, said small unmanned aircraft
should have a data plate installed, as required by 14 CFR 45.11.
Aerospace Industries Association also said UAS manufacturers should
install fireproof identification information on every unmanned
aircraft, ``[p]erhaps through an electronic device (i.e., imbedded
chip) or other easy-to-read and damage-resistant means of
identification.''
    Other commenters addressed the need for ``indestructible''
identification plates, although they did not comment specifically on
whether small UAS manufacturers should be required to attach fireproof
identification plates in compliance with subpart B of part 45. The Air
Line Pilots Association said a fire proof plate should be attached to
the small UAS ``as a permanent identification of the registration of
the sUAS.'' The Civil Aviation Authority of the Czech Republic said a
fireproof identification plate should be required and enforced
according to ICAO Annex 7, which requires the nationality, registration
mark, and operator name and phone number. The National Agricultural
Aviation Association, Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association, and
CropLife America said small UAS should have a registered N-number on
``an indestructible and unmovable plate'' attached to the UAS for
identification in case of an accident or incident. Reabe Spraying, Inc.
said each UAS should have an ``indestructible and non-removable data
tag with a unique ID code.'' Texas A&M University Corpus Christi/LSUASC
said that if the registration number is not easily displayed on the
aircraft, then an ``identifying tag'' should be permanently attached to
the small UAS. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association said the FAA
should implement ``additional requirements'' to ensure that a UAS can
be identified in the event of an accident, incident, or violation, but
the commenter did not specify what those additional requirements should
be.
    The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., the National
Association of Broadcasters, National Cable & Telecommunications
Association, and Radio Television digital News Association, and the
International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions favored
not having registration marks on small unmanned

aircraft that will be seen in theatrical and television productions.
    Clarification/Request for Information: In addition to the comments
on identification and marking provided in response to the sUAS
Operation and Certification NPRM, the agency also received comments on
aircraft identification and marking in response to the clarification/
Request for Information. The Clarification/Request for Information
sought specific information pertaining to aircraft identification and
marking. Specifically, the document asked for information regarding
methods currently available for identifying unmanned aircraft, whether
every unmanned aircraft sold has an individual serial number, and
methods to identify unmanned aircraft sold without serial numbers or
those built from kits.
    Information that may be used for aircraft identification:
Commenters said that no standard method of aircraft identification
exists for UAS and they recommended ways to identify UAS for
registration purposes. Chronicled, Inc., wrote that it explored several
options for including unique identifiers in consumer products,
including serial number, radio frequency identification (RFID), near
field communication (NFC), Bluetooth low energy (BLE), QR code, and DNA
marker. This commenter determined that serial number or encrypted (PKI)
microchips are the best options currently available and recommended the
agency initially require the use of serial numbers for registration and
then over a two year period, require PKI microchips to be included in
all UAS. Aerospace Industries Association said various methods to
identify platforms exist, but recommended that FAA seek to collect as
much information as possible. According to this commenter, high value
commercial platforms have a serial number to manage warranty claims
while other commercial platforms, at a minimum, have a stock keeping
unit (SKU) that can be used to identify the product model number.
Morphism, LLC recommended using identifiers that encode information
regarding the type of airframe, operating limitations and operators'
contact information. Researchers at the University of California,
Berkeley said UAS should receive and display an identification code to
enable people and other aircraft to identify them. These researchers
developed an identification system based on LEDs and unique color
sequences. NetMoby, Inc. recommended that FAA adopt the Federal
Communications Commission's registration process and tailor it to meet
FAA's needs.
    Several commenters noted that many UAS are assembled by consumers
using parts from a range of sources, which presents a challenge for
identifying individual products. Additionally, UAS components are
frequently modified, replaced or upgraded. Some commenters recommended
that the registration system require use of either a serial number for
UAS that have serial numbers, or an FAA-generated identification number
that can be applied to the UAS for those without serial numbers. Other
commenters recommended that FAA issue a single registration number to
the UAS operator rather than to each aircraft because hobbyists often
have dozens of aircraft and it would be too burdensome to register
every aircraft they buy or build. Several AMA members suggested the
agency allow AMA members to place their names and addresses or AMA
numbers on their aircraft as an alternative means of complying with the
registration requirement.
    Another individual suggested identifying consumer grade UAS by
serial number and hobby built UAS by radio transmitter and receiver. A
number of commenters participating in a form letter campaign stated
that ``there is fundamentally no way to define any major component on a
model aircraft that could reasonably be registered.''
    Commenters addressing whether each unmanned aircraft sold has a
unique serial number generally stated that every unmanned aircraft sold
does not have individual serial numbers, though some UAS do. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign said serial numbers are not
required on UAS and they are not required to be distinct across
manufacturers, so the agency could not rely on them for identifying
UAS. Modovolate Aviation, LLC said most UAS have serial numbers and
asserted it would impose a relatively small burden on manufacturers to
imprint a serial number as part of the manufacturing process. A law
firm suggested the agency require manufacturers assign a serial number
to all UAS operated in the United States. This commenter also said that
products manufactured before this requirement and other UAS without
serial numbers could be assigned a registration number by FAA and the
number would be affixed to the UAS. Delair-Tech suggested if no serial
number is available for the UAS, the serial number of the autopilot
module should be used. The Retail Industry Leaders Association said
most UAS models on the market today do not contain product-specific
unique identification numbers that consumers can use when registering
UAS. This commenter noted manufacturers will need time to implement
process changes to incorporate identification numbers and urged the
agency to take the time to work with manufacturers with respect to this
requirement. The commenter cautioned that if FAA adopts the
registration requirement without waiting for manufacturers to make the
necessary process changes, the only information consumers will be able
to provide during registration is the model or inventory number of the
UAS, which will not be helpful to identify a UAS owner involved in an
incident.
    Commenters suggested various methods for identifying UAS sold
without serial numbers or those built with kits. The Wireless Registry
suggested including a UAS' wireless signal identifier as part of the
information collected as part of the registration process. The
commenter explained the UAS' MAC address, a wireless identifier that
cannot be altered, tied to a specific device would enable FAA to match
the UAS to other information in the registry, including operator
information. An individual stated the FCC already requires that all
model aircraft operate on a very narrow frequency band and UAS
manufacturers adhere to those rules. This commenter suggested FAA and
FCC work together to establish a method of encoding each radio system
with an identifier that would enable the FAA to monitor airspace in
which UAS are not allowed. The Air Medical Operators Association said
any UAS with the potential to conflict with a manned aircraft in flight
must possess a unique identification that can allow for registration.
This commenter also recommended that product packaging should clearly
inform the consumer of his or responsibilities as operator. Other
commenters suggested the following methods for identifying UAS sold
without serial numbers or those build from kits:

Digital photo.
Detailed description of aircraft (e.g., black quadcopter, white
hexcopter).
QR code with 8-digit unique alphanumeric identifier that can be affixed
to aircraft.
RFID tags or transponders.
FAA-issued registration number.
Name and address or AMA number affixed to the inside or outside of the
airframe.

    Methods to display aircraft identification: Several people
commented on how operators should

display markings of their registration number on the UAS. Commenters'
recommendations included: registration numbers should be prominently
displayed on the exterior of the unmanned aircraft and be sized based
on the largest single dimension of the unmanned aircraft; the markings
should be visible from the ground; registration numbers should be
displayed using a placard of some sort, or bar code, placed on the