aircraft; and registration markings should be replaceable because UAS
operators change parts on a regular basis. A number of commenters
suggested using a sticker similar to automobile registration tags,
which would provide visual confirmation of compliance and allow for
consistency of data. Other commenters expressed concern about required
markings adding weight to their unmanned aircraft or ruining the
appearance of their scale models of real aircraft.
    One commenter recommended a registration system in which
individuals can request from the FAA a reasonable number of stickers
that are pre-printed with successive serial numbers, and the FAA will
then record to whom those stickers were sent in a publicly accessible
database. The individuals can then apply those serial-numbered stickers
to any model aircraft they own. The commenter contemplated that the
stickers will self-destruct if the owner attempts to remove them to
reuse them on a different aircraft. The commenter also suggested that
if an aircraft is destroyed or sold, the original owner can log onto
the FAA database to update the information associated with that
aircraft's serial number.
    Several other commenters noted that a marking system is problematic
because many aircraft do not have a large enough area on which to place
an identifier that would be visible from a distance. Some of these
commenters stated the only reason for a unmanned aircraft to carry a
registration number is to identify the owner after a crash. These
commenters asserted that it would make more sense to require UAS
operators to affix a label with their contact information inside their
aircraft than to develop and implement a registration system. Noting
markings will not be visible on most unmanned aircraft during flight,
Delair-Tech recommended using a position reporting mechanism to enable
authorities to access information on in-flight devices. This commenter
said following an accident, a marking of the manufacturer name, serial
number and type designator, designed to withstand a certain degree of
damage, would enable authorities to find the UAS owner through the
registration system.
    Comments on the use of the N-numbering system to register UAS: A
few commenters recommended that the registration system for UAS be
separate from the current N-numbering system used for manned aircraft.
To ensure that the FAA does not run out of N-numbers, one individual
suggested moving to a 6- or 7-digit number for UAS, while another
individual suggested the FAA open up the first 3 spaces to allow the
use of letters, which the commenter asserted will increase the
availability of the numbers by 44,279,424 spaces. Another individual
said the registration number should be ``sufficiently long/random'' to
prevent people from creating registration numbers without actually
registering.
    One individual commenter suggested that the registration numbering
system delineate between commercial users (for which the N-numbering
system could be used) and private users. Another individual said the N-
number given to small UAS intended for commercial use should be
followed by a ``- C'' designation to clearly show that this aircraft is
going to be used commercially. Several other individuals recommended
the FAA use alternate prefixes for the registration number (e.g.,
``U,'' ``UX,'' ``UAS,'' ``UAV,'' ``NQ,'' or ``M'' for model aircraft).
    The Property Drone Consortium pointed out that an N-number on a UAS
will not be visible to observers while the UAS is in flight, and will
therefore only be used to identify the owner of a UAS that has been
involved in an incident and recovered. This commenter also questioned
whether it will be sufficient to self-register based on a serial
number, requiring an FAA assigned N-number only when a serial number is
not available or easily accessible. An individual commenter said the
manufacturer serial number should be sufficient for identification
purposes, instead of a separate N-number. Another individual also
supported the use of a manufacturer serial number, but said an ``N''
should still be placed in front of the serial number to show that it is
registered.
    One individual commenter stated that because some UAS are too small
to effectively display an N-number, an electronic version of an N-
number should be used. This commenter asserted that the electronic
serial number (ESN) can be encoded into the receiver/transmitter used
to control the UAS, and then broadcast whenever the transmitter
commands the aircraft. The commenter suggested that authorities could
then identify the UAS in question, and that that interception would be
legal as the ESN is broadcast over the 2.4 GHZ publicly shared
frequencies.
    One individual commenter recommended a separate category of N-
numbers for historic airplanes, similar to what has been done for full-
scale historic cars and aircraft.
    A few individual commenters supported the use of the current N-
numbering system for UAS, with one commenter asserting that it is
already working well for commercial UAS operations.
    Task Force: The FAA asked the Task Force to develop and recommend
methods for proving registration and marking. Factors to consider
included, but were not limited to, how a small unmanned aircraft will
be able to be identified with the registered owner (i.e., a marking
requirement).
    Information that may be used for aircraft identification: Because
the main goal of registration is to create a connection between the
aircraft and its owner, the Task Force recognized that it is necessary
to mark each registered small unmanned aircraft with a unique
identifier that is readily traceable back to its owner. The Task Force
recommended two options for complying with this marking requirement.
Specifically, registrants can either affix a single FAA-issued
registration number to all the aircraft they own or they can rely on a
manufacturer's serial number that is already permanently affixed to the
aircraft. A small unmanned aircraft owner may only rely on the
manufacturer's serial number, however, if the owner provided that
serial number to the FAA during registration and if it appears on the
owner's certificate of registration.
    Methods to display aircraft identification: The Task Force further
recommended a requirement that the owner and operator ensure that all
markings are readily accessible and maintained in a condition that is
readable and legible upon close visual inspection prior to any
operation. The Task Force believed that markings enclosed in a
compartment, such as a battery compartment, should be considered
``readily accessible'' if they can be easily accessed without the use
of tools.
    IFR Requirement: Information that may be used to identify an
aircraft. The IFR requires all small unmanned aircraft to display a
unique identifier. As discussed throughout this preamble, individuals
registering aircraft that will be used exclusively as model aircraft
will receive a Certificate of Registration

with a single registration number that constitutes registration of all
of the individual's small unmanned aircraft. This number must be
displayed on each small unmanned aircraft owned by this individual and
used exclusively as model aircraft as proof of registration and to
connect the small unmanned aircraft with an owner.
    Each aircraft used as other than a model aircraft will receive a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration with a unique registration number
that must be displayed on the aircraft.
    The FAA received a variety of recommendations pertaining to the
information that should be affixed to the small unmanned aircraft for
purposes of identification (e.g., phone numbers, bar codes, QR codes,
operator contact information and AMA number). In some cases, commenters
recommended information in addition to a registration number. The
agency considered these recommendations but determined that once an
aircraft is registered, the registration number provides sufficient
information to locate the aircraft's owner in the FAA's registration
database. Therefore, requiring the owner to display additional contact
information on the aircraft would create an unnecessary burden.
    Regarding the comment seeking to display an AMA number in
particular, the Civil Aircraft Registry and the registration system
implemented in this IFR are premised on the ability to uniquely
identify and owner and their aircraft. The FAA does not govern the
membership structures of section 336 organizations and cannot be
assured of the uniqueness of those organizations' identification
systems. Therefore, the FAA has no assurance that such a member number
will provide the requisite unique identifier. Thus, the FAA will
maintain an FAA-issued registration number for the marking scheme for
small unmanned aircraft used as model aircraft.
    With regard to ASTM consensus and marking standards, the FAA notes
that, as of this writing, those standards are still in development, and
thus, they cannot be used for this rulemaking.
    Finally, a number of commenters assumed that an FAA registration
number would include the ``N'' prefix that is used for identification
of U.S. registered aircraft. The agency clarifies that the registration
numbers issued to small unmanned aircraft under the IFR are not
intended to be used for nationality identification and thus will not
include the ``N'' prefix because the part 48 registration process is
available only to small unmanned aircraft operating within the United
States.
    Methods to display aircraft identification: To ensure that the
small unmanned aircraft can be identified, the FAA will require that
the unique identifier must be maintained in a condition that is
legible. The unique identifier must be affixed to the small unmanned
aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed
to the aircraft during routine handling and all operating conditions.
    For small unmanned aircraft registered under this part, the FAA
does not specify a particular surface upon which the unique identifier
must be placed. Rather, recognizing commenters' concern about the small
size of many of the small unmanned aircraft that must be registered,
the FAA simply requires that the unique identifier must be readily
accessible and visible upon inspection of the small unmanned aircraft.
    In accordance with Task Force recommendations, a unique identifier
is deemed readily accessible if it can be accessed without the use of
any tools (e.g., battery compartment). This flexibility is expected to
resolve the concerns of the television and motion picture industry and
preserve the authenticity of a replica if so desired, given that the
unique identifier need not be displayed on the exterior of the small
unmanned aircraft.
    Additionally, the flexibility with respect to the location of the
unique identifier will facilitate the use of a small unmanned aircraft
serial number as the unique identifier at such time as the
Administrator determines that serial numbers can be effectively used to
identify aircraft owners within the small unmanned aircraft
registration system. The FAA notes that, currently, serial numbers may
be repeated since there is no mechanism in place for manufacturers to
ensure that a given serial number is unique to a specific aircraft.
However, the FAA supports any efforts by sUAS manufacturers to
collectively standardize aircraft serial numbers, such that each small
unmanned aircraft will receive a unique serial number in production.
    With regard to comments on the visibility of the markings, the FAA
cannot require all small unmanned aircraft to display a registration
number visible to people on the ground because some small unmanned
aircraft may be too small to satisfy this requirement. The agency
notes, however, that during operation of the sUAS, a Certificate of
Aircraft Registration must be readily available to the person operating
the sUAS, so that they may provide it to federal, state, or local law
enforcement when requested. See 49 U.S.C. 44103(d); 14 CFR 91.9(b) and
91.203(a); see also Legal Interpretation from Mark W. Bury to John
Duncan, August 8, 2014. The Certificate of Registration can be a
legible paper copy (or photocopy), or it may be provided by showing it
in a legible electronic form, such as on a smartphone. Thus, while the
agency considered comments suggesting additional documentation
requirements such as an ID badge or placard on or near the sUAS
operator, the FAA has determined that such requirements would not serve
a valid purpose.
    Additionally, commenters' recommendations pertaining to a
requirement to identify a small unmanned aircraft using certain
equipment are beyond the scope of this rule. Neither the sUAS Operation
and Certification NPRM nor this rule contain minimum equipage
requirements for small UAS, such as a transponder. Thus, small unmanned
aircraft may not have the equipage necessary to electronically transmit
a registration number.
    Regarding comments related to the installation of fireproof plates,
Executive Order 12,866 prohibits an executive agency from adopting a
regulation unless the agency determines ``that the benefits of its
intended regulation justify its costs.'' \38\ In the sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM, the FAA explained its belief that requiring the
installation of identification plates would not be cost-justified. None
of the commenters advocating for the use of fireproof identification
plating or other forms of fireproof marking submitted data that would
allow the FAA to find that adopting this requirement would result in
benefits sufficient to justify the costs of this requirement.
Additionally, the FAA notes that for some of the smaller and lighter
weight unmanned aircraft that operate under this rule, an
identification plate would add additional weight, which could result in
reduced flight performance and/or endurance. Accordingly, the FAA has
decided against including a requirement for a fireproof identification
plate in this rule.

I. Education

    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: Availability of education
materials was addressed in the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM.
The National Association of REALTORS, SkyView Strategies, Inc., and
others recommended that FAA initiate a campaign to educate the general
public on UAS due to the abundance of misinformation currently
available. The Air Line Pilots Association urged FAA to take advantage
of internet-based

communication of safety material, training resources, databases of
airport locations and airspace restrictions, best practices, in-service
irregularity reports and the like, because this is possibly the only
practical means of reaching the small UAS pilot population.
    Clarification/Request for Information: Many commenters, including
the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) and the National
Retail Federation, stated that a public education campaign and the
development of guidance materials and handbooks to ensure users know
the rules for flying UAS is essential to promote responsible use of
UAS. Other commenters said that requiring manufacturers to include a
pamphlet with each aircraft that describes these rules would also be
effective. Another commenter suggested that online retailers require
purchasers to navigate to a page describing UAS safety requirements
before completing the purchase. Many commenters, including the
Experimental Aircraft Association, lauded FAA's existing Know Before
You Fly program and recommended continuing to expand it. Some
commenters suggested creating a GPS-enabled app that would identify
safe and unsafe areas for flying, while others said FAA should further
develop its existing B4UFly app for all mobile platforms. A commenter
said that off-limit areas should be marked or advertised as such. Some
commenters said that operators should be required to pass a training
course, a practical exam, or obtain an operator certificate before
flying a UAS.
    Task Force: Recognizing how important it is that all users of the
NAS receive information on safety in the NAS, the Task Force
recommended the registration process contain some sort of education
component and acknowledgment, with controls in place such that the
registration process would be incomplete until the registrant has
acknowledged receipt of this information. The information provided
could be similar to the existing content in the Know Before You Fly
program.
    IFR Requirement: The FAA establishes regulatory standards to ensure
safe operations in the NAS. The FAA's safety system is largely based
on, and dependent upon, voluntary compliance with these regulatory
standards. An essential element of this strategy is FAA's effort to
encourage a safety culture, and, to that end, ensure comprehensive
educational material is readily available to every user of the NAS. The
FAA agrees with commenters and the Task Force with respect to the
importance of educational information in the registration process.
    The small unmanned aircraft registration platform described in this
rule will require the registrant to review a summary of sUAS
operational guidelines before completing small unmanned aircraft
registration. The FAA believes this is an invaluable access point to
deliver sUAS operational safety information. The information will also
direct registrants to additional sources of safety information
generated by the FAA and other stakeholders, such as faasafety.gov and
knowbeforeyoufly.org.
    To reach registrants after they complete the registration process,
the FAA will develop a process to use the small unmanned aircraft
registry information (such as email and mailing address) to offer
safety-related information. Delivering post-registration safety
information to registrants on a continuing basis will help to remind
the registrant of their safety-of-flight obligations and help reduce
sUAS risks in the NAS. The FAA will develop, maintain, and deliver
easily-accessible safety information directed specifically to sUAS
owners and operators. To maximize usage of the information by the
recipient, the FAA will carefully meter its delivery of information via
these access points to maximize effective consumption.

J. Compliance Philosophy and Enforcement

    Clarification/Request for Information: The FAA received several
comments about enforcement. Modovolate Aviation, LLC expressed support
of FAA's proposed registration requirement of UAS stating it will
improve the ability for law enforcement officials ``to investigate
unsafe and reckless practices and to take enforcement action when
appropriate.''
    The Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT) Office of
Aeronautics, the Arlington Police Department (APD) and several
individual commenters raised concerns about enforcing a registration
requirement. MnDOT Office of Aeronautics noted one challenge associated
with enforcement of the current program is a general lack of awareness
of the State's role in regulating UAS and aviation, as well as a lack
of awareness among operators, airports, law enforcement and the general
public of the aircraft registration requirements and commercial
operators licensing requirements. This commenter noted that
registration could be used as a vehicle for providing information to
the public about program requirements and the States in regulating UAS
and aviation
    APD said it and other local law enforcement agencies across the
country do not have the capacity or the authority to enforce FAA's UAS
rules and regulations. While APD will assist the FAA as witnesses or
reporting entities for UAS rules violations, the commenter said the FAA
must retain the responsibility for enforcement.
    A number of individual commenters raised general concerns about the
enforceability of a registration requirement. Several commenters
asserted extending registration requirements to recreational users will
be difficult to enforce and will not be worth the expense required to
develop and implement the program, including the cost to train local
law enforcement officials. Others noted no Federal, State or local law
enforcement agency has the budget or work force to enforce a
registration requirement for all aircraft, including model aircraft.
One commenter compared this registration requirement to the Federal
Communications Commission's effort to require Citizen Band radio users
to apply for a license to operate, which, according to the commenter,
ultimately was too costly to enforce. Other commenters questioned
whether the FAA has sufficient manpower to enforce the registration
requirement and how enforcement responsibilities will be shared with
local law enforcement.
    Some individuals provided general comments about penalties for
failing to register a UAS. One commenter recommended a one-time
allowance for anyone caught violating the registration requirement and
a large fine for subsequent violations, while other commenters
suggested a large fine for all offenses.
    Several commenters addressed the issue of penalties. One commenter
remarked that registration will be worthless unless there are negative
consequences (e.g., fines or revocation of registration certificate)
for operators who fail to register or mark their aircraft. Another
commenter suggested that a penalty similar to the penalty for driving
an unlicensed car be imposed for operating a UAS without the proper
registration.
    Task Force: The Task Force recommended that the FAA establish a
clear and proportionate penalty framework for violations. It cited the
FAA's current registration-related penalties and stated they were
established in order to deter suspected drug traffickers and tax
evaders who failed to register aircraft as part of larger nefarious
schemes. The Task Force

recommended a separate FAA policy driving a proportionate response for
inadvertent sUAS registration violations, without which operators could
find themselves exposed to aggressive enforcement.
    FAA Response: The FAA Administrator has the authority to prescribe,
revise, and enforce standards in accordance with Title 49 of the United
States Code, Subtitle VII, Chapter 447, Safety Regulation. This
authority is used to protect the public's safety and the agency's
enforcement authority is exercised to obtain compliance with applicable
aviation safety and security requirements.
    Earlier this year, the FAA announced a new compliance philosophy
that uses a strategic approach to safety oversight.\39\ The FAA
believes that its compliance philosophy, supported by an established
safety culture, is instrumental in ensuring both compliance with
regulations and the identification of hazards and management of risk.
If an individual or entity is found to have not registered the aircraft
prior to its operation, the FAA's compliance philosophy will be applied
appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See FAA Order 8000.373 available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8000.373.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To mitigate risks in the NAS and ensure compliance FAA has used and
will continue to use outreach and education to encourage compliance
with regulatory requirements that pertain to the registration of
unmanned aircraft. The FAA may also use administrative action or legal
enforcement action to gain compliance. Failure to register an aircraft
can result in civil penalties up to $27,500. Criminal penalties for
failure to register can include fines of up to $250,000 under 18 U.S.C.
3571 and/or imprisonment up to 3 years. 49 U.S.C. 46306.

K. Privacy

    sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: In the NPRM for the sUAS
Operation and Certification rule, one commenter addressed database
accessibility. Event 38 Unmanned Systems suggested that FAA create a
database of registered operators, but limit accessibility to FAA and
law enforcement.
    Clarification/Request for Information: The Clarification/Request
for Information requested information about the storage of registration
data.
    Registration Data Storage Method: Many commenters expressed concern
about the security of personal identifying information in light of
recent breaches, and recommended that data be stored in some sort of
secure database (e.g., encrypted database, secured server, database
under the control of FAA, central database with 256 bit AES digital
encryption, protected with HIPAA-type controls) in compliance with
government requirements. Several commenters noted the data should be
stored in a nationally accessible database so that it can be shared
with local law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing the
rules. Other commenters recommended the FAA store registration data the
same way the FCC stores amateur (HAM) radio licenses. Another commenter
suggested registration data for model aircraft should be maintained by
the AMA. Some commenters said there should not be a central registry
due to data security concerns, while others recommended storing the
registration information on paper to reduce the possibility of personal
information being hacked or stolen.
    EPIC stated that recreational UAS operators have an expectation of
privacy, so the FAA should adopt safeguards to protect those
registrants' information from improper release and use by both the
public and other government agencies.
    Multiple commenters, including South Florida UAV Consortium and
Morris P. Hebert, Inc., expressed concern with the security of online
registration systems. Some commenters indicated that they would be
supportive of electronic or Web-based registration if the agency could
guarantee that the registration site would be secure. A commenter also
suggested to ensure that an electronic signature be included in the
registration process to increase security. Along with adding security
measures to any online site, an individual expressed concern with the
authentication process of online registrations. A few commenters
suggested that it would be difficult for the agency to create and
implement an authentication program sufficient to verify the identity
of those registering prior to the proposed December 2015 deadline.
    The Air Medical Operators Association and the Colorado Agricultural
Aviation Association said the data should be stored and maintained by
the FAA and easily accessible to the agency and law enforcement
agencies for enforcement purposes. The National Retail Federation
asserted retailers should not be required to store any kind of UAS
registration information; the system should be maintained by the FAA
for use by the FAA and local law enforcement agencies. Similarly, the
Toy Industry Association said manufacturers should not be required to
maintain UAS registration information.
    Chronicled, Inc. suggested using a distributed blockchain based
system in which the FAA would not own the data, but would have complete
access to the data. In a blockchain-based system, the registrants would
own their registration data and the UAS product history would pass on
to any subsequent owners of the UAS. Travelers Insurance Company
recommended the data be stored in a searchable database that would
allow for data mining with respect to all the registration information,
including manufacturer, type, serial number, vendor and purchaser with
protections for personally identifiable information.
    Registration Data Accessibility: In the Clarification/Request for
Information, DOT and FAA asked who should have access to the
registration data. Many commenters, including Modovolate Aviation, LLC,
and NetMoby, said that the UAS registration data should be available to
the public via the same search methods as the current manned aircraft
registration data. Many commenters noted the data must be available to
the public in order for the public to identify the owner of a UAS
involved in an incident and to notify the appropriate government
authority. NetMoby also said State laws require the exchange of
information for automobile accidents and asserted the same should be
required for UAS incidents.
    Aerospace Industries Association, Property Drone Consortium, Real
Time Technology Group and individual commenters suggested all
stakeholders require access to the data, but different stakeholders
have different information needs. These commenters said the type of
information each stakeholder should have access to should be controlled
on a need to know basis. Aerospace Industries Association also cited
FAA's Federal Records Center (FRC) as an example of how the data could
be managed. The commenter explained licensees are registered and have
access to their detailed information, while third parties have access
to a limited amount of the information necessary to conduct business,
but not to all of the detailed information. A law firm noted concerns
about confidential proprietary information could be addressed by
allowing for redaction of certain confidential financial information,
as is currently done with the FAA Civil Aircraft Registry.
    Several commenters said only the registrant and authorized
government

agencies, including DOT, FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board,
and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and local law enforcement
officials should have access to the registration data because of
privacy concerns. One commenter said the data should only be available
to law enforcement and FAA personnel via the existing National Crime
Information Computer datalinks. Some commenters said law enforcement
officials should have access to this data only when there is an active
investigation into a particular registration and registrants should be
informed when their data is accessed. Many commenters said the data
should be treated as confidential information and a few suggested DOT
or FAA personnel should have the ability to access the data only with a
court order, warrant or FOIA request. A few commenters expressed
concern that if the registration data were publically available, owners
of expensive UAS would be targets of robbery.
    EPIC stated that there must be strict restrictions against the
general disclosure of registrants' personal information to government
agencies and private entities, except as necessary to promote the FAA's
mission of establishing safety and privacy in UAS operations. Noting
that privacy concerns are greater for hobbyists (who are more likely to
register with private home addresses) than for commercial operators,
EPIC recommended that the registration database of commercial operators
be publicly accessible, but the database of recreational operators only
be accessible for limited purposes related to protecting the safety and
privacy of the public. EPIC claimed that, given the fast-growing market
for UAS, a publicly accessible database of operators would implicate
privacy and safety concerns comparable to those that inspired the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which generally prohibits the release
and use of registered drivers' personal information except for limited
purposes. As such, EPIC asserted that UAS registration information
should be treated the same as the driver records collected by state
departments of motor vehicles.
    The Arlington, Texas, Police Department said that local law
enforcement agencies should be given real-time access to the database
to enable them to seek information about a specific UAS registration
and to provide notification about unregistered UAS.
    Usage of Registration Data: Many of the commenters who responded to
this question, including the National Retail Federation and
individuals, said the data should only be used for law enforcement
purposes. Other commenters suggested additional uses of the data. For
example, Travelers insurance company recommended the data be available
for use for underwriting, risk assessment, and for establishing loss
history. AIA said regulators could use the metadata to determine market
size, concentration and type and volume of operations. Aerospace
Industries Association also said registration should not prompt
additional State tax collection processes as it does with manned
aircraft purchases. Real Time Technology suggested the data could be
used at FAA's discretion for a number of purposes, including: To
maintain an accurate association of UAS with multiple users over time;
to compile accurate records of corporate UAS assets; to assure
compliance with registration requirements for UAS operations; to
authenticate registration for operational integrity in the field; to
track incidents associated with UAS or owners; and to collect
operational flight data from participating facilities. An individual
said FAA could use the data to generate aggregate statistical data on
commercial UAS activities to gauge commercial UAS impact on the NAS. A
few commenters noted registration data could be used to recover stolen
or lost property, alert owners of recalls, or to disseminate safety
information, including Notices to Airmen, to registrants. Some
commenters expressed concern that registration data could be used to
abuse or harass UAS owners. Others expressed concern that in asking how
the data should be used, the agency does not seem to know why it is
seeking to collect the data.
    EPIC stated its position that recreational operators have a
legitimate privacy interest in avoiding the disclosure of their names,
addresses, and telephone numbers, and that it would serve no legitimate
purpose to make such personal information available beyond the scope of
a particular privacy or security threat.\40\ As such, EPIC stated the
FAA should adopt a general prohibition against the disclosure of
personal information, including the name, address, and number of the
registration. EPIC further stated that permitted uses of the registry
should be limited to serve the FAA's stated purposes of allowing
``individuals and title search companies to determine the legal
ownership of an aircraft'' and to ``provide aircraft owners and
operators information about potential mechanical defects or unsafe
conditions of their aircraft in the form of airworthiness directives.''
To that end, EPIC suggested that appropriate uses of registration data
by the FAA would include providing information to identify the operator
of a UAS that has caused injury, or in connection with a legal
proceeding, and providing UAS owners and operators information on any
relevant mechanical defects or unsafe aircraft conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ EPIC cited legal precedent to support the propositions that
individuals have a legitimate privacy interest in avoiding
disclosure of their names, addresses, and telephone numbers (see
Dep't of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 500
(1994)) and that this privacy interest remains intact even when the
information is properly disclosed to the public under certain
circumstances (see U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for
Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 767, 770 (1989)). EPIC further
stated that limiting the use and disclosure of personal information
submitted by registrants is consistent with their expectations of
privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other General Comments: Commenters raised additional concerns
regarding a UAS registration system. Skyward, Inc. said in 2013 the
DOT's Office of the Inspector General found that the aircraft
registration system had experienced significant data quality and
security issues. The commenter noted data quality and security issues
are exacerbated when data are hard to update or there is little
incentive for individuals to provide updated information. Skyward, Inc.
was ``concerned (1) that the Department's focus on enforcement may
alienate potential registrants, (2) about questions related to managing
registration of aircraft owned by individuals who are not US citizens
or are not permanent residents, and (3) about how such a registration
system may manage [s]UAS that are passing through the US by visitors
who bring drones into the US temporarily.''
    Skyward, Inc. also expressed concern about unintended consequences
that could result from ``hasty implementation'' of the registration
system. Similarly, an individual stated that based on the questions
posed in the Clarification/Request for Information, it appears ``the
FAA has not done the necessary preparation to stand-up a registration
system to handle the necessary volume of registrants.''
    Task Force: The Task Force recommended that the FAA collect only
name and street address of applicants for registration. While the Task
Force recognized that a registrant's email address and telephone number
may be useful for the FAA to disseminate safety-related information to
UAS owners, the Task Force nevertheless believed disclosure of such
information be optional. With the exception of information released to
law

enforcement, the Task Force urged the FAA to prevent the release of any
personal information that the agency is not specifically required by
law to disclose. Because this new requirement will impact unmanned
aircraft owners who do not have the means to protect their identities
and addresses behind corporate structures (as some manned aircraft
owners currently do), the Task Force believed that it is important for
the FAA to take all possible steps to shield the information of
privately owned aircraft from unauthorized disclosure, including
issuing an advance statement that the information collected will be
considered to be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act.
    IFR Requirement: This rule provides a Web-based process for
registration of small unmanned aircraft and issuance of Certificates of
Aircraft Registration. The privacy impacts have been analyzed by the
FAA in the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the Civil Aviation
Registry Applications (AVS Registry) and the Privacy Act System of
Records Notice (SORN) DOT/FAA 801 Aircraft Registration System has been
updated accordingly.
    The FAA conducted a PIA of this rule as required by section
522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of
the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec.
17, 2002). The assessment considers any impacts of the rule on the
privacy of information in an identifiable form. The FAA has determined
that this rule would impact the FAA's handling of personally
identifiable information (PII). As part of the PIA that the FAA
conducted as part of this rulemaking, the FAA analyzed the effect this
impact might have on collecting, storing, and disseminating PII and
examined and evaluated protections and alternative information handling
processes in developing the rule in order to mitigate potential privacy
risks. The PIA has been included in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The FAA agrees with the Task Force that accessibility of this
information to law enforcement and the FAA is the utmost priority in
establishing this registry. As such, the security, simplicity, and
accessibility of the system to those groups were the foremost goals in
the FAA's determinations of system design. Routine uses are described
in the SORN.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Persons wishing to access or comment on the System of
Records Notice should consult docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were mainly concerned with two issues: information
security and access to the registry information. First, regarding the
security of the registry information, the FAA developed this Web-based
registration system in compliance with all federal information
technology requirements and guidelines regarding security and
protection of information including the Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002 as amended by the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act of 2014 and OMB and National Institute of Standards
and Technology guidelines. Access to the system depends on a validated
email address and a password created by the user. The system is
identified by a digital certificate so that the public has confidence
that they are interacting with the authentic registration site. The
system encrypts all of the information provided by the users while they
use the system as well as user information stored within the system.
The system has also been designed to protect information based on the
potential for serious impact from a security compromise. In addition,
the system protects credit card information in accordance with PCI Data
Security Standards.
    Second, regarding the accessibility of the system data, the Privacy
Act System of Records Notice DOT/FAA 801 Aircraft Registration System,
provides notice to the public of the agency's privacy practices
regarding the collection, use, sharing, safeguarding, maintenance, and
disposal of information that affects individuals and their personally
identifiable information (PII). The SORN identifies the routine uses
for the PII collected for small unmanned aircraft registration. The
SORN has been published in the Federal Register and addresses the
disclosure of the small unmanned aircraft owner's name and address.
    The FAA disagrees with commenters who say that the Registry should
reside with the AMA or any other organization. By statute, the FAA is
charged with establishing such a registry.
    As provided in the SORN, all information in the database will be
available to law enforcement in order to achieve one of the FAA's
primary priorities in creating this system, which is to ensure a safe
and secure NAS. Accomplishing this goal involves prioritizing the
ability of law enforcement to help us identify the owner of a sUAS that
has violated an operating rule or has been used to either accidentally
or intentionally endanger other NAS users or people on the ground.
    Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be
able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier.
The name and address associated with that unique identifier will
populate in accordance with that search.

L. Other Methods To Encourage Accountability and Responsible Use of the
National Airspace System

    Clarification/Request for Information: The FAA received comments
from many organizations and individuals on additional means beyond
aircraft registration to encourage accountability and responsible use
of UAS.
    The agency received comments affirming the registration requirement
as a method to encourage accountability and responsible use of UAS. The
Air and Surface Transport Nurses Association said that a registration
requirement would be a ``step in the right direction in terms of
safety.'' EAA stated that while registration will create a system of
accountability, safety is dependent on the knowledge and decisions made
by UAS users. An individual commenter noted registration would help
recreational operators to take UAS use seriously. Another individual
stated requiring all operators to register their UAS and to obtain a
pilot license are both necessary to document the aircraft are airworthy
and the operators are properly trained in safe operation. Rotor Sport
and other commenters recommended the FAA look to the AMA for guidance
and counsel so that the agency can create policies that foster
acceptable use and safety for the public while at the same time are
intelligent and flexible to meet the needs of all model aviation
stakeholders.
    Most of the commenters addressing this issue asserted that a
registration requirement would not encourage accountability and
responsible use of UAS. Two of the main reasons given for this
assertion were that registration would only be useful in rare cases
when a registered UAS is recovered after an incident, and ``bad
actors'' will simply not register. Several commenters, including the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted registration numbers on a UAS
would be invisible to those observing a reckless or malicious UAS
operation, thereby limiting the enforcement benefits. These

commenters said FAA has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that
registration of these aircraft will improve safety of the NAS or people
on the ground. They believe the safety rules are important, but a
registration requirement would have no effect on safety. One commenter
noted registration of UAS will enable FAA to identify the operator in
case of an accident, but it does not address the actual problem:
untrained pilots operating in the NAS. This commenter stressed the
importance of a type certificate stating, ``It certifies that the UAS
is airworthy, and also requires a trained pilot to operate in the
NAS.''
    A few commenters asserted FAA has not been able to accurately track
many of the 357,000 aircraft registered under the current registration
program, and questioned the agency's ability to manage the registration
of hundreds of thousands of UAS. A number of commenters participating
in a form letter campaign stated that registration of model aircraft,
in particular, ``would have had little to no effect on the few rogue
pilots that have caused concern with the FAA and DOT and would only
serve to prevent law abiding citizens from enjoying the freedom and
liberty set forth by the US Constitution.'' Many commenters said
instead of encouraging accountability and responsible use, a
registration requirement would increase burdens on responsible
operators, waste tax payer dollars, and punish those who follow the
rules.
    Several individual commenters asserted that the proposed
registration requirement is unnecessary as the registration issue is
already being addressed in the current section 333 exemption process
and proposed part 107 (the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM).
    A few commenters proposing other methods to encourage
accountability and responsible UAS use said that manufacturers should
be required to install geo-fencing software in their models to prevent
UAS from flying in restricted areas. Other commenters said they should
be required to install transponders that would transmit the
registration number.
    Modovolate Aviation said the following would encourage
accountability and responsible use of UAS: ``(1) Prompt promulgation of
a general rule for sUAS, following the FAA's 25 February 2015 proposal;
(2) streamlining and acceleration of the section 333 exemption process;
and (3) eventual replacement of this system of regulation with one
requiring vendor self-certification of specific technological safety
features as a condition of sale.''
    Delair-Tech recommended various options that would require the
manufacturer to install software that would trigger the need to
register before the UAS would be operational. The South Florida UAV
Consortium recommended that UASs be restricted to a limited operation
until the operator completes a training course and receives a code to
unlock the software to allow it to fly its full range. An individual
commenter said there should be an identification process that requires
a name and address to be registered to a serial number before
electronic operating software can be downloaded to the UAS.
    Skyward, Inc. said the Task Force should examine approaches that
promote safety ``by providing opt-in conduits for registrants to
receive educational material, safety/recall information from
manufacturers, insurance discounts, and other benefits.'' In addition,
Skyward suggested that the proposed registration system serve as a
facilitator for subsequent services such as automated delivery of
temporary flight restrictions. Other commenters similarly recommended
the registration system contain some sort of educational or training
component. Aviation Management Associates said the FAA should encourage
registration of all UAS (including those that are not required to
register) by providing information and services of value, such as
enabling operators to receive discounted insurance rates by virtue of
meeting educational requirements that qualify for registration.
    EPIC recommended that any UAS operating the NAS include a mandatory
GPS tracking feature that would broadcast the location, course, speed
over ground, and owner identifying and contact information, similar to
the Automated Identification System (AIS) for commercial vessels. EPIC
noted that, unlike with aircraft that are equipped with ADS-B, aircraft
information about aircraft equipped with AIS is available to the public
through freely available apps.
    Union Pacific Railroad stated that it supports other reasonable
measures to encourage accountability and responsibility in small UAS
operations, including restrictions on any unauthorized commercial or
recreational operations over certain safety-sensitive locations, such
as railroad facilities.
    Task Force: While the Task Force did not make a specific
recommendation on encouraging accountability and responsible use of UAS
outside the registration process, it asserted within its report that
operator accountability and responsible use were its principal goals of
registration. The NPRM did not request comment on this issue.
    IFR Requirement: Accountability and responsible sUAS operation
along with identification of the aircraft owner are the desired
outcomes for this rule. While commenters provided a number of
recommendations for further action toward these goals that are outside
of the scope of this rulemaking, the FAA found that one predominant
recurring theme addressed education regarding safe sUAS operations. As
described in the preamble discussion pertaining to education, the FAA
agrees that education is a key component for reaching the agency's
aircraft registration goals and is an overarching tenet in ensuring the
safety of the NAS. The FAA will continue to evaluate these additional
methods recommended by the commenters for encouraging safe and
responsible use among sUAS operators for future guidance material and
rulemaking.

M. Legal Implications of the Registration Requirement

    A number of comments were received to the Clarification/Request for
Information regarding the legal implications of the registration
requirement.
1. Comments addressing Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012
    Many commenters stated that the FAA's decision to require
registration of model aircraft is in violation of section 336 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95, which
stipulates that the FAA ``may not promulgate any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft'' that meets certain criteria. Commenters
pointed out that one such criterion is that the model aircraft be
operated ``in accordance with a community-based set of Safety
Guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based
organization.'' Commenters stated that the AMA is one such
organization, and that the FAA must therefore exempt AMA members from
the registration requirement. Other commenters stated more generally
that FAA must identify all nationwide community-based organizations and
exempt their members from any rule or regulation (including
registration) when the aircraft is operated in accordance with a
community-based set of safety guidelines.

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute asserted that the FAA conceded
in its interpretation of section 336 that ``a model aircraft operated
pursuant to the terms of section 336 would potentially be excepted from
a UAS aircraft rule,'' an interpretation that the commenter said
``would logically lend itself to a UAS aircraft registration rule as
well.'' This commenter accused the FAA of ignoring both the plain
language of the statute and its own interpretation of it, and asked the
FAA to explain how it has the jurisdiction to regulate small UAS
operated by hobbyists.
    Several commenters found fault with the FAA's justification for
requiring registration of model aircraft--i.e., that it is applying
existing law that applies to all ``aircraft'' and not promulgating new
regulations regarding model aircraft. The Mercatus Center at George
Mason University asserted that the current proceeding ``relied quite
directly on laws that by statute may not be used as justification for
an expansion of the regulatory obligations of model aircraft
operators;'' namely, its UAS integration mandate under the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act. This commenter further asserted that if
the FAA does not restart the process without references to that mandate
there is a possibility that registration of non-commercial UAS will be
overturned if challenged in court. An individual commenter stated that
if, as the FAA asserts, the definition of model aircraft as
``aircraft'' means that all existing federal aviation regulations
retroactively apply to model aircraft, the congressional prohibition on
regulating them would be pointless. This commenter further stated that
the clear intent of Congress was to prohibit the FAA from regulating
model aircraft at all, and that if Congress meant instead to apply the
full array of existing aviation regulations to model aircraft, it would
have said so. This commenter also asserted that, even if the FAA is
correct that all existing aviation regulations apply to model aircraft,
it is not acting consistently with that principle because it is picking
only one of the many regulations that apply to manned aircraft and
arbitrarily applying it to model aircraft. This commenter further
asserted that this ``is the very epitome of arbitrary and capricious,
and clearly shows that the FAA is being disingenuous when it claims it
is merely applying existing regulations.'' This commenter went on to
say that ``[t]he fact that the FAA finds it necessary to request public
comments in a sort of expedited unofficial NPRM, followed by assembling
a special Task Force (somewhat like an Advisory Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) to determine what steps are necessary to implement the
registration process, clearly reveals the FAA's proposal to be in fact
a new regulation regarding model aircraft in direct contravention of
[FAA Modernization and Reform Act] Sec. 336.''
    Another individual stated that the FAA is not being forthright in
averring that its decision not to register model aircraft until now was
``discretionary.'' This commenter expressed doubt that a regulatory
document exists in which the agency explicitly stated that ``model
aircraft need not be registered, as a discretionary exclusion from 49
U.S.C. 44101,'' and that if such a document does exist it should have
been referenced in the Clarification/Request for Information. This
commenter further asserted that the absence of such a document destroys
the premise of the ``clarification'' the FAA has now put forth.
    Two individual commenters challenged the agency's reliance on the
NTSB ruling in Administrator v. Pirker (NTSB Order No. EA-5739), noting
that the ruling only held that model aircraft qualify as ``aircraft''
as the term is used in 14 CFR 91.13(a), which prohibits careless and
reckless operation.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The commenter cited to Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order
No. EA-5739 at 12 (Nov. 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two individual commenters stated that the FAA's authority to pursue
enforcement action against persons who endanger the safety of the NAS
(under section 336(b) of Public Law 112-95) cannot reasonably be
interpreted to mean the agency has the blanket authority to mandate
registration of model aircraft.
    The FAA disagrees with the comments asserting that the registration
of model aircraft is prohibited by section 336 of Public Law 112-95.
While section 336 bars the FAA from promulgating new rules or
regulations that apply only to model aircraft, the prohibition against
future rulemaking is not a complete bar on rulemaking and does not
exempt model aircraft from complying with existing statutory and
regulatory requirements. As previously addressed, Public Law 112-95
identifies model aircraft as aircraft and as such, the existing
statutory aircraft registration requirements implemented by part 47
apply.
    This action simply provides a burden-relieving alternative that
sUAS owners may use for aircraft registration. Model aircraft operated
under section 336 as well as other small unmanned aircraft are not
required to use the provisions of part 48. Owners of such aircraft have
the option to comply with the existing requirements in part 47 that
govern aircraft registration or may opt to use the new streamlined,
web-based system in part 48.
2. Comments Addressing Requirements Under the Administrative Procedure
Act
    A number of commenters questioned the FAA's approach to rulemaking
pertaining to small unmanned aircraft registration. Several commenters
said the FAA does not have good cause to issue a rule without notice
and comment. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) stated that
under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA, agency rulemakings are required
to include a notice and comment period of at least 30 days unless ``the
agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
public interest.'' Citing to a legal treatise on administration law,
CEI asserted that the good cause exception ``is not an escape clause,''
and ``should be narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced,''
with ``the agency bear[ing] the burden of demonstrating the ground for
good cause.'' CEI further asserted that notice and comment in this case
is not ``impractical,'' because ``[i]mpracticality exists when the
agency cannot both follow the notice-and-comment procedure and execute
its statutory duty.'' CEI stated that in this case the FAA is arguably
proceeding with a UAS registration mandate in direct contradiction of
its statutory duty ``not [to] promulgate any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft.'' CEI also stated that the notice and
comment process cannot be said to be ``unnecessary,'' because a rule
that mandates hobbyists register their model aircraft creates a
substantial new burden on the public. Finally, CEI stated that notice
and comment is not ``contrary to public interest.'' CEI claimed that,
although the FAA will presumably argue that providing notice and
comment would result in significant harm to the public interest by
failing to immediately mitigate UAS safety risks that only mandatory
registration can address, ``there is little evidence that registration
will, on its own, do much of anything to mitigate UAS safety risk,
which itself is likely very low relative to other aircraft safety
risks, such as birds.''
    The Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that ``agency
inaction leading to perceived deadline pressure

does not constitute good cause to dispense with public notice and
comment.'' \43\ The Mercatus Center asserted that a public notice-and-
comment period is necessary and in the public interest because any
requirement to register UASs potentially adversely affects numerous
non-commercial operators. The Mercatus Center further asserted that the
issuance of a final rule without notice and comment opens up the
registration requirement to reversal if challenged in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The commenter cited Air Transport Association of America v.
Department of Transportation, 900 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1990
(``Insofar as the FAA's own failure to act materially contributed to
its perceived deadline pressure, the agency cannot now invoke the
need for expeditious action as `good cause' to avoid the obligations
of section 553(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of individual commenters similarly asserted that the FAA
has not presented any data to substantiate the need to proceed with
this rulemaking on an emergency or expedited basis. Like CEI, these
commenters pointed to a lack of data showing either that there is an
increased safety risk that needs to be addressed or that registration
will, on its own, adequately address that risk. Some commenters
specifically found fault with FAA's reliance on increased number of UAS
``incidents'' reported to the FAA by manned aircraft pilots. Several
commenters noted that the AMA analyzed those reported ``incidents'' and
found that out of the 764 reported records, only 27 (or 3.5%) were
identified as a near mid-air collision, with nearly all of those
involving government-authorized military drones.\44\ The commenters
noted that most of the ``incidents'' have merely been sightings of UAS.
One individual pointed out that the FAA has published no analysis of
its own ``sightings'' data; nor has it disputed the AMA's analysis of
that data. This individual also asserted that a doubling in the rate of
UAS ``sightings'' in 2015 is consistent with the rate of growth of
consumer small UAS, and is not cause for overreaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ A few commenters provided a link to the AMA report. http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/AMAAnalysis-Closer-Look-at-FAA-Drone-Data_091415.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another individual claimed that FAA statistics show that birds are
far more of a threat to air traffic than toy helicopters, and that not
one single incident of a toy model causing an accident has been
reported, while bird strikes number over 7,000 a year. Several other
commenters noted that there has only been one recorded collision
between a manned aircraft and a model aircraft. One such individual
stated that it was a well-known incident in which a biplane struck a
large model airplane that was hovering over a runway at an air show.
This individual further stated that even though that model airplane was
larger than the vast majority of models most hobbyists fly, the biplane
received only a minor dent to its wing. Another individual questioned
whether the FAA has examined empirical evidence from the millions of
model flight operations to determine if lack of compliance with the
labeling requirement had any correlation to the frequency or severity
of mishaps. Another individual pointed to a recent NTSB interpretation
(NTSB-AS-2015-0001) that clarifies that ``model aircraft'' do not fall
within the definition of unmanned aircraft for accident notification/
investigation purposes. Quoting that interpretation, this commenter
stated that the NTSB ``has historically not investigated the rare
occasions in which a model aircraft has cause serious injury or
fatality,'' and clearly does not believe unregistered small UAS to be a
significant threat to the NAS.
    A number of commenters characterized the registration requirement
as a ``knee jerk'' reaction to a perceived problem based solely on
anecdotal evidence, which will punish the many for the acts of a few.
Other commenters said that any UAS-related incidents can easily be
remedied by stricter enforcement of existing laws.
    In contrast to those commenters who claimed that the FAA does not
have good cause to issue a rule without going through notice and
comment rulemaking, Modovolate Aviation, LLC that the FAA does have
good cause to issue a rule without notice and comment, and should
therefore set up a simple database and registration interface
immediately and issue an emergency rule requiring compliance. This
commenter asserted that such authority comes from both the APA (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) and the FAA's own rules (14 CFR 11.29(a)), and
that the FAA's statements that the growing number of pilot reports of
UAS sightings reveals an imminent problem and serves as an appropriate
basis for such an ``emergency rule.'' This commenter also asserted that
the FAA will not achieve its goals by engaging in another protracted
rulemaking process that takes two years.
    In the preamble discussion of the agency's good cause for
proceeding with an IFR, the agency explains its rationale for forgoing
notice and comment prior to the effective date of this rulemaking and
issuing this immediately effective IFR. The agency also notes that it
is seeking comment on this rulemaking and may modify the rule based on
comments received.
3. Comments Addressing Other Legal Issues With the Proposed
Registration Requirement
    The Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that under
Executive Order 12866, a rule on non-commercial UAS registration may be
economically significant and therefore require a cost-benefit analysis.
The Mercatus Center claimed that past experience with national registry
systems suggests that there will be dramatic implementation and
compliance costs that the DOT may be systematically underestimating.
The Mercatus Center further claimed that these costs will be
exacerbated by factors such as fast UAS depreciation and replacement
rates, difficulty of enforcing retroactive compliance, and the sheer
volume and speed at which UASs are being produced, among other factors.
    Several other commenters also stated that the FAA needs to conduct
cost-benefit analysis before proceeding with this rulemaking. For
example, one individual stated that a cost benefit analysis ``based on
a scientific collection of unbiased safety data'' should be conducted
before any new registration program is put in place. This individual
asserted that the FAA has not provided a convincing case that small UAS
pose a safety risk to the NAS, or that that a registration program will
be any more successful than an approach, such as the AMA's Safety Code,
that requires owners to put their name and address on the aircraft. A
few other individuals said the FAA needs to consider that a
registration requirement may expose UAS owners to additional state-
imposed taxes and fees. Another individual pointed to the potential
economic impact a registration requirement may have on small
businesses. This individual asserted that the requirement may impact
small hobby shops, as well as major distributors like Horizon Hobby and
Hobbico, because people will not want to register their aircraft with
the FAA and will therefore choose to participate in other consumer
hobbies that do not require registration with the government. The News
Media Coalition stated that any registration process established by the
FAA ``must avoid placing undue burden on the First Amendment right to
gather and disseminate news.''
    Several individual commenters stated that a registration
requirement is an invasion of privacy. EPIC discussed its concerns
about the privacy and civil liberty risks posed by the use of UAS in

the United States, and asserted that the enhanced surveillance
capabilities of UAS raise significant Fourth Amendment
implications.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ EPIC made reference to its 2012 petition to the FAA to
undertake a rulemaking to establish privacy regulations prior to the
deployment of commercial drones in the national airspace, and its
lawsuit against the FAA for denying that petition. EPIC also made
reference to its testimony before Congress regarding the need to
adopt comprehensive legislation to limit drone surveillance in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with comments regarding Executive Order 12866, the FAA
has completed an economic analysis of this rulemaking. The economic
analysis for this rulemaking can be found in the docket with the IFR.
    Regarding comments pertaining to free speech and privacy, the
agency clarifies that this IFR does not provide operating restrictions.
Rather, this rulemaking is intended only to establish a streamlined
approach for small unmanned aircraft registration.

N. Alternatives to Registration

    The FAA received a number of comments recommending alternatives to
a requirement of registration.
    Clarification/Request for Information: Several commenters suggested
a requirement for small UAS operators to become members of a community-
based organization, instead of a registration requirement. One
commenter recommended that an organization similar to the USPA (United
States Parachute Association) be formed to manage UAS training,
licensing, and registration. Another commenter said it would make more
sense for the DOT and FAA to mandate that small UAS pilots join any
community-based organization that follows a set of standardized rules.
Several commenters recommended that the FAA specifically require model
aircraft operators to become AMA members. One commenter suggested that
AMA be put in charge of the registration of small UAS users, with the
registration database maintained by the AMA independently, or with a
subsidy from the DOT/FAA. Several other commenters, however, opposed
the idea of requiring AMA membership or allowing the AMA to be any part
of the official registration requirement. One individual stated that
registration is an inherently governmental function that should not be
ceded to any dues collecting organization. This commenter pointed out
that neither the Experimental Aircraft Association nor the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association register manned aircraft. Another
individual said the AMA should not be part of the registration process
because it is ``a privately run optional insurance consortium for
hosting a common airfield,'' not an authority regarding model aircraft
design, standards, and practices. The Drone User Group Network said
that the AMA ``while a venerable association, does not have the
interests of responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its
mission.'' Another individual listed a number of concerns about the
AMA's safety programming (e.g., failure to enforce their own
requirement to have AMA number and/or address in their member's
aircraft) and said that he is not comfortable with the AMA being
permitted to manage the inherently governmental function of
registration.
    Several commenters who opposed a registration requirement said the
FAA should review the FCC's experience with the explosive growth of
mobile Citizen Band radios some years ago, which ultimately resulted in
abandoning the licensing requirement for those radios. One commenter
recommended that driver's licenses be used for registration, instead of
creating a new registry system. Another commenter said recreational
operators could be required to carry a current driver's license and a
safety card, which would be issued after the operator watched an FAA
video on proper flying procedures.
    A number of commenters said the FAA needs to clarify what it will
consider to be a UAS for purposes of the registration requirement. Some
commenters asserted that relying on the FAA's definition of
``aircraft'' is problematic because that definition can be construed to
mean any device which takes to air, including, for example, a Frisbee,
a paper airplane, a foam airplane, or a balsa wood rubber-band powered
airplane. As discussed above, many commenters urged the agency to
exclude traditional model aircraft from the definition of UAS for
purposes of the registration requirement. Some of those commenters
questioned why model aircraft would be included in a registration
requirement while other types of ``aircraft,'' such as ultralights,
model rockets and kites, would not. Several commenters pointed out that
ultralights can weigh up to 249 pounds, carry up to 5 gallons of
flammable fuel, carry an unlicensed pilot, be unregistered, and still
operate in the NAS (in many, but not all areas).
    Several individual commenters questioned whether the agency can
handle the registration of millions of recreational UAS. One commenter
noted that the registration database could become overloaded and
unmanageable if every person registers every model aircraft they
purchase or receive--many of which will not last past a single flight--
but then fail to notify the FAA when a model is lost, destroyed, or
sold. Also pointing to the short life span of most small UAS, another
commenter similarly said the registration system will become
overwhelmed if recreational users are required to register and re-
register each model aircraft they obtain. Another commenter said that
requiring UAS owners to renew their registration will ``complicate
everything'' and lead to people involuntarily breaking the law when
they forget to re-register their UAS. Several commenters wondered how
the registration process will be funded.
    Several commenters addressed the effect of a registration
requirement on innovation and growth. The National Association of
Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) encouraged the FAA and the Task
Force to consider how the registration system will be integrated into
or used in conjunction with the commercial development of UAS.
Specifically, NAMIC said the FAA and Task Force should consider how
industries that are critical to UAS development will depend on or
require UAS registration. NAMIC asserted that ``streamlining
requirements for UAS registration would certainly be in the interest of
avoiding duplication, minimizing burdens, and best protecting
innovation and encouraging growth in the UAS industry. Similarly, TIA
said the FAA must implement UAS regulations that do not inhibit
advancement but rather spur growth and inspire future innovators. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign urged the FAA and DOT to
consider alternatives to a registration (which is said is likely to
prove both burdensome and ineffective) because ``onerous regulations
applied to UAS research will stifle innovation and put the United
States at a competitive disadvantage.'' An individual commenter
similarly said that regulation ``will increase costs, drive people from
the activity, and retard innovation.'' One individual commenter argued
that model aircraft ``represent a huge employment, technological, and
economic opportunity for our country (and world), and we cannot afford
to squash this potential with more laws.'' A group of academics noted
that traditional model aircraft have inspired generations of our
scientists, engineers, and inventors. A number of other commenters also
expressed concern that a registration requirement will

discourage young people from becoming involved in model aviation which,
in turn, will discourage them from entering careers in STEM-related
fields.
    A commenter who had been issued an exemption under section 333 of
Public Law 112-95 questioned whether he or she would have to re-
register their UAS, and what the time-frame for that would be. Another
commenter questioned how the registration requirement would apply to
UAS that are flown infrequently or not at all. Another individual
commenter questioned what the process would be for removing non-
functional UAS from the registration system. Another commenter working
overseas wondered whether he would have to register his UAS to be
permitted to operate it during visits to the United States.
    Delair-Tech recommended the following registration process for
manufactured UAS: (1) Each UAS produced is assigned an aircraft type
designator (assigned by ICAO) and a unique serial number (assigned by
the manufacturer); (2) the user manual for each UAS instructs its owner
to turn on the UAS and its ground control station/software within
internet connectivity coverage; (3) the ground control software detects
an unregistered UAS and opens a registration window, which prompts the
owner to enter their contact information (including phone number); (4)
the registration information is transmitted to the national
registration system, which sends a verification code to the owner via
text message; (5) the owner enters the code through the ground control
software and then the registration system verifies the code and sends a
registration number to the ground control station; (6) the ground
control software programs the registration number into the UAS, which
enables the owner to fly the UAS. As an alternative to using the ground
control software to connect directly to the national registration
system, Delair-Tech suggested the owner be given the URL of the
registration system, through which the owner would input contact
information and receive a verification code. The owner would also
receive the registration number through the web application, which they
would then input into the UAS through the ground control software.
    An individual commenter suggested that as an alternative to issuing
an expedited registration rule the agency issue a temporary,
immediately effective rule mandating point-of-sale distribution of
agency materials summarizing the operational restrictions for model
aircraft. This commenter stated that acting promptly to require
retailers to communicate the core regulatory message would more
directly address the fear of improperly operated UAS becoming a safety
risk as more are sold to hobbyists. The commenter also stated that such
materials largely already exist and the requirement for distributing
the information could be satisfied, particularly by online retailers,
by a check-box acknowledgment or an emailed link to existing FAA
educational Web sites. The commenter cited legal authority that would
support an exercise of authority to compel commercial speech when it is
in the service of a significant public interest.
    RILA urged the establishment of a preemptive federal standard for
UAS to allow for uniformity, consistency, and alleviate potential
burdens on both retailers and consumers if states are left to legislate
potentially inconsistent UAS safety.
    Some commenters said an education program, geo-fencing, and strict
enforcement of the safety rules would be more effective than requiring
registration of these aircraft.
    A few commenters advocated for a tiered licensing process, allowing
operators who have qualified for higher tiers (e.g., through additional
training or testing) to operate UAS with advanced capabilities. Several
commenters said that FAA should regulate UAS operators in the same way
the FCC licenses amateur (ham) radio operators, and one commenter also
said that retailers of certain UAS should require proof of FCC
licensing before purchase.
    The Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that the DOT
and FAA should define a threshold ``that liberalize most small UASs,
requiring registrations for only the largest and highest-powered UASs,
while continuing to focus on integrating all nongovernmental UASs
within a framework based on the principles of permissionless
innovation.'' This commenter went on to say that, instead of an
``impractical'' registration scheme, the FAA should adopt Transport
Canada's model and require simple online notification for commercial
operations within a middle weight class. Other commenters said that
operators should have to abide by the AMA safety code.
    The South Florida UAV Consortium recommended that UASs be
restricted to a limited operation until the operator completes a
training course and receives a code to unlock the software to allow it
to fly its full range.
    One commenter recommended two categories of licenses--one for
commercial products that can be purchased off the shelf (with
limitations on the degree to which they can be modified) and one for
home-built or substantially modified aircraft. The commenter asserted
that this second category of licenses ``would address the impossibility
of implementing a per-device registration scheme in a world of imported
electronics and homebrew experimentation.'' Within the two categories
of licenses, the commenter recommended different classes based on the
available power carried on the aircraft.
    IFR Requirement: The FAA disagrees with commenters who stated that
all small unmanned aircraft should be registered with the AMA and that
AMA should be exclusively responsible for the registry. The FAA is
specifically directed by statute to develop and maintain an aircraft
registry. Accordingly, the FAA cannot abdicate its responsibility to
AMA or any other organization outside the FAA.
    Some commenters on this topic addressed the need for a clear
definition of which aircraft require registration and which do not; the
FAA has addressed that definition in an earlier section. In response to
the comments about capacity issues and streamlining registration, the
web-based registration system established by this rule will allow the
Registry to better accommodate the aircraft registration required for
owners of small unmanned aircraft.

O. Comments Beyond the Scope

    The nature of the FAA's request for comment in the Clarification/
Request for Information resulted in some commenters providing
information that did not fall within the twelve comment areas. The FAA
is summarizing those comments that were outside the scope of the twelve
questions in this section.
    A few commenters remarked on the make-up of the Task Force. One
individual stated that the presence of Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy,
among other major corporations, ``gives the impression, as face value,
of being politically driven by major corporations to restrict tax
paying citizens in this country from using their airspace and the
enjoyment of flying their model aircraft in favor of a major
corporation.'' This individual asserted that these corporations would
prefer to eliminate model aviation in order to have open skies to
operate their delivery service. Two other commenters similarly said
that the UAS industry representatives on the Task Force ``have a
penchant for regulations and may actually benefit from such regulation
given that they have the resources to cover the cost required by such
regulation and that

inevitably such regulation will limit free enterprise.'' These
commenters questioned why the FAA did not invite grass-roots small UAS
organizations, such as the Small UAV Coalition.
    A commenter suggested reducing risk to aviation by permitting local
authorities to utilize a transmitter to electronically disable UAS that
are being flown illegally. The commenter also suggested developing a
means to report illegal UAS operation. Another commenter said that law
enforcement should be able to confiscate UAS that are flown illegally.
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, and other commenters suggested requiring
UAS operators to purchase liability insurance. Additionally, NetMoby
and other commenters remarked that FAA should impose significant fines
and other civil or criminal penalties on operators who fail to register
or fly in a dangerous or illegal manner.
    The Toy Industry Association urged FAA to implement an IFR instead
of a final rule at this point. The commenter said that an interim rule
would permit the agency and UAS Task Force to create a pilot
registration system that would include only UAS that have ``high risk''
capabilities, and study this system before implementing a final rule.
Other commenters, including the News Media Coalition, encouraged FAA to
finalize the small UAS rule proposed for commercial users to provide an
example of clear guidelines for all users.
    Skyward, Inc. recommended that FAA develop a more comprehensive
approach to UAS management, including technical standards for a UAS
system for the NAS, and said that FAA should review NASA's UAS Traffic
Management program and the Department of Homeland Security's STIX and
TAXII standards as examples of technical standards development. Skyward
said that, for example, a comprehensive UAS system could include
``detection capabilities that are able to detect and localize non-
participating or malfunctioning aircraft as part of expanded airspace
radar and surveillance systems.''
    Many commenters expressed concern about the expedited timeframe in
which the DOT and the FAA plan to implement the registration system.
UAVUS said the plan to create a registration system this holiday season
is ``overly ambitious, and could add to the confusion created by the
absence of the FAA's final rulemaking for the commercial use of small
UASs.'' RILA stated its appreciation for the agency's goal of
increasing safe and responsible UAS use, but asserted that the
logistical challenges in implementing such a system within the current
expedited timeframe ``make doing so responsibly and coherently
impossible.'' Given the expedited timeframe, RILA, NRF, and TIA
encouraged the FAA to consider the use of an interim final rule instead
of a direct final rule. NRF alternatively suggested a pilot program to
evaluate the operational needs of a registration system.
    The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), Colorado
Agricultural Aviation Association, and Alaska Legislative Task Force on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems recommended that UAS should be required to be
more visible to manned aircraft to avoid collision by requiring UAS to
be equipped with strobe lights and painted conspicuous colors.
    Two commenters suggested that as an alternative to registering
individual UAS, that owners be required to register their transmitters.
One of those commenters asserted that the transmitter registration
would provide an easy way to identify operators without having to
physically locate them or their UAS because transmitters broadcast a
radio signal that can be picked up by anyone in the vicinity. This
commenter further asserted that relying on markings on the aircraft
will do nothing to identify a problem unless the UAS crashes, but, as
technology advances, transmitters can transmit a personal ID that can
be read with receiver equipment. A few other individual commenters
recommended a requirement to register the flight controller instead of
the aircraft.

P. Miscellaneous

    The FAA has updated Sec.  91.203(a)(2) to allow the Certificate of
Aircraft Registration issued under part 48 to satisfy the requirements
of that paragraph.
    The FAA has also made the following technical amendments to part
47: The Department of Homeland Security currently exercises the
oversight responsibilities of the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service. Part 47 has been updated to reflect this change.
    The agency has also clarified that the reference to ``armed
forces'' includes only those armed forces of the United States.

VIII. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Interim Final Rule

    In part 1, definitions and abbreviations, definitions for ``model
aircraft,'' ``small unmanned aircraft,'' ``small unmanned aircraft
system,'' and ``unmanned aircraft'' are added.
    In part 45, identification and registration marking, Sec.  45.1 is
revised to add a specific cross-reference to 14 CFR part 47 to indicate
that the marking requirements of part 45 only relate to aircraft
registered under part 47.
    In part 47, aircraft registration, in Sec.  47.2 the definition of
``resident alien'' is revised to remove the reference to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and replace it with a reference
to the Department of Homeland Security. The term ``U.S. citizen'' is
revised to read ``Citizen of the United States or U.S. citizen'' to
conform to other uses of this term.
    Section 47.3 is revised to make clear that, when stating that no
person may operate an aircraft that is eligible for registration under
49 U.S.C. 44101-44104, Armed Forces refers to Armed Forces of the
United States.
    Section 47.7 is revised to remove the reference to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service and replace it with a reference to the
Department of Homeland Security.
    The FAA is adding new 14 CFR part 48, registration and markings for
small unmanned aircraft.
    Section 48.1 provides the applicability for the part. It states
that small unmanned aircraft eligible for registration in the United
States must be registered and identified in accordance with either the
registration and identification requirements in part 48, or the
registration requirements in part 47 and the identification and
registration marking requirements in subparts A and C of part 45.
Section 48.1 also explains that small unmanned aircraft intended to be
operated outside of the territorial airspace of the United States, or
registered through a trust or voting trust, must be registered in
accordance with part 47 and satisfy the identification and registration
marking requirements of subparts A and C of part 45.
    Section 48.5 provides the compliance dates for small unmanned
aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft, and the compliance dates
for small unmanned aircraft used as other than model aircraft.
    Section 48.10 provides definitions of ``Citizen of the United
States or U.S. citizen,'' ``Registry,'' and ``resident alien.'' These
are the same definitions found in part 47.
    Section 48.15 provides that no person may operate a small unmanned
aircraft that is eligible for registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103
unless the owner has registered and marked the aircraft in accordance
with the requirements of

part 48; the aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, including
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
the aircraft is an aircraft of the Armed Forces of the United States.
    Section 48.20 provides the criteria for eligibility of the small
unmanned aircraft for registration.
    Section 48.25 describes the requirements for applicants wishing to
register a small unmanned aircraft using part 48. Applicants must
provide the required information, and must meet other ownership
requirements listed in the section.
    Section 48.30 provides the fees for small unmanned aircraft
registration.
    Section 48.100 describes information applicants must submit when
registering a small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as other than
a model aircraft, and the information applicants must submit when
registering a small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively
as a model aircraft.
    Section 48.105 requires small unmanned aircraft owners to maintain
current information in the registration system.
    Section 48.110 provides the Certificate of Aircraft Registration
information for small unmanned aircraft intended to be used other than
as model aircraft. It provides the effective date of the Certificate,
information regarding registration renewal, and describes events
affecting the effectiveness of the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration.
    Section 48.115 provides the Certificate of Aircraft Registration
information for small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively
as model aircraft. It provides the effective date of the Certificate,
information regarding registration renewal, and describes events
affecting the effectiveness of the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration.
    Section 48.120 discusses circumstances in which a small unmanned
aircraft registration is invalid. Circumstances include when the
aircraft is registered in a foreign country; the applicant is not the
owner, except when the applicant registers on behalf of an owner who is
under 13 years of age; the applicant is not eligible to submit an
application under part 48; or the interest of the applicant in the
aircraft was created by a transaction that was not entered into in good
faith, but rather was made to avoid (with or without the owner's
knowledge) compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103.
    Section 48.125 explains that for those persons who do not meet the
citizenship requirements for U.S. registration, the certificate issued
under part 48 constitutes a recognition of ownership.
    Section 48.200 contains general provisions for small unmanned
aircraft marking.
    Section 48.205 provides the requirements for the display and
location of the unique identifier.
    In part 91, general operating and flight rules, Sec.  91.203 is
revised to reference Certificates of Aircraft Registration provided in
part 48.
    In part 375, navigation of foreign civil aircraft within the United
States, Sec.  375.11 is clarified to note that this includes a small
unmanned aircraft.
    Section 375.38 authorizes owners of foreign civil aircraft that are
small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft to operate
within the U.S. and requires owners of aircraft engaged in such
operations to complete the part 48 registration process prior to
operation.

IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39 as amended) prohibits agencies from setting standards
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires
agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate,
that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of
proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result
in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the
preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this
IFR. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory
evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this IFR has
benefits that justify its costs, and is a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it
raises novel policy issues contemplated under that executive order. The
rule is also ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. The IFR will have a positive economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade, and will not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector. These analyses are summarized below.

Total Benefits and Costs

    There are problems arising from the rapid proliferation of small
unmanned aircraft and these problems are occurring more frequently.
Sales projections show the number of small unmanned aircraft continuing
to increase dramatically, and thus addressing the problem is urgent.
Registration provides an immediate and direct opportunity to educate
new users of unmanned aircraft who may have no knowledge of the system
in which they are operating, and thus, no knowledge of how to operate
safely within it. Registration and marking of small unmanned aircraft
will provide owners education regarding operating in the NAS and will
promote accountability in those operations, at a minimal cost to
operators and the government.
    Currently aircraft registration is a paper-based process defined in
part 47. Under current statutory and regulatory policy, the FAA could
require UAS model aircraft owners,\46\ at a significant cost, to
register their small unmanned aircraft under part 47 using the legacy
paper-based system. Commercial owners \47\ that have been granted
exemptions or certificates of authorization to operate small unmanned
aircraft in the NAS have been required to register their aircraft under
part 47. Also, the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM would require
non-model aircraft owners (e.g., commercial and public owners of sUAS)
to register their aircraft under part 47 as outlined in the NPRM. The
agency expects to finalize that rulemaking in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ for purposes of the economic analysis of this IFR, the term
``modeler'' means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft that
satisfies the definition of ``model aircraft'' added to 14 CFR 1.1
    \47\ For purposes of the economic analysis of this IFR, the term
``commercial owners'' or ``non-modeler'' means the owner of a small
unmanned aircraft used for non-model purposes.

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

    The FAA has used agency discretion in the past by not requiring
owners of small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as model aircraft
in accordance with section 336 of Public Law 112-95 to register their
aircraft although as noted commercial operators of small unmanned
aircraft have been required to register their aircraft. Due to the
rapid increase in sUAS for hobby use (and soon at much greater volumes
for commercial purposes), the FAA is creating an alternative simple,
web-based registration process to significantly reduce the time to
register small unmanned aircraft. In addition, to ease the burden to
modelers this regulation will allow those owners to register once and
use the same identification number for all their aircraft, instead of
registering each of their small unmanned aircraft separately.
    In order to implement the new streamlined, web-based system
described in this IFR, the FAA will incur costs to develop, implement,
and maintain the system. Small UAS operators will require time to
register and mark their aircraft, and that time has a cost. The total
of government and registrant resource cost for small unmanned aircraft
registration and marking under this new system is $56 million ($46
million present value at 7 percent) through 2020.
    In evaluating the impact of this rule, we compare the costs and
benefits of the IFR to a baseline consistent with existing practices:
for modelers, the exercise of discretion by FAA (not requiring
registration), and for non-modelers, registration via part 47 in the
paper-based system. We also calculate the costs of the rejected
alternative: requiring modelers and non-modelers alike to register
aircraft via the paper-based system.
    In order to compare the costs of this rule to this baseline, the
FAA estimated the costs of registering sUAS aircraft under the web-
based registration system resulting from this part 48 rulemaking (the
IFR). The two populations, modelers and non-modelers, have slightly
different processes as noted in this evaluation. In all of these
scenarios, sUAS weighing 0.55 pounds or less are excluded from
registration. In these analyses, we estimate the private-sector
compliance costs and government costs for each scenario.

                             Table 5--Summary of Quantified Costs and Benefits ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total cost
              Year                 Calendar year --------------------------------   Difference        7% P.V.
                                                     Baseline           IFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...............................            2015           $ 0.0           $ 5.5          -$ 5.5         -$ 5.47
1...............................            2016            21.3             6.3            15.0           14.00
2...............................            2017            86.5             8.3            78.1           68.25
3...............................            2018            89.0            12.1            76.9           62.77
4...............................            2019            91.6            11.6            80.0           61.03
5...............................            2020            94.2            11.8            82.5           58.79
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............           382.5            55.6           327.0          259.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding.

Who is potentially affected by this rule?

    All owners of small unmanned aircraft which weigh more than 0.55
pounds and less than 55 pounds on takeoff.

Assumptions and Data

    The benefit and cost analysis for the regulatory evaluation is
based on the following factors/assumptions. Technology, markets, and
uses for small unmanned aircraft are evolving rapidly and there is a
high degree of uncertainty how the future will unfold and so the FAA
requests comments (supported with data) on these assumptions.
     The period of the regulatory impact analysis begins in
2015 (denoted Year 0) and ends in 2020 (denoted Year 5).
     This analysis considers the benefits and costs of
requiring the registrations of sUAS weighing less than 55 pounds and
more than 0.55 pounds on takeoff.

We use a seven percent discount rate for the benefits as prescribed by
OMB in Circular A-4.

Population and Forecast

     Most of these assumptions, unless otherwise noted, were
based on interviews with manufacturers, retailers, and other industry
experts.
     Estimates of small unmanned aircraft registrations are
based on projections of sUAS sales for the period of analysis. A sales
forecast was developed based on use cases and likely adoption rates by
commercial application and consumer electronic s-curve analysis for
non-commercial applications. This forecast was then adjusted to obtain
the number of modelers and the number of non-modeler sUAS units.
     Two basic populations are estimated: (1) Model aircraft
owners and their sUAS units and (2) the number of commercial/public
owners and their sUAS units. In this document, the term ``modeler''
means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft that satisfies the
statutory definition of ``model aircraft'' now codified in 14 CFR 1.1.
The term ``commercial owner'' or ``non-modeler'' means the owner of a
small unmanned aircraft used for non-model aircraft purposes.
     For non-modelers, we assume that on average, all sUAS fail
within a year and are replaced in the next year. For modelers we use
the assumption that an average of ten percent of the modelers' sUAS
survive into a second year, because they are used less intensively.
These assumptions are based on manufacturers' information.
     Unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less are
excluded from the registrations forecast. We assume 20 percent of the
sales forecast will be unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less.
This analysis is based on an examination of the current unit size
distribution. While there may be some incentive for manufacturers to
increase the number of aircraft produced below the registration size
cut-off, the FAA believes the inherent limitations of the weight and
available technology will not drive large shifts during analysis
period. SUAS flown exclusively indoors need not be registered. FAA
assumes most sUAS over 0.55 pounds will be flown outdoors and must be
registered.
     The entire existing fleet of model aircraft and 2015
fourth quarter sales are assumed to be registered in Period 0 or 2015.
     Most non-modelers will register their aircraft after the
FAA has finalized the sUAS Operation and Certification

NPRM, anticipated to go into effect in June 2016.
     On average, model aircraft owners are assumed to own an
average fleet size of 1.5 sUAS.
     80 percent of model aircraft owners replace each aircraft
as it is destroyed. (In other words, 20 percent of modelers drop out of
the hobby each year).
     On average, non-model sUAS owners are assumed to own 2
aircraft at a time. Every year all of the non-model sUAS owners go
through the registration system replacing their two aircraft.

Time

     The estimated time to register an aircraft via the part 47
(paper-based system) system is 30 minutes.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Supporting Statement, OMB 2120-0042 Aircraft
Registration Including Assignment and Cancellation of U.S.
Identification Marks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The estimated time for a model aircraft owner to establish
an online account and register an aircraft, under this rulemaking, is
estimated to take 5 minutes; a registration renewal for these owners is
also estimated to take 5 minutes. The bulk of this time includes
reading and acknowledging basic safety information presented during the
registration process.
     The estimated time for a non-modeler registrant to
establish an online account and register two small unmanned aircraft is
7 minutes; 5 minutes to establish an account plus 1 minute per small
unmanned aircraft.
     The estimated time for a non-modeler registrant to de-
register each aircraft is three minutes.
     The time for an owner to mark an aircraft with its
registration number is de minimis.
     The analysis assumes that all sUAS owners will comply with
the registration processes considered in the regulatory analysis (part
47 baseline system and the web-based systems resulting from this part
48 rulemaking).

Costs

     The FAA assigns an hourly value of $19.13 per hour for the
value of time for model aircraft registrants and $24.89 per hour for
the value of time for non-modeler registrants in 2015. These hourly
values are in 2013 dollars adjusted to reflect the growth of real
changes in median household income over the analysis interval. \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The hourly opportunity cost for modelers is based on the
mid-point estimate of the range values as specified in Section 1.2.3
of FAA's Treatment of Time: Economic Values for Evaluation of FAA
Investment and Regulatory Decisions (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/). The hourly
opportunity cost for non-modelers is estimated as the median gross
compensation which is the sum of median hourly wage and an estimate
of hourly benefits. This estimate is reported in DOT guidance titled
Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in
Economic Analysis (Washington DC, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FAA estimates that its costs are $22 for the registration
of an aircraft in the current paper-based system. This estimate is
based on an internal cost model developed by FAA's Civil Aviation
Registry for managerial purposes.
     FAA cost information for the streamlined, web-based
registrations was developed based on cost models and FAA data. Costs
for the web-based system include startup costs, costs to provide
interfaces for retailers and manufacturers, the cost of providing for
public search function based on the unique identifier, the cost of
providing for law enforcement access, and maintenance costs, whether
incurred by FAA personnel or FAA's contractors. We do not include costs
for manufacturers or retailers to provide information to the
registration system or to change packaging as those are voluntary
actions. FAA expects that retailers will make point-of-sale interfaces
available in the future.
     As is standard practice, FAA does not include costs of
enforcement of this rule.

Safety

     We assume this regulation does not affect the levels of
FAA manpower or resources expended on UAS safety education and outreach
but it will allow the FAA to target those efforts, making those on-
going efforts more effective.
     We do not attempt to quantify any safety benefit from this
regulation. (See ``Qualitative Benefits'' section in the Regulatory
Evaluation for further discussion).

Fees

     The fee to register an aircraft under part 48, as well as
in the current paper-based system in part 47, is $5. This fee is
required by statute and is based on an estimate of the costs of the
system and services associated with aircraft registration. If actual
costs for the web-based system are known before a final rule is issued,
we will adjust the fee accordingly in the final rule. If not, we will
continue to monitor and determine the actual costs and adjust the fee
in a subsequent rulemaking. FAA notes that under part 47, the
registration fee using the paper-based system is $5 per aircraft. FAA
has begun a rulemaking to update this fee based on current costs.
(Aircraft Registration and Airmen Certification Fees, RIN 2120-AK37).
     We have estimated the registration fee for the new web-
based system to be $5, based on the projected costs to build and
maintain the system and provide the registration service. Model
aircraft owners will pay $5 to register and will be assigned a unique
identifier that can be marked on the owner's entire fleet of model
aircraft. Model aircraft owners will be required to renew their
registration every 3 years and pay a $5 fee. There would be no charge
for de-registration. Fees will be adjusted based on actual costs.
     Non-modeler aircraft owners will also pay a $5 fee to
establish an online account and register an initial aircraft in the new
web-based system. They will also pay a $5 fee to add each additional
sUAS to their existing account. Aircraft must be re-registered after
three years, but as noted above, FAA expects very few, if any, sUAS to
last that long. Non-modeler aircraft owners will not pay a fee to de-
register a sUAS.
     Government fees and taxes are considered transfers and, by
Office of Management and Budget guidance, transfers are not considered
a societal cost. These transfers are estimated separately from the
costs and benefits of this IFR. The FAA acknowledges fees and transfers
can create incentives for behavior change.

Costs of This Rule

                                                                  Table 6--Cost Summary
                                                                          [$M]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost                            Total costs 7% P.V.
                                                           Calendar  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                               year                    Interim       Rejected                    Interim       Rejected
                                                                        Baseline    final rule    alternative     Baseline    final rule    alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................................................         2015        $ 0.0        $ 5.5          $ 44.2        $ 0.0        $ 5.5          $ 44.2
1......................................................         2016         21.3          6.3            65.1         19.9          5.9            60.9

2......................................................         2017         86.5          8.3           140.6         75.5          7.3           122.8
3......................................................         2018         89.0         12.1           155.7         72.6          9.9           127.1
4......................................................         2019         91.6         11.6           173.9         69.9          8.8           132.7
5......................................................         2020         94.2         11.8           195.9         67.2          8.4           139.6
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................  ...........        382.5         55.6           775.4        305.1         45.7           627.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not add due to rounding.

Benefits of This Rule

    In this section, we discuss beneficial impacts to the non-modeler
from the cost savings of this rule over registering sUAS aircraft using
the baseline system. The cost savings offsets, by an order of
magnitude, the new costs associated with modelers and non-modelers
registering aircraft in the streamlined Web-based system.
    The baseline column in Table 7 shows the total costs for non-
modelers to register their aircraft using the paper-based system, while
modelers do not register their aircraft. The IFR column shows the total
costs to FAA and registrants (modelers and non-modelers) of the new
web-based system. Table 7 shows the significant cost savings of
subtracting the costs of registration between the baseline system from
the registration costs imposed by this rulemaking.

                       Table 7--Cost Savings of the Baseline Versus the Part 48 Rulemaking
                                                      [$M]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total Cost
              Year                 Calendar year --------------------------------   Difference        7% P.V.
                                                     Baseline           IFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...............................            2015           $ 0.0           $ 5.5          -$ 5.5          -$ 5.5
1...............................            2016            21.3             6.3            15.0            14.0
2...............................            2017            86.5             8.3            78.1            68.3
3...............................            2018            89.0            12.1            77.9            62.8
4...............................            2019            91.6            11.6            80.0            61.0
5...............................            2020            94.2            11.8            82.5            58.8
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............           382.5            55.6           327.0           259.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding.

    This IFR also brings qualitative benefits. Registrants will be
required to read and acknowledge some basic safety information during
the registration process. The email and mailing addresses provided
during the registration process provides further opportunity for future
targeted safety education and information.
    This rulemaking will improve the education of recreational sUAS
owners and operators by making them aware of the regulatory and safety
requirements affecting their activities. At the same time, it will
provide essential educational tools to the legions of new and current
flyers that are taking to the skies, so that they can use their
unmanned aircraft safely.
    The requirement to mark the aircraft with the registration number
links the owner to the aircraft; providing accountability should an
accident, incident, or regulatory violation occur. This IFR also has
the potential to benefit sUAS owners. In the event of a mistake where
the aircraft flies away from the owner, the registration marking
provides a means for the aircraft to be returned to its owner.
    Requiring aircraft registration and display of marking information
often has a direct and immediate impact on safety-related issues. For
example, aircraft registration and marking provides the FAA and law
enforcement agencies an invaluable tool during inspections and
investigations of inappropriate or prohibited behavior, as well as
during emergency situations. One of the FAA's goals is to provide the
FAA and local law enforcement agencies the immediate ability to quickly
connect individuals to their aircraft with the fewest number of steps
possible.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis requirements are limited to
rulemakings for which the agency ``is required by section 553 . . . or
any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for
any proposed rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 603(a).In this instance, the agency has
determined under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA that there is good
cause for forgoing notice and comment for this rulemaking. Thus,

compliance with the RFA is not required in this instance.
    Nonetheless, the FAA believes that this IFR will have a positive
economic impact on a substantial number of entities for the following
reasons. Individuals using small unmanned aircraft exclusively as model
aircraft are not small business entities. For owners of aircraft used
for commercial or non-model purposes, the $5 registration fee per small
unmanned aircraft under this IFR is the same as what was proposed under
the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM. However this IFR reduces the
burden for these small entities to register their small unmanned
aircraft as compared to the current paper-based FAA registration
system. Thus, due to the relieving nature of this IFR, there will be a
positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), prohibits
Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate
domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
has assessed the potential effect of this IFR and determined that it
has a legitimate domestic objective--the protection of safety--and does
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
Further, it is not an unnecessary obstacle because currently, there is
no foreign registry that the FAA can recognize and the other
requirements (compliance with provisions of part 48) impose no greater
burden than that which is imposed on U.S. citizens.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This IFR does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This action contains the following new information collection. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the FAA has submitted this information collection to OMB for its
review.
    Summary: Persons owning small unmanned aircraft, whether intended
to be used as model aircraft or as other than model aircraft, are
required to register those aircraft with the FAA pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44101-44103. Persons may register small unmanned aircraft pursuant to
the requirements of 14 CFR part 48 as an alternative to the
registration requirements of 14 CFR part 47. Aircraft registration is
necessary to ensure personal accountability among all users of the
national airspace system. Aircraft registration also allows the FAA and
law enforcement agencies to address non-compliance by providing the
means by which to identify an aircraft's owner and operator.
    Use: Information will be used to identify small unmanned aircraft
owners and to provide educational information regarding use of small
unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system.
    Respondents (including number of): See Table 8.
    Frequency: As needed. Persons will register small unmanned aircraft
prior to operation and, if they continue to own the aircraft, will
renew registration every three years thereafter.
    Annual Burden Estimate: For the modelers and non-modelers, the
following table shows the total number of modelers, their time, and
their costs to fill out the on-line system and register plus the time
to re-register and for the non-modelers, the number of total
respondents (small unmanned aircraft), their time to fill out the
online system and register, the time to register each of their small
unmanned aircraft, and their time de-register their aircraft after they
retire their aircraft. There are no costs associated with this
information collection aside from the time spent to complete
registration.

                                    Table 8--Average Annual Burden Estimates
                                              [Years 0-5 (6 Years)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Number of
                 Category                   responses    Minutes per             Frequency              Hours
                                               (M)         response                                     (000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeler
    Owner Registration...................         0.57            5    1 time......................         47.8
    Owner Re-Registration................         0.16            5    Every 3 years...............         12.9
Non-Modeler
    Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration.         1.82            3.5  1 Time......................        121.9
    Small Unmanned Aircraft De-                   1.66            3    1 Time......................         69.0
     Registration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rows may not sum due to rounding.

    The agency is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by January 15, 2016. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and