safety concerns that underlie the additional requirements that the FAA
normally imposes on commercial operators under part 119. Operating
within visual line of sight of the remote pilot is also critical to the
Department's finding that these operations are so limited such that at
this time, they could not be considered air transportation, or part of
a broader network of interstate commerce warranting economic authority
to ensure adequate protection of consumers' interests at this time.
Accordingly, any waivers that the FAA may grant to the visual-line-of-
sight provisions of part 107 will not allow the operation to transport
property for compensation or hire beyond visual line of sight.
    For these reasons, this rule will also not allow the operation of a
small UAS from a moving vehicle if the small unmanned aircraft is being
used to transport property for compensation or hire. Allowing operation
from a moving vehicle could allow the remote pilot in command to
significantly expand the area of operation, raising the same safety and
economic concerns as operations conducted beyond visual line of sight.
    Third, the provisions of part 107 limit the maximum total weight of
the small unmanned aircraft (including any property being transported)
to under 55 pounds. This limits the size and weight of any property
transported by the unmanned aircraft. Additionally, other provisions of
the final rule require the remote pilot to know the unmanned aircraft's
location; to determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude and
direction; to yield the right of way to other aircraft; and to maintain
the ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft. In the aggregate, the
provisions of the final rule are designed to create an integrated
framework and strike a balance that, on the one hand, allows limited
transportation of property for compensation, but, on the other hand,
ensures safety in the NAS and the opportunity to evaluate more
expansive carriage of property that would require both OST economic
authority and additional FAA safety authority.
    Fourth, the FAA notes that the carriage of hazardous materials
poses a higher level of risk than the carriage of other types of
property. For example, in the context of external load operations
conducted under 14 CFR part 133, the FAA has found, that ``the
transport of hazardous materials, especially forbidden [by PHMSA]
hazardous materials, in external load operations creates a hazard to
persons or property

in the surface.'' \48\ Because the carriage of hazardous materials
poses a higher level of risk, part 107 will not allow the carriage of
hazardous materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Memorandum to Christopher Bonanti from Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel, AGC 200 (Aug. 17, 2009). PHMSA is the
abbreviation for ``Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these operational limits, the Department at this time does
not view the limited transport of property for compensation that could
occur via a small UAS that is operated within visual line of sight of
the remote pilot to constitute ``interstate air transportation.'' The
final rule, therefore, creates a new exception under 14 CFR part 119
for these operations authorized by part 107. This approach will
encompass the vast majority of transportation by small UAS that could
be conducted under part 107, including many of the specific scenarios
suggested by commenters, without requiring the Department to design and
develop a new infrastructure for issuance and administration of a new
air carrier economic and safety licensing regime.
    We note that while the operations permitted by this rule do not
rise to the level of air transportation, they are still considered to
be commercial operations. Thus as discussed in the next section, if a
person does not satisfy U.S. citizenship requirements, he or she must
seek authority under 14 CFR part 375 before conducting these
operations.
2. International Operations and Foreign-Owned Aircraft
    The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has recognized
that UAS are aircraft, and as such, existing standards and recommended
practices (SARPs) that apply to aircraft apply to UAS. ICAO currently
is reviewing the existing SARPs to determine what modifications, if
any, need to be made to accommodate UAS. In the U.S., however, UAS may
operate with DOT authorization, under the authority of section 333 \49\
of Public Law 112-95, in a much less restrictive manner than current
ICAO SARPs require. Thus, the FAA proposed to limit the applicability
of part 107 to small UAS operations that are conducted entirely within
the United States. Persons who wish to conduct operations outside of
the United States would be able to do so, provided they seek and obtain
the proper authorization from the requisite foreign civil aviation
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In addition to granting authorization through section 333
exemptions, the FAA may authorize UAS operations under sections 334
and 336 of Public Law 112-95, as well as through Experimental
Airworthiness Certification of UAS and OPA (FAA Order 8130.34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, based on the ICAO framework and the current review
that ICAO is conducting, the FAA proposed to limit the rule to
operations of U.S.-registered UAS. Under 49 U.S.C. 44103 and 14 CFR
47.3, an aircraft can be registered in the United States only if it is
not registered under the laws of a foreign country and meets one of the
following ownership criteria:
     The aircraft is owned by a citizen of the United States;
     The aircraft is owned by a permanent resident of the
United States;
     The aircraft is owned by a corporation that is not a
citizen of the United States, but that is organized and doing business
under U.S. Federal or State law and the aircraft is based and primarily
used in the United States; or
     The aircraft is owned by the United States government or a
State or local governmental entity.
    In proposing this requirement, the FAA noted that existing U.S.
international trade obligations, including the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), cover certain kinds of operations known as
specialty air services. Specialty air services are generally defined as
any specialized commercial operation using an aircraft whose primary
purpose is not the transportation of goods or passengers, including but
not limited to aerial mapping, aerial surveying, aerial photography,
forest fire management, firefighting, aerial advertising, glider
towing, parachute jumping, aerial construction, helilogging, aerial
sightseeing, flight training, aerial inspection and surveillance, and
aerial spraying services. The FAA invited comments on whether foreign-
registered small unmanned aircraft should be permitted to operate under
part 107, or recognized as specialty air services under international
trade obligations.
    With respect to limiting UAS operations under part 107 to
operations within the United States, the National Agricultural Aviation
Association (NAAA), DJI, and another commenter supported the
limitation, but sought clarification and additional guidance material
on what steps individuals may need to complete to obtain the proper
authorization from foreign civil aviation authorities and the FAA to
operate outside the United States.
    Article 8 of the Chicago Convention specifies that no unmanned
aircraft ``shall be flown without a pilot over the territory of a
contracting State without special authorization by that State and in
accordance with the terms of such authorization.'' Article 8 also calls
on States to undertake ``to insure that the flight of such aircraft
without a pilot in regions open to civil aircraft shall be so
controlled as to obviate danger to civil aircraft.'' In accordance with
this obligation, the provisions of part 107 set forth the necessary
authorizations for operations conducted by U.S. citizens only within
the United States. For those seeking to operate outside the United
States, special authorization from the foreign civil aviation authority
will be required. Thus, remote pilots wishing to conduct operations
over another country's airspace should review that country's statutes,
regulations, and guidance for clarification about how to operate in its
airspace.
    The Small UAV Coalition sought clarification regarding whether UAS
operations over water and beyond 12 nautical miles from the U.S. coast
could be conducted under part 107, provided the operations are within
U.S. flight information regions and not over the territory of a
contracting member state.
    Until such time as agreements are reached with other countries, the
FAA has determined that operations will be restricted to the land
areas, internal waters, and territorial sea of the United States. U.S.
flight information regions that are more than 12 nautical miles from
the coast of the United States do not satisfy these criteria, and as
such, part 107 will not apply to operations in those areas.
    Planehook Aviation argued that the rule should be consistent with
applicable articles of the Chicago Convention, which, as noted
previously, deal with unmanned aircraft operations and the safe
separation from manned civil aircraft operations.
    As discussed earlier, ICAO has recognized that existing SARPs that
apply to aircraft apply to UAS. ICAO currently is reviewing the
existing SARPs to determine what modifications, if any, need to be made
to accommodate UAS and in fact, recently amended the standard contained
in paragraph 3.1.9 of Annex 2 (Rules of the Air). This standard
requires that ``[a] remotely piloted aircraft shall be operated in such
a manner as to minimize hazards to persons, property or other aircraft
and in accordance with the conditions specified in Appendix 4.'' That
appendix sets forth detailed conditions ICAO Member States must require
of civil UAS operations for the ICAO Member State to comply with the
Annex 2, paragraph 3.1.9 standard.
    Consistent with the recent amendment to 3.1.9 of Annex 2, the
provisions of part 107 are designed to minimize hazards to persons,
property or other aircraft operating within the

United States. Given the on-going evaluation of the SARPs by ICAO, this
rule will, for the time being, limit the applicability of part 107 to
small UAS operations that are conducted entirely within the United
States. The FAA envisions that operations in international and foreign
airspace will be dealt with in a future FAA rulemaking as ICAO
continues to revise and more fully develop its framework for UAS
operations to better reflect the diversity of UAS operations and types
of UAS and to distinguish the appropriate levels of regulation in light
of those differences.
    Transport Canada stated that there is a discrepancy between the
proposed rule's description of U.S. territorial waters extending to 12
nautical miles from the U.S. coast, and text in 14 CFR 91.1 that makes
reference to ``waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. Coast.''
    Under Presidential Proclamation 5928, the territorial sea of the
United States, and consequently its territorial airspace, extends to 12
nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in
accordance with international law. Thus, UAS operations that occur
within 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States will
be considered as operations occurring within the United States
consistent with the applicability of part 107.
    The FAA notes that this approach is consistent with part 91. While,
as Transport Canada pointed out, Sec.  91.1(a) refers to waters within
3 nautical miles of the U.S. Coast, the applicability of part 91 is not
limited to the 3-nautical-mile area. Specifically, Sec.  91.1(b)
clarifies that certain part 91 regulations also apply to aircraft
operations taking place between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast
of the United States. Thus, the 12-nautical-mile metric used in this
rule is consistent with the FAA's agency practice (as codified in Sec.
91.1(b)) and reflects the directive of Presidential Proclamation 5928.
    With respect to operation of foreign-registered aircraft for non-
recreational and non-hobby purposes, NBAA, NetMoby, and Planehook
Aviation supported the Department's decision not to include foreign-
registered UAS in this rulemaking. DJI, however, recognized that the
current statutory restrictions in 49 U.S.C. 44102(a)(1) impose
constraints on who can register an aircraft in the United States. DJI
urged the FAA to consider asking Congress either to drop the aircraft
registration requirement for all small UAS altogether or to withdraw
the citizenship requirement (including its limited exceptions) as part
of the agency's upcoming reauthorization.
    Additionally, to the extent some of these operations could be
conducted by foreign citizens using foreign-registered small UAS, DJI
suggested that DOT evaluate whether existing agreements allow the use
of small UAS and, to the extent they cannot be reasonably construed as
including these aircraft, explore a diplomatic solution that would
allow their use in U.S. airspace. Similarly, Textron Systems, Predesa,
LLC, and the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) suggested that FAA
evaluate existing bilateral agreements and consider new bilateral
agreements as the mechanism to permit foreign-registered UAS to operate
in the United States. The Small UAV Coalition endorsed this approach as
well and urged the Department to authorize the operation of specialty
air services by foreign-owned small UAS in the United States.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to exclude foreign-registered
aircraft from part 107 because the proposed rule included a
registration component and foreign-registered aircraft may not be
registered by the FAA. The FAA has since promulgated a separate interim
final rule, titled Registration and Marking Requirements for Small
Unmanned Aircraft \50\ (Registration Rule), to address the registration
and marking of all small unmanned aircraft, including unmanned aircraft
that will be subject to part 107. In the Registration Rule, the
Department acknowledged that under 49 U.S.C. 41703, the Secretary may
authorize certain foreign civil aircraft to be navigated in the United
States only if: (1) The country of registry grants a similar privilege
to aircraft of the United States; (2) the aircraft is piloted by an
airman holding a certificate or license issued or made valid by the
U.S. government or the country of registry; (3) the Secretary
authorizes the navigation; and (4) the navigation is consistent with
the terms the Secretary may prescribe.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 80 FR 78594, Dec. 16, 2015.
    \51\ See also 14 CFR part 375, Navigation of Foreign Civil
Aircraft in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A foreign civil aircraft is defined in 14 CFR 375.1 as (a) an
aircraft of foreign registry that is not part of the armed forces of a
foreign nation, or (b) a U.S.-registered aircraft owned, controlled or
operated by persons who are not citizens or permanent residents of the
United States. For those that fall within this definition and wish to
operate under the provisions of part 107, they must first apply with
the Office of the Secretary's Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division
for permission to operate in the United States.
    The Department only will authorize operations of foreign-registered
UAS in the United States if it determines that such operations are
recognized under international agreements or via findings of
reciprocity, consistent with the statutory obligations under section
41703, and via the process as described below. The notion of
reciprocity has a long-standing tradition in international relations
and has been used in the realm of specialty air services for years.
While there are many types of specialty air operations authorized under
free trade agreements, it has been the long-standing policy of DOT to
require a finding of reciprocity before allowing foreign-owned
specialty air services to operate in the United States, even when the
United States has no obligation under a trade agreement. The Department
also will continue to review whether existing international agreements
address the operation of UAS, and if not, what negotiations will need
to occur to address these operations in the future.
    With respect to the supply of specialty air services in the United
States by foreign-owned or controlled entities, DOT may allow these
operations to occur provided that the UAS are registered and the owners
have provided proof of reciprocity by their homeland of the ability for
U.S. investment in UAS operations. Additional conditions may be imposed
as necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 41703.
    The FAA notes that, initially, all airmen operating under part 107
will be required to obtain a remote pilot certificate. Currently, ICAO
has not adopted standards for the certification of pilots of unmanned
aircraft that the FAA could rely on in determining whether it is
obligated under international law to recognize a foreign-issued UAS-
specific airman certificate. However, once an ICAO standard has been
developed, this rule will allow the FAA to determine whether a foreign-
issued UAS-specific airman certificate was issued under standards that
meet or exceed the international standards, and therefore must be
recognized by the FAA for purposes of operating a foreign-registered
aircraft within the United States.
    The FAA also notes that remote pilots of foreign-registered
aircraft will need to comply with any applicable requirements imposed
by their country of registration that do not conflict with part 107.
For example, while part 107 will not require airworthiness

certification, the small unmanned aircraft will need to obtain
airworthiness certification if required to do so by its country of
registration.
3. Public Aircraft Operations
    The FAA is not making any changes to the final rule regarding
public aircraft operations because this rule applies to civil aircraft
operations only. In the NPRM, the FAA explained that this rulemaking
would not apply to ``public aircraft operations with small UAS that are
not operated as civil aircraft. This is because public aircraft
operations, such as those conducted by the Department of Defense, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and NOAA, are not required to comply with civil
airworthiness or airman certification requirements to conduct
operations. However, these operations are subject to the airspace and
air-traffic rules of part 91, which include the `see and avoid'
requirement of Sec.  91.113(b).'' \52\ The proposed rule did point out,
however, that it ``would provide public aircraft operations with
greater flexibility by giving them the option to declare an operation
to be a civil operation and comply with the provisions of proposed part
107 instead of seeking a COA from the FAA.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ NPRM, 80 FR at 9554.
    \53\ NPRM, 80 FR at 9554-9555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DJI generally supported the FAA's approach to small UAS public
aircraft operations. The Nez Perce Tribe--which also supported the
proposal to give public aircraft operations the option to declare an
operation to be a civil operation and comply with the provisions to
proposed part 107--asserted that the proper statutory interpretation of
``public aircraft'' includes federally recognized Indian tribes.
Conversely, NAAA stated that public aircraft operations should continue
to be conducted under the COA process.
    One individual said proposed Sec.  107.11 should be amended to
indicate that public agencies may choose to voluntarily operate under
part 107. The City of Arlington, Texas requested the ability to follow
the small UAS rules, not the COA process. Aerial Services, Inc. also
said that public entities should be allowed to operate like commercial
operators, but only for research and instructional purposes.
    Under this rule, a public aircraft operation can continue to
operate under a COA or can voluntarily operate as a civil aircraft in
compliance with part 107. As stated in the NPRM, this rule will not
apply to public aircraft operations of small UAS that are not operated
as civil aircraft. These operations must continue to comply with the
FAA's existing requirement to obtain a COA providing the public
aircraft operation with a waiver from certain part 91 requirements such
as the ``see and avoid'' requirement of Sec.  91.113(b).
    However, this rule will provide greater flexibility to public
aircraft operations because it allows small UAS public aircraft
operations to voluntarily opt into the part 107 framework. In other
words, a remote pilot may elect to operate his or her small UAS as a
civil rather than a public aircraft and comply with part 107
requirements instead of obtaining a COA. With regard to Nez Perce's
assertion that aircraft operated by federally recognized Indian tribes
are public aircraft, that issue is beyond the scope of this rule.
    The FAA also disagrees with NAAA's comment that public aircraft
operations should all be required to obtain a COA. As discussed in
III.J.1 of this preamble, the FAA has found that small UAS operations
conducted within the parameters of part 107 will not create a hazard to
users of the NAS or pose a threat to national security. Consequently,
there will be no adverse safety or security impact by the FAA providing
public entities with an option to conduct their small UAS operations
under part 107.
    NASA stated that the proposed rule should be written to
specifically authorize NASA small UAS use without a COA because ``it is
incorrect to infer that NASA's high aviation certification standards do
not meet the rigors of civil standards.'' NASA asserted that the
proposed rule conflicts with statutory authority and does not align
with the current FAA/NASA memorandum of agreement for the operation of
small UAS.
    The Department of Defense Policy Board on Federal Aviation (DOD)
also supported operations without a COA, ``commensurate with civil
provisions.'' DOD suggested several changes to language in the preamble
regarding the option for government entities to conduct a civil UAS
operation under part 107. DOD argued that ``public operator statutory
authorities'' need to be preserved and the regulation needs to ``enable
operations without a COA commensurate with civil provisions.''
    To that end, DOD stated that the FAA should clarify that public
agencies currently operating under memoranda of agreement or
understanding will be authorized to continue operating in that manner
even where provisions of part 107 are more restrictive in nature. DOD
also asked that the FAA explicitly exclude aircraft operating under a
COA from the applicability of part 107. Finally, DOD recommended that
the FAA further amend Sec.  107.1 to clarify that part 107 does not
apply to aircraft operated by or for the National Defense Forces of the
United States, but could be used as an alternative means of compliance.
    These comments are largely beyond the scope of the proposed
rulemaking. The proposed rule addressed only civil small UAS
operations. As stated above, the NPRM would enable remote pilots of
public aircraft to opt into the civil framework for small UAS
operations, but does not address public aircraft operations beyond
that. In response to NASA, the FAA points out that under this rule,
NASA may operate small UAS without a COA as long as it complies with
part 107. With regard to DOD's suggestions, there is no need to amend
part 107 because Sec.  107.1 expressly limits the applicability of part
107 to civil small UAS. After the effective date of this rule, the FAA
does not anticipate issuing a public aircraft operations COA that is
less flexible than the regulations promulgated in this rule, provided
that all the circumstances are identical to that available to a civil
operator.
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million. One commenter suggested that the FAA should designate a
special status for public UAS operating in a civil capacity that
exempts them from visual-line-of-sight and daylight-only operation
limitations. However, this is unnecessary because public aircraft
operations are not required to be conducted as civil aircraft subject
to part 107. Thus, a public aircraft operation that does not wish to
comply with part 107 can operate under the existing public-aircraft
framework rather than under part 107.
    Agreeing that the proposed rules should not apply to small UAS
operations by DOD, NASA, NOAA, DHS or FAA, one individual stated that
the proposed rule should apply to ``second and third tier public
agencies not directly tied to constant aeronautical activities, testing
and research.'' Two

other individuals stated that any commercial rules for small UAS should
apply to both private and public sectors.
    This rule will allow any public agency, regardless of the ``tier''
of operations, to choose to operate a small UAS as a civil aircraft
under part 107.
    The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)
recommended that the FAA modify the current limitation in Sec.  107.11
concerning ``civil'' aircraft to include ``public aircraft'' as well.
This is necessary, AUVSI asserted, because some current operation rules
for manned aircraft (such as those found in part 91) apply to both
``public aircraft'' and ``civil aircraft.''
    The FAA disagrees. This rulemaking applies to civil aircraft only.
Expanding its application to public aircraft is beyond the scope of the
proposed rule.
    The Next Gen Air Transportation Program at North Carolina State
University indicated that proposed Sec.  107.3 needs a definition of
``civil operation.'' The commenter asked how a public agency declares a
civil operation. The commenter also implied that part 107 does not make
clear that there would be no adverse safety effects from allowing
public aircraft operations under part 107.
    Twelve members of the Wisconsin Legislature signed a joint letter
stating that ``[t]he NPRM states public entities must get a Certificate
of Waiver or Authorization because they are not `exempt' from
restrictions in the proposed rules. However, the proposed rules allow
public entities to `declare an operation to be a civil operation' and
therefore operate commercially and be exempted from flight
restrictions.'' The members also stated that the FAA has not
``promulgated, clarified or made public its rules, policies, and legal
opinions on public versus commercial UAS.''
    The Wisconsin Society of Land Surveyors stated that ``government
agencies have been getting a head start on the market, at the expense
of the private sector, by obtaining certificates to perform UAS
services that are commercial in nature,'' and ``[a]s a result,
government and universities are conducting operational missions,
developing markets and cultivating clients.'' This commenter concluded
that there ``should not be unfair competitive advantages granted to
government or university UAS vis-[agrave]-vis the private sector.''
    These comments reflect some misunderstanding of public aircraft
operations in general and the FAA's role in such operations. The
authority to conduct a public aircraft operation is determined by
statute (49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125). The FAA has no authority to
prohibit a qualified government entity from conducting public aircraft
operations, manned or unmanned. Consequently, many of the FAA's
regulations, such as aircraft certification and pilot requirements, do
not apply to public aircraft operations. Some of the general operating
rules apply to all aircraft operations, public aircraft and civil, and
that is where the need for COAs affects public aircraft operations of
UAS. For example, all aircraft must comply with 14 CFR 91.113, and UAS
require a conditional waiver of that regulation in order to operate in
the NAS; the conditions are specified in the COA.
    Qualified governmental entities may choose to operate a public
aircraft operation as long as they do so within the limits of the
public aircraft statute. Under this rule, they may choose to operate
their UAS as a civil aircraft instead, and operate under the civil
regulations. Government entities have always had the option to do this
with their manned aircraft; in some cases, government entities may be
required to operate under civil regulations if their operations do not
comply with the public aircraft statute. The new UAS regulations do not
change this option or the requirements of the public aircraft statute.
    ``Civil aircraft'' is already a defined term in 14 CFR 1.1, which
defines a civil aircraft as an aircraft that is not a public aircraft.
The definition of public aircraft in part 1 is a restatement of the
requirements in the public aircraft statute sections cited above.
Government entities that qualify to conduct public aircraft operations
but choose to operate instead under civil rules must comply with the
same requirements as civil entities; no special notice is required. If
an operation is commercial, it is civil by definition, but not all
civil operations are commercial. Operations for a commercial purpose
are prohibited by the public aircraft statute. The public aircraft
statute requires that public aircraft operations have a governmental
function and not have a commercial purpose. In short, a government
entity may choose to conduct a public aircraft operation within the
restrictions of the public aircraft statute (and certain civil
regulations applicable to all aircraft operating in the NAS), or it may
choose to conduct a civil operation and comply with the requirements of
the applicable regulations in 14 CFR.
    Under the definitions in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41), a university may
qualify to conduct a public aircraft operation if it meets the
statutory criteria as a part of the government of the State or a
political subdivision of the state. A determination of whether a public
university meets these criteria is made by individual states.
Operations of aircraft by these universities are subject to the same
requirements as other public aircraft operations. The ability to
conduct a public aircraft operation is determined by statute and cannot
be changed by the FAA. The FAA has not given an ``unfair competitive
advantage'' or showed favoritism to any entity by declaring their
operations public aircraft operations because it has no authority to do
otherwise under the statute. The FAA does review the operations
submitted by UAS proponents to ensure that, as described, they meet the
requirements of the public aircraft statute.
    The FAA has made public its policies and opinions on all public
aircraft matters, manned and unmanned. The FAA has also published
Advisory Circular 00-1.1A, Public Aircraft Operations, dated February
12, 2014. That document is available on the FAA Web site. Matters of
legal interpretation that have been presented to the FAA for its
opinion are available as part of the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel's
interpretation database.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Model Aircraft
    The NPRM proposed that part 107 would not apply to model aircraft
that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law
112-95. Section 336(c) defines a model aircraft as an ``unmanned
aircraft that is--(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the
aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.''
Subsection 336(a) specifically prohibits the FAA from promulgating
rules regarding model aircraft that meet all of the following statutory
criteria:
     The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
     The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a
nationwide community-based organization;
     The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless
otherwise certificated through a design, construction, inspection,
flight test, and operational safety program administered by a
community-based organization;

     The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
     When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of
the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)
with prior notice of the operation.
    Because of the statutory prohibition on FAA rulemaking regarding
model aircraft that meet the above criteria, the NPRM proposed that
model aircraft meeting these criteria would not be subject to the
provisions of part 107. However, although section 336(a) exempts
certain model aircraft from FAA rulemaking, section 336(b) explicitly
states that the exemption in section 336(a) does not limit the FAA's
authority to pursue enforcement action against those model aircraft
that ``endanger the safety of the national airspace system.'' The FAA
proposed to codify this authority in part 101 by prohibiting a person
operating a model aircraft from endangering the safety of the NAS.
    The FAA received approximately 2,850 comments on the model-aircraft
aspect of the NPRM. Many of these commenters, including NAMIC, Horizon
Hobby, LLC (Horizon Hobby), Skyview Strategies, Inc. (Skyview
Strategies), the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and many
individuals, supported excluding model aircraft operations from the
provisions of part 107. DJI, Aviation Management, and UAS America Fund,
LLC (UAS America Fund) recommended that the FAA expand the model-
aircraft exception from the requirements of part 107 and adopt more
lenient regulatory standards for recreational uses of small UAS that do
not comply with all of the criteria specified in section 336. UAS
America Fund suggested that the final rule make a special allowance for
small UAS operations that do not meet all of the criteria of section
336(a) but are conducted for educational or other salutary purposes.
    Conversely, NAAA, the Transportation Trades Department AFL-CIO
(TTD), A4A, the American Chemistry Council, the Information Technology
and Innovation Foundation, the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association
(SWAPA) and a number of individual commenters advocated for greater
regulation and oversight of all model aircraft operations. Many of
these commenters felt that the risks associated with recreational and
non-recreational UAS operations are the same, and thus, there should be
no difference in how these operations are regulated. A number of
commenters also expressed concern that recreational and hobby use of
UAS could pose a significant safety hazard and that additional
regulations should be imposed to mitigate this hazard. For example,
NAAA asserted that ``[t]he majority of UAS incidents that occurred in
recent years have been by UAS operated as model aircraft . . .
including two in 2014 where [agricultural] operators were harassed by
model aircraft in Idaho and Illinois.'' Green Vegans argued that
failure to regulate model aircraft operations may have an adverse
impact on the environment.
    Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 specifically prohibits the FAA
from issuing any new rules with regard to model aircraft that satisfy
the statutory criteria specified in that section. Accordingly, the FAA
cannot impose additional regulations on model aircraft that meet the
criteria of section 336 nor can the FAA make those aircraft subject to
the provisions of part 107.
    However, with regard to the request that the FAA apply the terms of
section 336 to other operations, the FAA agrees with NAAA, TTD, A4A and
other commenters who pointed out that, from a safety point of view,
there is no difference between the risk posed by recreational
operations, operations used for salutary purposes, and non-
recreational/non-salutary operations. There is no data indicating that
a small UAS operation whose operational parameters raise the safety
risks addressed by part 107 would become safer simply as a result of
being conducted for recreational or salutary purposes rather than
commercial purposes. As such, the FAA declines the request to apply the
terms of section 336 beyond the statutory criteria specified in that
section.
    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and the
Kansas State University Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (Kansas State
University UAS Program) stated that if model aircraft operations are
being added to part 101, then the title of part 101 should be changed
to reflect that part 101 now encompasses those operations. AMA, Horizon
Hobby, Skyview Strategies, and numerous individuals noted that the
statutory text of section 336 also applies to ``aircraft being
developed as model aircraft,'' and these commenters asked the FAA to
add the pertinent statutory text to the model-aircraft provisions of
part 101.
    As the commenters pointed out, the statutory language of section
336 applies not just to aircraft that are operated as model aircraft
but also to ``aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.'' \55\
Accordingly, the FAA has added this statutory language to the
regulatory text of Sec.  101.41. The FAA also agrees with ALPA and the
Kansas State University UAS Program and has updated the title of part
101 to indicate that this part will now include model aircraft
operations that are operated under section 336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Public Law 112-95, sec. 336(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMA and a number of individual commenters supported the proposed
inclusion of the section 336 criterion concerning nationwide community-
based organizations into the regulatory text of part 101. A number of
other commenters raised concerns about having to comply with safety
guidelines issued by a community-based organization and having to
operate within the programming of such an organization. The Permanent
Editorial Board of the Aviators Model Code of Conduct Initiative stated
that the FAA should demonstrate the efficacy of using community-based
safety guidelines to regulate model aircraft operations prior to using
such an approach. DJI and the Stadium Managers Association, Inc. stated
that it is unclear what makes an organization a nationwide community-
based organization within the meaning of section 336. DJI went on to
ask the FAA to provide guidance as to what criteria the agency will
look for in recognizing a nationwide community-based organization. The
Washington Aviation Group and Green Vegans suggested that the FAA
identify, or seek comments to identify, a single set of community-based
safety guidelines and incorporate those guidelines by reference into
proposed part 101 and make them available on the FAA's Web site.
    Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 includes a specific list of
criteria that must be satisfied in order for the section 336 exception
to apply. One of these criteria is that ``the [model] aircraft is
operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines
and within the programming of a nationwide community-based
organization.'' \56\ Because compliance with a community-based set of
safety guidelines and operating within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization is one of the statutory criteria that must
be satisfied in order for section 336 to apply, the FAA has retained
this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Public Law 112-95, sec. 336(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes, however, that those model aircraft operations that
do not wish to comply with a community-based set of safety guidelines
and

operate within the programming of a nationwide community-based
organization will be able to simply conduct their operations under part
107. Part 107 was designed to impose the minimal burden necessary to
ensure the safety and security of a small UAS operation. As discussed
in the Regulatory Impact Assessment that accompanies this rule, the
out-of-pocket cost for someone who wishes to operate under part 107
will be less than $200.
    With regard to comments asking for additional clarity as to what
makes an organization a nationwide community-based organization under
section 336, the FAA notes that this issue is beyond the scope of this
rule. The FAA is currently engaged in a separate regulatory action
titled Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft,\57\
(Interpretive Rule) in which the FAA is interpreting the statutory
provisions of section 336 and explaining how those provisions apply to
model aircraft operations. The FAA published this interpretation for
public comment in June 2014 and has since received over 33,000 public
comments. The FAA is currently considering the issues raised by these
commenters and will issue a final Interpretive Rule that reflects its
consideration of the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 79 FR 36172, June 25, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the FAA is considering the specific meaning of section 336
provisions in a separate regulatory action, in order to avoid
duplication, the FAA limited the scope of the model-aircraft component
of this rulemaking simply to codifying the FAA's enforcement authority
over model-aircraft operations that endanger the safety of the NAS. As
such, issues concerning the specific meaning of section 336 (such as
what makes an organization a nationwide community-based organization)
are beyond the scope of this rule.
    With regard to Washington Aviation Group and Green Vegans'
suggestions that the FAA codify a single set of community-based safety
guidelines and incorporate those guidelines by reference into part 101,
the FAA notes that this suggestion is also beyond the scope of this
rule. However, even if the scope of this rule was broad enough to reach
this issue, the language of section 336(a)(2) is not limited to a
single set of community-based safety guidelines, nor is it limited to
community-based safety guidelines that exist today. Accordingly, the
FAA cannot incorporate a single definitive set of safety guidelines
into the regulatory text of part 101.
    The NextGen Air Transportation Program at NC State University
stated that Sec.  101.41 should be amended to include a requirement to
operate at locations approved by a nationwide community-based
organization. Another commenter suggested that the FAA clarify that the
programming of nationwide community-based organizations is interpreted
to include location. Colorado Ski Country USA said the FAA should add a
provision that prohibits recreational UAS operations within the
airspace above ``Places of Public Accommodation'' without prior
approval from the Place of Public Accommodation.
    As discussed previously, the scope of the model-aircraft component
of this rulemaking is limited simply to codifying the FAA's enforcement
authority over model-aircraft operations that endanger the safety of
the NAS. Accordingly, these suggestions are beyond the scope of this
rule.
    A number of commenters, including ALPA, NAAA, and the International
Air Transport Association, supported the FAA's proposal to codify a
prohibition on model aircraft operations endangering the safety of the
NAS. NAAA emphasized that the FAA should ``continue to utilize every
tool possible to ensure model aircraft are operating safely in the
NAS.''
    The Small UAV Coalition, the Airports Council International--North
America, and the American Association of Airport Executives asked the
FAA to clarify what actions would endanger the safety of the NAS. AMA
argued that enforcement of the ``endangering the safety of the NAS''
provision should not affect other airman certificates that may be held
by a model aircraft operator. AMA and several other commenters also
argued that the FAA is not permitted to oversee general safety issues
involving model aircraft. These commenters suggested narrowing the
``endangering the safety of the NAS'' provision to make it analogous to
14 CFR 91.11, which prohibits interference with a crewmember.
    Subsection 336(b) explicitly states that the FAA has authority to
pursue enforcement action ``against persons operating model aircraft
who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.'' Because the
scope of the FAA's enforcement authority is explicitly specified in
section 336(b), the FAA has decided to finalize the proposed
prohibition on model aircraft operators endangering the safety of the
NAS. To do otherwise and artificially narrow the FAA's statutory
enforcement authority over section 336 operations would be contrary to
Congressional intent because Congress has explicitly specified, in
section 336(b), the scope of the FAA's enforcement authority over model
aircraft operations.
    With regard to examples of actions that may endanger the safety of
the NAS, the FAA notes that this is an issue that is being addressed by
the Interpretive Rule.\58\ Because the issues addressed by the
Interpretive Rule have been subject to extensive public input (33,000
plus comments) and because addressing those issues here would be
duplicative, the FAA will defer discussion of what qualifies as
endangering the safety of the NAS to the Interpretive Rule. Finally,
with regard to AMA's suggestion that enforcement of the ``endangering
the safety of the NAS'' provision should not affect other airman
certificates that may be held by a model aircraft pilot, the FAA notes
that determination of the remedy that it may seek in specific
enforcement cases is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., 79 FR at 36175-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters, including Skyview Strategies, AMA, the
Experimental Aircraft Association, and numerous individuals, reiterated
arguments that were raised in the comments filed on the Interpretive
Rule. These commenters restated arguments such as: (1) Considering
model aircraft to be ``aircraft'' would effectively make those aircraft
subject to manned-aircraft regulations; (2) the Interpretive Rule
interprets the phrase ``hobby or recreational use'' too narrowly; (3)
the Interpretive Rule does not properly interpret Congressional intent;
(4) model aircraft operations should not be subject to any airspace
restrictions; (5) requiring notification when operating within 5 miles
of an airport is too burdensome; and (6) the interpretation of ``visual
line of sight'' within the Interpretive Rule would prohibit the use of
first-person-view devices. AMA and the Small UAV Coalition argued that
the FAA must address and adjudicate the 33,000 plus comments that were
made on the Interpretive Rule and resolve the issues and concerns
presented before moving forward in finalizing the small UAS Rule.
    Because these are all issues that have been commented on (in much
greater detail) and are currently being considered as part of the
Interpretive Rule, considering these issues in this rule would be
duplicative. Accordingly, the FAA declines to address these issues here
as they are currently the subject of a separate regulatory action.
    The FAA also declines the suggestion that it issue the final
Interpretive Rule prior to finalizing this rule. The FAA is currently
working as quickly as possible to issue the final Interpretive Rule.

Because the model-aircraft component of this rulemaking simply codifies
the FAA's statutory authority over section 336 operations and because
delaying this rulemaking would prejudice non-model small UAS
operations, the FAA declines to withhold this rule until issuance of
the final Interpretive Rule.
    AMA and Horizon Hobby asked the FAA to add regulatory text that
would exempt model aircraft operations and aircraft being developed as
model aircraft from the regulatory provisions of parts 21, 43, 45, 47,
61, and 91. These commenters also noted the revision that the NPRM
proposed to make in Sec.  91.1(e) and expressed concern that this
revision may make model aircraft subject to the provisions of part 91.
Skyview Strategies asked the FAA to rewrite the guidance that it
recently issued to law enforcement agencies concerning model aircraft
that may be operated unsafely.
    As discussed previously, the proposed rule was limited simply to
codifying the FAA's statutory enforcement authority over model aircraft
operations. Because the FAA did not propose making any changes to its
existing regulations with regard to section 336 operations, those
changes are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Similarly, the FAA did
not propose to make any changes to its existing enforcement guidance as
part of this rulemaking, and those changes are also beyond the scope of
this rule.
    With regard to the revision that the NPRM proposed in Sec.
91.1(e), this revision does not expand the scope of part 91.
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to move the regulatory text concerning
existing exceptions to part 91 applicability for moored balloons,
kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons into a newly
created subsection (Sec.  91.1(e)). The NPRM then proposed to add an
extra exception (also in Sec.  91.1(e)) to part 91 applicability for
small UAS operations governed by part 107, because the purpose of this
rulemaking is, in part, for the regulations of part 107 to replace the
regulations of part 91 as the governing regulations for small UAS
operations. Because this additional exception for part 107 operations
is the only substantive change that the NPRM proposed to the
applicability of part 91, finalizing this exception would not expand
the scope of part 91. Accordingly, this rule will finalize Sec.
91.1(e) as proposed in the NPRM.
    Two commenters disagreed with one aspect of the proposed definition
of model aircraft, namely that the aircraft must be capable of
sustained flight in the atmosphere. These commenters argued that the
proposed requirement was more burdensome than requirements imposed on
some manned aircraft operations. However, section 336(c)(1)
specifically defines a ``model aircraft'' in pertinent part as an
aircraft that is ``capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere.''
Because the definition of ``model aircraft'' is specified in statute,
this rule will finalize the statutory definition in the regulatory text
of part 101.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and The Permanent
Editorial Board of the Aviators Model Code of Conduct Initiative
suggested that the FAA take additional steps to issue clear and
definitive guidance for recreational operators and to encourage
manufacturers to include information on this FAA guidance in their
packaging materials. AOPA further stated that the FAA should work with
AOPA and remote control aircraft groups ``to conduct education
outreach, and publish guidance to help pilots file timely reports of
reckless UAS operations.''
    The FAA agrees with AOPA and The Permanent Editorial Board of the
Aviators Model Code of Conduct Initiative that guidance and education
would greatly assist model aircraft operators. To that end, the FAA has
partnered with AMA, AUVSI, AOPA and the Small UAV Coalition on an
education campaign titled ``Know Before You Fly,'' which is designed to
educate prospective users about the safe and responsible operation of
model aircraft.\59\ As pointed out by the commenters, education and
outreach efforts will enhance the safety of the model aircraft
community and, just like it did with the ``Know Before You Fly''
campaign, the FAA will consider partnering with interested stakeholders
in future education and outreach efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is also currently taking the steps suggested by AOPA and
The Permanent Editorial Board of the Aviators Model Code of Conduct
Initiative to issue clear and definitive guidance for recreational
operators. Specifically, the FAA is working on drafting and issuing a
final Interpretive Rule that addresses the issues raised by commenters.
The agency has also issued an updated AC 91-57A, which is the main
advisory circular for model aircraft operations.
5. Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons
    Moored balloons, kites, amateur rockets, and unmanned free balloons
are currently regulated by the provisions of 14 CFR part 101. Because
they are already incorporated into the NAS through part 101, the NPRM
proposed to exclude them from the provisions of part 107. The FAA did
not receive any comments objecting to this aspect of the NPRM and, as
such, this rule will, as proposed, exclude part 101 operations from the
applicability of part 107.
    The FAA did, however, receive several comments asking for
clarification as to which types of operation are subject to part 101.
The NextGen Air Transportation Program at NC State University and three
individuals asked whether tethered powered unmanned aircraft meet the
definition of unmanned free balloons and kites, which are subject to
part 101.
    FAA regulations define a balloon as ``a lighter-than-air aircraft
that is not engine driven, and that sustains flight through the use of
either gas buoyancy or an airborne heater.'' \60\ A kite is defined as
``a framework, covered with paper, cloth, metal, or other material,
intended to be flown at the end of a rope or cable, and having as its
only support the force of the wind moving past its surfaces.'' \61\
Based on these definitions, a small unmanned aircraft that uses powered
systems for actions such as propulsion or steering is not a balloon or
kite subject to part 101.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 14 CFR 1.1 (definition of ``balloon'').
    \61\ Id. (definition of ``kite'').
    \62\ Additional information can be found in FAA Order 7210.3,
Chapter 18, Section 5, Moored Balloons, Kites, Unmanned Rockets, and
Unmanned Free Balloons/Objects, http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7210.3Z.pdf; and FAA Order 7110.65, Chapter 9, Section
6, Unmanned Free Balloons, http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter asked whether unmanned moored airships and blimps are
subject to part 101. In response, the FAA notes that an airship is
defined as ``an engine-driven lighter-than-air aircraft that can be
steered.'' \63\ Conversely, as discussed previously, the definition of
``balloon'' excludes aircraft that are engine-driven. Because an
airship is not a balloon or kite, a moored unmanned airship is not
encompassed by part 101. With regard to blimps, an engine-driven blimp
would be considered an airship, which is not subject to part 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 14 CFR 1.1 (definition of ``airship'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Current Treatment of UAS and Grandfathering of Section 333 Exemption
Holders
    The FAA currently accommodates non-recreational small UAS use
through various mechanisms, such as special airworthiness certificates,
exemptions, and COAs. However, the FAA recognizes that many holders of

exemptions issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95 (section 333
exemptions) may wish to take advantage of part 107 when it goes into
effect. On the other hand, some section 333 exemption holders may
prefer to continue operating under the terms and conditions of their
exemptions. Therefore, the FAA will allow any section 333 exemption
holder to either continue operating under the terms and conditions of
the exemption until its expiration, or conduct operations under part
107 as long as the operation falls under part 107.
    Approximately 40 commenters criticized the framework currently
regulating small UAS operations as slow, cumbersome, and inefficient.
These commenters expressed concern that the current framework is having
an adverse effect on UAS development in the United States.
    The FAA anticipates that this rulemaking will alleviate many of the
concerns commenters raised with the existing UAS framework. Under this
rule, many operations that would previously require exemptions and COAs
will now fall under the purview of part 107, which generally does not
require an exemption or a COA prior to operation.
    Some commenters, including the American Petroleum Institute and the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), encouraged the FAA to
acknowledge that existing permitted commercial uses of small UAS are
unaffected by the rule. The American Petroleum Institute stated that
such acknowledgement is necessary to avoid unintended consequences and
preserve the expectation and business interests of current
authorization holders.
    CEA stated that the FAA should either grandfather-in existing
exemptions or afford existing exemptions a 3-year transition period in
recognition of the hard work and expense each exemption represents. The
commenter further recommended that, if the FAA chose a 3-year
transition period, and if no renewal was sought, then the exemption
would terminate 3 years after the new rules became effective. However,
if a petitioner sought renewal of the exemption, the commenter
recommended that the exemption remain valid until final action by the
FAA on the renewal application. CEA noted that, to the extent that the
new rules are more permissive than existing exemptions, operators
should be permitted to rescind their exemption and operate under the
new rules.
    The FAA clarifies that current section 333 exemptions that apply to
small UAS are excluded from part 107. The FAA has already considered
each of these individual operations when it considered their section
333 exemption requests and concluded that these operations do not pose
a safety or national security risk.
    The FAA recognizes, however, that there may be certain instances
where part 107 is less restrictive than a section 333 exemption.
Therefore, under this rule, a section 333 exemption holder may choose
to operate in accordance with part 107 instead of operating under the
section 333 exemption. This approach will provide section 333 exemption
holders time to obtain a remote pilot certificate and transition to
part 107. Operations that would not otherwise fall under part 107 may
not take advantage of this option. For example, an operation with a
section 333 exemption that does not fall under part 107, such as an
operation of a UAS weighing more than 55 pounds, would not have the
option of operating in accordance with part 107 rather than with its
section 333 exemption.
    Additionally, when section 333 exemptions come up for renewal, the
FAA will consider whether renewal is necessary for those exemptions
whose operations are within the operational scope of part 107, which
also includes those operations that qualify for a waiver under part
107. The purpose of part 107 is to continue the FAA's process of
integrating UAS into the NAS. If a section 333 exemption is within the
operational scope of part 107, there may be no need for the agency to
renew an exemption under section 333. Because the FAA's renewal
considerations will be tied to the outstanding section 333 exemptions'
expiration dates, a 3-year transition period is not necessary. This
will not affect those section 333 exemptions that are outside of the
operational scope of part 107 or where a part 107 waiver would not be
considered.
    Future exemptions may be issued to provisions of part 107 that do
not allow for a waiver. These exemptions may also be issued pursuant to
section 333. Small UAS remote pilots holding an exemption for a
provision contained in part 107 will not be excluded from the other
part 107 requirements if the exemption specifies that part 107
provisions that are not waived or exempted still apply.
    A commenter asked whether there will be a grace period for
individuals already operating small UAS to comply with the requirements
of part 107, or whether those individuals will be required to stop
operating until they can complete those requirements.
    As stated above, a person currently operating under a section 333
exemption will not need to immediately comply with part 107.
Additionally, a person currently operating on the basis of a part 61
pilot certificate other than student pilot would, as discussed below,
be eligible to obtain a temporary remote pilot certificate upon
satisfying the prerequisites specified in this rule. The temporary
remote pilot certificate will authorize its holder to operate under
part 107.

D. Definitions

    The NPRM proposed to define several terms in part 107 including:
(1) Control station; (2) corrective lenses; (3) unmanned aircraft; (4)
small unmanned aircraft; and (5) small unmanned aircraft system (small
UAS).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ The FAA also proposed to create two new crewmember
positions: (1) Operator; and (2) visual observer. Those positions
are discussed in sections III.E.1 and III.E.2.b of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Control Station
    The NPRM proposed to define a control station as ``an interface
used by the operator to control the flight path of the small unmanned
aircraft.'' The NPRM explained that, unlike a manned aircraft, the
interface that is used to control the flight path of a small unmanned
aircraft remains outside of the aircraft. The proposed definition was
intended to clarify the interface that is considered part of a small
UAS under part 107.
    NAAA and another commenter agreed with the proposed definition.
Transport Canada asked the FAA to consider refining this definition by
adding a definition of ``control link'' to distinguish between command
and control functions and communication functions. One commenter
asserted that the proposed definition does not encompass instances in
which a small UAS's flight path is preprogrammed via waypoints, and the
interface used by the remote pilot is intended simply to commence
execution of the program.
    The link between the ground control station and the small unmanned
aircraft is commonly referred to as the ``command and control link'' or
``C2.'' When a communication link between the remote pilot and another
person, such as a visual observer or an air traffic controller, is
added to C2, it is referred to as ``command, control and
communications'' or ``C3.'' C2 is an inherent requirement for safe
operations, even if the small unmanned aircraft flight is completely
autonomous (i.e., preprogrammed flight operations without further input
from the remote pilot) because the remote pilot must be

able to take direct command of the flight in order to exercise his/her
responsibility for collision avoidance, yielding right of way to other
aircraft, etc. C3, on the other hand, is only needed if the remote
pilot is using the ground control station to communicate with another
person directly involved in the operation, such as a visual observer.
Because this rule does not require multi-person operations, the
definition of a ground control station will not include the requirement
for a communications link.
    Furthermore, as technology advances, the concept and use of C2 and
C3 could change significantly. Omitting a rigid regulatory definition
of these terms in this rule will allow them to evolve as technology
changes.
2. Corrective Lenses
    In connection with the visual-line-of-sight requirements in the
NPRM, the FAA proposed to define the term ``corrective lenses'' as
``spectacles or contact lenses.'' The FAA explained that, unlike other
vision-enhancing devices, spectacles and contact lenses do not restrict
a user's peripheral vision, and thus could be used to satisfy the
visual-line-of-sight requirements proposed in the NPRM. The FAA did not
receive any adverse comments on this proposed definition, and thus
finalizes the proposed definition of ``corrective lenses'' in this rule
without change.
3. Unmanned Aircraft
    The NPRM proposed to define ``unmanned aircraft'' as ``an aircraft
operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from
within or on the aircraft.'' This proposed definition would codify the
statutory definition of ``unmanned aircraft'' specified in Public Law
112-95, section 331(8).
    MAPPS stated that the definition of ``unmanned aircraft'' needs to
be clarified because the current definition leaves open the possibility
that paper airplanes, model airplanes, model rockets, and toys could be
considered unmanned aircraft. The Permanent Editorial Board of the
Aviators Model Code of Conduct Initiative stated that this definition
and the definition of small unmanned aircraft may permit infant
passengers and asked the FAA to amend the definition to categorically
prohibit the carriage of passengers on an unmanned aircraft.
    The definition of unmanned aircraft as ``an aircraft operated
without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on
the aircraft'' is a statutory definition and, as such, this rule will
finalize that definition as proposed. In response to MAPPS' comment, as
discussed in section III.C.5 of this preamble, part 107 will not apply
to operations governed by part 101. Those operations include model
aircraft, moored balloons, kites, amateur rockets, and unmanned free
balloons. With regard to carriage of infants on small unmanned
aircraft, this concern is addressed by other provisions in this rule
that prohibit careless or reckless operations that endanger the life of
another person.
4. Small Unmanned Aircraft
    The NPRM proposed to define ``small unmanned aircraft'' as ``an
unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds including everything
that is on board the aircraft.'' The NPRM noted that Public Law 112-95,
section 331(6) defines a small unmanned aircraft as ``an unmanned
aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.'' However, the NPRM pointed out
that this statutory definition does not specify whether the 55-pound
weight limit refers to the total weight of the aircraft at the time of
takeoff (which would encompass the weight of the aircraft and any
payload on board) or simply the weight of an empty aircraft. The NPRM
proposed to define small unmanned aircraft using total takeoff weight
because: (1) Heavier aircraft generally pose greater amounts of public
risk in the event of an accident, because they can do more damage to
people and property on the ground; and (2) this approach would be
similar to the approach that the FAA has taken with other aircraft,
such as large aircraft, light-sport aircraft, and small aircraft.
    Commenters including AOPA, ALPA, and the Helicopter Association
International, supported the proposed definition. The New England
Chapter of the Association of Unmanned Vehicles International and
Devens IOP, commenting jointly, pointed out that there are commercial
applications being developed that will need to exceed 55 pounds. Event
38 Unmanned Systems stated that rather than segregate small unmanned
aircraft by total weight, the FAA should use a ``kinetic energy split''
that combines weight and speed.
    Several commenters asked that the 55-pound weight limit be lowered.
Event 38 Unmanned Systems recommended an initial weight restriction of
10 pounds, with adjustments based on subsequent research. Prioria
Robotics, Inc. stated that the weight limitation for small unmanned
aircraft should be less than 25 pounds, and that the definition should
include a requirement that the aircraft be ``hand-launchable.'' Another
commenter asked for the weight limit to be reduced to 33 pounds.
    Green Vegans stated that FAA must provide test data on the
collision impact of a 55-pound UAS, traveling at various speeds, on
both humans and birds. The advocacy group argued that the public cannot
make informed comments on the proposed weight limitation without such
data. The advocacy group also noted that such data would be provided by
a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact
Statement, which the group stated the FAA must do. Crew Systems
similarly opposed the maximum weight limitation, arguing that FAA
provided no justification for it. The company asserted that a 55-pound
UAS is large enough to be hazardous when operated in an urban
environment, even if care is taken. Although it did not expressly
object to the weight limitation, the United States Ultralight
Association also expressed concern about the significant damage that a
50-plus-pound unmanned aircraft could do to light, open-cockpit
aircraft.
    Other commenters asked the FAA to increase the 55-pound weight
limit. Consumers Energy Company objected to the definition's proposed
weight limitation as too light, arguing that a 55-pound weight
restriction will negatively impact small UAS flight times and the usage
of alternative fuel sources. Consumers Energy urged the FAA to consider
fuel loads and to increase the weight restriction to 120 pounds. The
commenter also suggested that, if the FAA has concerns about safety, it
could create subcategories under which maximum weight restriction is
imposed on the fuel load, rather than adopt a blanket weight
restriction. Several commenters also suggested higher weight limits,
including: 80 pounds; a range of 30-100 pounds; and 150 pounds. Another
commenter called the weight restriction ``arbitrary,'' and noted that
other States have defined small UAS to include unmanned aircraft
weighing up to 150 kilograms.
    One commenter suggested that the FAA amend the definition of small
unmanned aircraft to include aircraft weighing exactly 55 pounds.
Another commenter stated that the definition of ``small unmanned
aircraft'' must be clarified to account for different types of UAS
(e.g., fixed-wing, rotor-wing, small, medium, large).
    The definition of ``small unmanned aircraft'' is a statutory
definition. Specifically, Public Law 112-95, section 331(6) defines a
small unmanned aircraft as ``an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55
pounds.'' Accordingly, this rule will retain the

statutory definition, which includes 55 pounds as the weight limit for
a small unmanned aircraft. However, the FAA emphasizes that, as
discussed in section III.A of this preamble, this rule is merely one
step of UAS integration into the NAS. As such, the FAA anticipates that
future rulemakings will integrate larger UAS into the NAS and thus
enable additional commercial opportunities.
    Several commenters discussed the ambiguity in the statutory
definition with regard to how the 55-pound weight limit should be
calculated. The Small UAV Coalition and Federal Airways & Airspace
supported the inclusion of payload in the weight calculation.
Conversely, DJI, the Associated General Contractors of America, and
another commenter questioned whether the 55-pound weight limitation
should include payload that is carried by the small unmanned aircraft.
DJI argued that the FAA does not consider the weight of payload in its
regulations governing the operation of ultralights. Kapture Digital
Media stated that the 55-pound weight limit should not include the
weight of the battery.
    As noted in the NPRM, the FAA uses total takeoff weight for
multiple different types of aircraft, including large aircraft, light-
sport aircraft, and small aircraft.\65\ One of the reasons that the FAA
uses total takeoff weight in all of these regulations is because in the
event of a crash, a heavier aircraft can do more damage to people and
property on the ground than a lighter aircraft. In evaluating this type
of risk for a small UAS, it is the total mass of the small unmanned
aircraft that is important; the manner in which that mass is achieved
is irrelevant. In other words, a 50-pound unmanned aircraft carrying 30
pounds of payload does not pose a smaller risk than an 80-pound
unmanned aircraft that is not carrying any payload. As such, this rule
will retain the proposed inclusion of everything onboard the aircraft
in the 55-pound weight limit of a small unmanned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See 14 CFR 1.1 (referring to ``takeoff weight'' for large,
light-sport, and small aircraft in the definitions for those
aircraft).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) pointed out
that, although the FAA typically points to maximum takeoff weight when
identifying an aircraft's weight and associated mass, the proposed
definition of small unmanned aircraft does not include the term
``takeoff.'' As such, GAMA recommended that the FAA modify the
definition to reference the point of takeoff as follows: ``Small
unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55
pounds including everything that is on board the aircraft on takeoff.''
Another commenter stated that the choice of ``on board'' in the
definition of ``small unmanned aircraft'' will create confusion,
because these aircraft routinely have ``attached'' external payloads
because there is little room for internal ``on board'' payloads.
    The FAA agrees with these comments and has modified the proposed
definition to refer to the total aircraft weight at takeoff and to
include possible external attachments to the aircraft in the
calculation of small unmanned aircraft weight.
5. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (Small UAS)
    Finally, the NPRM proposed a definition of ``small unmanned
aircraft system'' as ``a small unmanned aircraft and its associated
elements (including communication links and the components that control
the small unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and
efficient operation of the small unmanned aircraft in the national
airspace system.'' The NPRM explained that this proposed definition
would be similar to the statutory definition of UAS specified in Public
Law 112-95, section 331(9), except that it does not include a ``pilot
in command'' reference that appears in the statute. The FAA did not
include the ``pilot in command'' reference in the proposed definition
of small UAS because that position did not exist under the NPRM. Even
though the FAA is creating a remote pilot in command position in this
final rule, the FAA considers adding a reference to that position in
the small UAS definition as unnecessary.
    AirShip Technologies Group, Inc. (AirShip Technologies) supported
the proposed definition. Conversely, Transport Canada asked the FAA to
consider whether it would be better to use the ICAO terminology of
remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) instead of small UAS. Foxtrot
Consulting, LLC stated that the inclusion of the phrase ``associated
elements (including communications links and the components that
control the small unmanned aircraft)'' in the definition of small UAS
creates a ``regulatory nightmare,'' because it means cellular network
providers and their infrastructure are considered part of a small UAS.
The commenter pointed out that small UAS can be controlled via Wi-Fi
and cellular networks, which opens enormous capabilities to small UAS
operations. The commenter went on, however, to question whether, as a
result of the proposed definition, a cellular provider is liable if a
UAS being controlled through their network causes damage to property,
serious injury, or death.
    The proposed definition of small UAS is derived from the statutory
definition of ``unmanned aircraft system'' in Public Law 112-95, Sec.
331(9). As such, this final rule will codify the proposed definition.
Because Congress has selected the term ``unmanned aircraft system'' to
describe this type of a system, the FAA may not use a different term,
such as RPAS, in this rule.
    With regard to cellular providers, the requirements of this rule
apply only to the remote pilot, the owner of the small UAS, and people
who may be involved in the operation of the small UAS. As such, a
cellular provider whose involvement in the small UAS operation is
limited to a remote pilot simply using the provider's infrastructure
would not be in violation of part 107 if something were to go wrong.
The FAA does not opine on liability issues that are beyond the scope of
this rule, such as whether the provider may be liable to the remote
pilot or third parties under tort or contract law.
    The NextGen Air Transportation Program at NC State University and
another commenter recommended specifically stating that tethered
powered small UAS are considered small UAS under proposed part 107. In
response to these comments, the FAA notes that the definition of small
UAS in this rule includes tethered powered small UAS.
6. Other Definitions
    One commenter asked the FAA to define the term ``aerial
photography'' in the regulatory text. However, with the exception of
operations involving the transportation of property, part 107 does not
contain any requirements specific to the use to which a small UAS is
put. For example, a small UAS used for aerial photography will be
subject to the same operating restrictions as a small UAS used for
bridge inspection, precision agriculture, or utility inspection.
Because this rule does not contain any requirements specific to aerial
photography, no definition of the term is necessary.

E. Operating Rules

    As discussed earlier in this preamble (section III.A), instead of a
single omnibus rulemaking that applies to all small UAS operations, the
FAA has decided to proceed incrementally and issue a rule governing
small UAS operations that pose the least amount of risk. Subpart B of
part 107 will specify the operating constraints of these operations.
The FAA emphasizes that it

intends to conduct future rulemaking(s) to incorporate into the NAS
small UAS operations that pose a greater level of risk than the
operations that will be permitted by this rule.
1. Remote Pilot in Command
    The NPRM proposed to create a new crewmember position (called
``operator'') for small UAS operations conducted under part 107. The
proposed rule would define an operator as a person who manipulates the
flight controls of a small UAS. The NPRM also proposed prohibiting a
person from serving as an operator if he or she does not have an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating, which
would be a new airman certificate created by the proposed rule.
Finally, the NPRM invited comments as to whether this rule should
create a pilot in command (PIC) position and whether the PIC should be
given the power to deviate from FAA regulations in response to an in-
flight emergency.
    For the reasons discussed below, this rule will remove the proposed
crewmember position of ``operator'' and will instead create a new
position of ``remote pilot in command.'' The remote pilot in command
will have the final authority and responsibility for the operation and
safety of a small UAS operation conducted under part 107. Additionally,
the remote pilot in command will be required to obtain a remote pilot
certificate with a small UAS rating. However, an uncertificated person
will be permitted to manipulate the flight controls of a small UAS as
long as he or she is directly supervised by a remote pilot in command
and the remote pilot in command has the ability to immediately take
direct control of the small unmanned aircraft. Finally, in case of an
in-flight emergency, the remote pilot in command will be permitted to
deviate from any rule of part 107 to the extent necessary to meet that
emergency. A remote pilot in command who exercises this emergency power
to deviate from the rules of part 107 will be required, upon FAA
request, to send a written report to the FAA explaining the deviation.
a. Terminology
    The NPRM proposed to create a new crewmember position called
``operator,'' which would be defined as a person who manipulates the
flight controls of a small UAS. The NPRM also proposed to create a new
airman certificate for the operator, which would be called an
``unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating.'' The
NPRM noted, however, that the term ``operator'' is already used in
manned-aircraft operations, and invited comments as to whether this
term would cause confusion if used in part 107.
    Several commenters noted that using the term ``operator'' in part
107 could result in confusion. NTSB, ALPA, and TTD pointed out that
``operator'' is currently used to refer to a business entity and that
use of that term to refer to a small UAS pilot would be inconsistent
with existing usage. Transport Canada and several other commenters
stated that ICAO defines the person manipulating the flight controls of
a small UAS as a ``remote pilot'' and asked the FAA to use this
terminology in order to harmonize with ICAO. Transport Canada also
noted that: (1) Canada uses the same terminology as ICAO; and (2)
calling an airman certificate issued under part 107 an ``operator
certificate'' may lead to confusion with FAA regulations in part 119,
which allow a business entity to obtain an operating certificate to
transport people and property. ALPA and TTD suggested that the person
manipulating the controls of the small UAS should be referred to as a
pilot, asserting that this would be consistent with how the word pilot
has traditionally been used.
    As pointed out by the commenters, FAA regulations currently use the
term ``commercial operator'' to refer to a person, other than an air
carrier, who engages in the transportation of persons or property for
compensation or hire.\66\ Commercial operators are issued an
``operating certificate'' under 14 CFR part 119.\67\ Because other FAA
regulations already use the term ``operator'' to refer to someone other
than a small UAS pilot under part 107, the FAA agrees with commenters
that use of the term ``operator'' in this rule could be confusing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 14 CFR 1.1 (definition of ``commercial operator'').
    \67\ See 14 CFR 119.5(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering alternative terminology to replace the term
``operator,'' the FAA noted that ICAO \68\ and the United Kingdom \69\
both use the term ``remote pilot'' to refer to the person manipulating
the flight controls of a small UAS. Additionally, as pointed out by
Transport Canada, Canada also uses the term ``remote pilot.''
Accordingly, this rule will use the term ``remote pilot'' instead of
``operator'' in order to harmonize with international terminology.
Consequently, the FAA has changed the name of the airman certificate
issued under part 107 to a ``remote pilot certificate with a small UAS
rating.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ ICAO Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft (draft) Chapter 7
Personnel Competence.
    \69\ Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace--
Guidance CAP 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed below, this rule will create a new
crewmember position of ``remote pilot in command.'' The remote pilot in
command will be a certificated airman and will have the final authority
and responsibility for the operation and safety of a small UAS
operation. Because the FAA anticipates that the remote pilot in command
will often also be the person manipulating the flight controls of a
small UAS, there is no need to have a separately defined crewmember
position for the person manipulating the flight controls. Accordingly,
the proposed definition of ``operator'' has been removed from this
rule.
b. Remote Pilot in Command
    The current regulations of part 91 create a separate PIC crewmember
position that has ultimate authority and responsibility for the safety
of the operation to: (1) Ensure that a single person on board the
aircraft is accountable for the operation; and (2) provide that person
with the authority to address issues affecting operational safety.\70\
The NPRM proposed to forego this type of position in part 107, but
invited comments as to whether a separate ``operator in command''
position should be created for small UAS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See 14 CFR 91.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters including Aerius Flight, NetMoby, Predesa, and NRECA,
generally agreed that a separate operator in command designation is not
necessary for small UAS operations. NBAA commented that since small UAS
operations will largely be excluded from airspace covered by
traditional definitions of ``operator'' and ``pilot,'' there is no need
to create a separate operator in command position for part 107
operations.
    Other commenters requested that the FAA include a separate
``operator in command'' position in the final rule similar to the PIC
position used in manned-aircraft operations. The University of North
Dakota's John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences pointed out that
due to a wide variety of system configurations available for small UAS,
it is possible that one or more flight crew members or sensor stations
may affect the flight path of the unmanned aircraft. Accordingly, the
commenter recommended that the term operator-in-command be added and
defined in the rule to reflect the final authority and responsibility
for the operation and safety of the flight.

ArgenTech Solutions, Inc. also recommended the rule address the title
of operator-in-command and specify the requirements for operator hand-
off of small UAS. Similarly, the Kansas State University UAS Program
recommended clarification of responsibility in regard to operations
with multiple operators and noted that creation of an operator-in-
command designation would be an appropriate clarification.
    As discussed below, this rule will allow small UAS to be operated
by more than one person for purposes such as instruction or crew
augmentation. As such, the FAA agrees that there needs to be a
designated crewmember who is responsible for the safe operation of a
small UAS and has final authority over that operation. Thus, this rule
will create a new crewmember position of remote pilot in command.
    Just as with manned-aircraft PICs, the remote pilot in command: (1)
Must be designated as remote pilot in command before or during the
flight; and (2) will have the final authority and responsibility for
the operation. In light of this change, the FAA has amended the
regulatory text of part 107 to transfer the duties that the NPRM
proposed to impose on the operator to the remote pilot in command and,
where appropriate, to the person manipulating the flight controls of
the small UAS. The remote pilot in command will also be generally
responsible for ensuring that the small UAS operation complies with all
applicable FAA regulations.
    Turning to the comments about operator hand-off, a person
manipulating the flight controls of a small UAS may be augmented by
another person during operation. Specifically, the person manipulating
the flight controls may safely transfer the controls to another person
during flight as long as the transfer does not violate the operational
provisions of part 107 and a remote pilot in command is designated. For
example, the flight controls of a small UAS may not be transferred if
the process of transferring the controls would cause the unmanned
aircraft to enter Class B airspace without ATC permission.
    The FAA emphasizes that, as discussed in section III.E.2.a of this
preamble, at any point throughout the entire flight of the small
unmanned aircraft, the remote pilot in command and the person
manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS must both have the
ability to see the small unmanned aircraft unaided by any device other
than corrective lenses. Therefore, the person manipulating the flight
controls must be able to see the small unmanned aircraft at the time of
the handoff sufficiently well to satisfy the visual-line-of-sight
requirements of this rule. The FAA also emphasizes that Sec.  107.19(c)
requires the remote pilot in command to ensure that the small unmanned
aircraft will not pose an undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or
property on the ground if positive control is lost. Thus, the remote
pilot in command must ensure that the technology and method used for
conducting the handoff does not unduly increase the risk associated
with a possible loss of positive control.
c. Airman Certification Requirement
    The NPRM proposed to require that each person manipulating the
flight controls of a small UAS obtain a part 107 airman certificate.
The FAA's statute requires a person serving as an airman to obtain an
airman certificate. Because the person manipulating the flight controls
of a small UAS would be an airman under the crewmember framework
proposed in the NPRM, that person would statutorily be required to
obtain an airman certificate. The NPRM also proposed to create a new
airman certificate to be issued for small UAS operations in place of
the existing part 61 pilot certificates that focus on manned-aircraft
operations.
    Many commenters, including Air Tractor, Inc., Ag Info Tech, LLC,
and the American Fuel & Petrochemicals Manufacturers, supported the
proposal to require the person manipulating the flight controls of a
small UAS to obtain a part 107 airman certificate. Commenters generally
supported this provision because it was viewed as an economical means
to achieve the rule's safety objective. Commenters including Modovolate
and the National Association of Broadcasters stated the proposed
approach of adding a new category of airmen provides a good balance
with the need to verify operator qualifications without unduly
burdening the operators.
    Several commenters disagreed with the proposed airman certification
requirement. Airship Technologies argued that an airman certificate is
unnecessary to operate a small UAS and asserted that the proposed
regulatory framework is too complex, costly, and burdensome for both
the public and the FAA. Airship Technologies suggested that the
operator should instead depend upon the product manufacturer's training
in the form of classes and documented materials. Another commenter
asserted that processing certificate applications will create a backlog
for the FAA. Yet another commenter suggested a self-certification
procedure in lieu of a required airman certificate asserting that the
proposed certificate would offer little benefit to the operators or the
NAS.
    Commenters from the educational and academic community, including
Princeton University and the Council on Government Relations, suggested
that a remote-pilot-in-command position should allow a faculty member
acting as a remote pilot in command to oversee student operators
utilizing small UAS as part of a course or research activity. Princeton
University expressed concern over requiring the person manipulating the
flight controls of a small UAS to hold an airman certificate, citing
complications in the academic environment. Princeton provided scenarios
where students would use a small UAS in projects as part of their
academic courses and the challenges involved in obtaining an operator
certificate prior to testing their project. To resolve these concerns,
Princeton recommended that universities be able to obtain an
``Educational UAS License,'' which would give them the authority to
designate an ``Operator-in-Command'' and administer the knowledge test
to appropriate faculty and staff.
    The FAA agrees with the majority of comments that an airman
certificate to operate a small UAS should be required unless directly
supervised by a remote pilot in command. This is in fact a statutory
requirement, as 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A) prohibits a person from
serving in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft
used or intended to be used in air commerce ``without an airman
certificate authorizing the airman to serve in the capacity for which
the certificate was issued.'' The FAA's statute defines an airman to
include an individual ``in command, or as pilot, mechanic, or member of
the crew, who navigates aircraft when under way.'' 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(8)(A). Because the remote pilot in command and the person
manipulating the flight controls of a small UAS without supervision are
both pilots and members of the crew who navigate the small unmanned
aircraft when it is under way, these crewmembers are statutorily
required to have an airman certificate. The FAA therefore maintains the
requirement that a person manipulating the flight controls of a small
UAS without supervision must obtain a remote pilot certificate with a
small UAS rating and this rule will also extend this requirement to the
remote pilot in command.
    However, the FAA acknowledges the educational concerns that have
been raised by the academic commenters and

notes that in the manned-aircraft context, an uncertificated person can
manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft in flight as long as he
or she is directly supervised. An individual whose manipulation of the
flight controls is closely supervised by a certificated airman is not
in command and is not a pilot or member of the crew because his or her
presence is not necessary to fly the aircraft. Instead, the
certificated airman who is providing the supervision is exercising the
judgment that is normally expected of a pilot and that airman could
simply fly the aircraft by him or herself instead. Thus, an individual
who is directly supervised by a certificated airman is not an
``airman'' within the meaning of section 40102(a)(8)(A) and is
therefore not statutorily required to obtain an airman certificate.
    To further enable the educational opportunities identified by the
commenters, this rule will allow the remote pilot in command (who will
be a certificated airman) to supervise another person's manipulation of
a small UAS's flight controls. A person who receives this type of
supervision from the remote pilot in command will not be required to
obtain a remote pilot certificate to manipulate the controls of a small
UAS as long as the remote pilot in command possesses the ability to
immediately take direct control of the small unmanned aircraft. This
ability is necessary to ensure that the remote pilot in command can
quickly address any mistakes that are made by an uncertificated person
operating the flight controls before those mistakes create a safety
hazard.
    The ability for the remote pilot in command to immediately take
over the flight controls could be achieved by using a number of
different methods. For example, the operation could involve a ``buddy
box'' type system that uses two control stations: One for the person
manipulating the flight controls and one for the remote pilot in
command that allows the remote pilot in command to override the other
control station and immediately take direct control of the small
unmanned aircraft. Another method could involve the remote pilot in
command standing close enough to the person manipulating the flight
controls so as to be able to physically take over the control station
from the other person. A third method could employ the use of an
automation system whereby the remote pilot in command could immediately
engage that system to put the small unmanned aircraft in a pre-
programmed ``safe'' mode (such as in a hover, in a holding pattern, or
``return home'').
    The FAA also emphasizes that, as discussed in section III.E.3.b.ii
of this preamble, part 107 will not allow a person to act as a remote
pilot in command in the operation of more than one small unmanned
aircraft at the same time. In the educational context, this means that
a faculty member who is acting as a remote pilot in command could not
directly supervise the simultaneous operation of more than one small
unmanned aircraft. The faculty member could, however, instruct a class
of students in a manner that does not involve the simultaneous
operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft. For example, a class of
students could operate a single small unmanned aircraft with students
passing control of the aircraft to each other under the supervision of
a faculty member who is a remote pilot in command. An academic
institution could also require a certain number of students to obtain a
remote pilot certificate prior to beginning a class involving small UAS
use in order to increase the number of people who would be available to
act as a remote pilot in command.
    Several commenters, including the Utah Governor's Office of
Economic Development and Textron Systems, expressed the view that there
should be different small UAS certifications for different altitudes,
locations, aircraft sizes, and applications.
    The FAA recognizes there are differences between the various small
UAS operations as articulated by the commenters. However, the key
knowledge areas that will be tested on the initial and recurrent
knowledge tests will be applicable to all small UAS operations that
could be conducted under part 107 regardless of the altitude, location,
size, or application of the small UAS. Requiring only a single remote
pilot certificate with a small UAS rating will give the remote pilot in
command the flexibility to operate various small UAS within the
parameters permitted by part 107 without any additional FAA-required
training or testing.
    Many commenters, including ALPA, NAAA, and TTD, argued that small
UAS operators should be required to have a part 61 pilot certificate to
operate in the NAS. These commenters remarked that operating in the NAS
is a great responsibility, and that all persons operating in the NAS
should be aware of these responsibilities.
    ALPA, TTD, Schertz Aerial Services, Inc., and many other commenters
recommended that the FAA require a part 61 commercial pilot
certificate. TTD stated that the standards put in place must ensure one
level of safety for all who operate in the NAS, and if small UAS
operators are operating for compensation or hire in shared airspace
with manned aircraft, then they too should hold a commercial pilot
certificate. Schertz Aerial Services added that small UAS pose a risk
of collision or interference with manned aircraft and that UAS
operators are not putting their own life at risk when flying. Schertz
Aerial Services argued that the FAA should not carve out exceptions to
the well-established requirement of commercial airman certificates for
commercial operations.
    NAAA and several other commenters suggested that, in place of a
part 61 commercial pilot certificate, the FAA should require small UAS
pilots to hold a part 61 private pilot certificate. NAAA stated that
this position is a change from its section 333 exemption comments.
After further analysis NAAA determined that requiring a commercial
pilot certificate is not necessary and a private pilot certificate with
a UAS knowledge and skills test rating would be sufficient to operate a
UAS safely. Another commenter asserted that a UAS pilot should be
required to have a part 61 student pilot certificate.
    Many other commenters, including AIA, AOPA, and the National
Association of Realtors, supported having a separate part 107 airman
certificate. Commenters including the National Association of Wheat
Growers, and the American Fuel & Petrochemicals Association stated that
requiring a part 61 pilot certificate would be overly burdensome and
pointed out that many of the knowledge areas and skills required for
manned aircraft do not apply to the operation of unmanned aircraft.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters who pointed out that the skills
necessary to obtain a part 61 pilot certificate would not equip the
remote pilot in command with all of the aeronautical skills necessary
to safely operate a small UAS and would instead impose a significant
cost burden without a corresponding safety benefit. Specifically,
manned-aircraft training may not prepare a pilot to deal with UAS-
specific issues such as how to maintain visual line of sight of the
unmanned aircraft or how to respond when signal to the unmanned
aircraft is lost.
    Required training for a part 61 pilot certificate would, however,
impose the burden of training on areas of knowledge that are
inapplicable to small UAS operations. For example, unlike a manned-
aircraft pilot, a remote pilot in

command does not need to know how to operate the flight controls of a
manned aircraft. Similarly, the remote pilot in command does not need
to be able to takeoff, land, or maneuver a manned aircraft. While these
skills are critical to the safe operation of manned aircraft and are
thus required for a part 61 pilot certificate, they are not typically
necessary for the safe operation of a small UAS. Because requiring a
part 61 pilot certificate would not ensure that certificate applicants
learn all areas of knowledge specific to small UAS operations while at
the same time requiring those applicants to learn areas of knowledge
that are not necessary to safely operate a small UAS, this rule will
not require a remote pilot in command to obtain a part 61 pilot
certificate.
    Several commenters stated that despite the language of 49 U.S.C.
44711(a)(2)(A), the FAA should not require an airman certificate for
small UAS operations conducted in rural areas on private property, and
at low altitudes. One commenter stated that there is no statutory or
regulatory requirement that a small UAS operator must be an airman
given that part 103 operators need not have an airman certificate yet
they fly in the NAS. Another commenter stated that the FAA was overly
broad in its definitions of aircraft and air commerce. The commenter
claimed the proposal ignored the flexibility FAA exercised in creating
the regulations of 14 CFR part 101 regulating amateur rockets, kites,
and unmanned free balloons. The commenter added that current part 101
regulations for these devices are safety-based and they appropriately
make no artificial distinction between commercial and non-commercial
use.
    Several other commenters disagreed with the proposed certificate
requirements, claiming they should not be applicable to hobbyists.
    In response to the comment arguing that the FAA was overly broad in
its definitions of aircraft and air commerce, the FAA notes that both
terms are defined by statute. As discussed earlier, the NTSB has held
that the statutory definition of ``aircraft'' is ``clear on [its]
face'' and that definition encompasses UAS.\71\ The NTSB has also held
that, based on the statutory definition of air commerce, ``any use of
an aircraft for purpose of flight constitutes air commerce.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Administrator v. Pirker, at 4-5, 8-12. A copy of the Pirker
decision can be found at: http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5730.pdf.
    \72\ Administrator v. Barrows, 7 NTSB 5, 8-9 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Turning to the comments arguing that certain UAS operations should
be exempt from airman certification, as discussed earlier, it is a
statutory requirement, under 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A), that a person
may not serve as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft used or
intended to be used in air commerce without an airman certificate. The
statute does not distinguish between different types of operations,
such as those suggested by the commenters. Accordingly, regardless of
where and how a small UAS operation is conducted, this rule will
require the person manipulating the flight controls of a small UAS to
hold a remote pilot certificate unless he or she is directly supervised
by a certificated remote pilot in command who has the ability to
immediately take direct control of the small unmanned aircraft.
However, as discussed in section III.C.4 of this preamble, operations
of model aircraft as a hobby or for recreational use under the
provisions of section 336 will not be subject to part 107. With regard
to parts 101 and 103, those regulations are beyond the scope of this
rule.
    The Flight School Association of North America and Event 38
Unmanned Systems suggested that the airman certificate should include
the operator's information and a color photo. Under this rule, the FAA
will issue the same type of pilot certificate for the remote pilot in
command as it does for all other airmen. The airman's specific
information will be listed along with the date of issuance. At this
time, the FAA does not issue airman certificates with a photo; however
the FAA is addressing that issue through a separate rulemaking effort.
    Event 38 Unmanned Systems suggested that the FAA create a database
of registered airmen, but limit accessibility to FAA and law
enforcement. NetMoby suggested allowing the public to access the
database so they may confirm a person flying a small UAS in their
vicinity is authorized to do so and assist in enforcement.
Additionally, NetMoby suggested that the FAA use the current airman
certificate database as the template for its suggested database.
    The FAA currently maintains an airman certification database that
permits the public to search or download through its public Web site.
This information includes name, address, and certificates and ratings
held by the certificate holder. The agency will issue remote pilot
certificates in accordance with its existing processes for issuing
airman certificates and the public will be able to search the airman
certification database for those who hold a remote pilot certificate.
The certificate holder may opt to request their address not be
published on the public Web site.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/change_releasability/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The University of North Dakota John D. Odegard School of Aerospace
Sciences recommended that the FAA remove the ``small UAS rating'' from
a part 107 airman certificate. The commenter stated that an additional
small UAS rating is redundant because part 107 will apply only to small
UAS operations.
    As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, this rule is only
one step of the FAA's broader effort to fully integrate all UAS
operations into the NAS. Future agency actions are anticipated to
integrate larger and more complex UAS operations into the NAS and
integrating those operations may require the creation of additional
UAS-specific airman certificate ratings. To accommodate these future
actions, the FAA will retain the small UAS rating.
    Textron Systems recommended establishing a small UAS certificate
with appropriate category ratings (e.g., rotorcraft or airplane) which
would require documentation of aeronautical experience and a practical
test prior to issuance. Textron stated the skills and knowledge
required to operate unmanned rotorcraft and unmanned airplanes are
substantially different during launch, semi-autonomous missions, and
recovery, and therefore there should be a difference indicated on the
certificate.
    The category and class designations used for part 61 pilot
certificates stem from the airworthiness certification designations
given on the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) when an aircraft type
becomes certificated. The TCDS identifies the airworthiness standards
that a specific aircraft has met as those standards differ for
different types of aircraft. However, as discussed in section III.J.3
of this preamble, small UAS operating under part 107 will not be
required to obtain an airworthiness certificate. As such, there will be
no airworthiness standards or a TCDS that will be issued for every
small UAS design, and a category designation would not be workable
under part 107.
    One commenter recommended that the FAA require that the remote
pilot certificate be displayed on a name badge, lanyard, or armband
during a small UAS operation in case the remote pilot in command is
approached or questioned about authorization for the activity.

    The FAA emphasizes that Sec.  107.7(a)(1) will require the remote
pilot certificate holder to, upon request, make his or her remote pilot
certificate available to the Administrator. This rule will not specify
the method by which the certificate holder stores and displays his or
her certificate, but whatever method is used, the certificate holder
must provide the certificate to the FAA upon request.
d. Emergency Powers of a Remote Pilot in Command
    In case of an in-flight emergency, the existing regulations in 14
CFR 91.3 give a PIC the power to deviate from the applicable FAA
regulations to the extent necessary to respond to that emergency.\74\ A
PIC who exercises this power must provide a written report of the
deviation to the FAA if requested to do so by the agency.\75\ The NPRM
proposed to not provide emergency powers to a small UAS operator
because a small unmanned aircraft is highly maneuverable and much
easier to land than a manned aircraft. Thus, the NPRM posited that in
an emergency situation, an operator should be able to promptly land the
small unmanned aircraft without needing to deviate from any part 107
regulations. The NPRM invited comments as to whether a small UAS remote
pilot in command should be permitted to exercise emergency powers
similar to those available to a PIC under Sec.  91.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 14 CFR 91.3(b).
    \75\ Id. Sec.  91.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters including AUVSI, AIA, and Trimble Navigation,
supported allowing small UAS operators to exercise emergency powers in
certain circumstances. Prioria provided examples where a small UAS may
need to violate the proposed 500-foot altitude limit and the visual-
line-of-sight requirement in order to avoid a collision with a manned
aircraft or remove an uncontrollable small unmanned aircraft from the
NAS. Another commenter provided an example of a situation where the
only viable option to prevent a mid-air collision would violate the
prohibition on operations over people (as a result of any lateral
movement by the UAS) or the various operational restrictions in Sec.
107.51 (as a result of any vertical movement by the UAS). The Permanent
Editorial Board of the Aviators Model Code of Conduct Initiative noted
that there are scenarios where unauthorized small UAS penetration of
controlled airspace may be required to avoid an accident, and proposed
that the FAA authorize small UAS operators to penetrate controlled
airspace to the extent necessary to avoid (at least) personal injury or
death.
    One commenter said small UAS operators should be permitted to
exercise emergency powers, but only to prevent serious injury, death,
or a mid-air collision. Southern Company and Trimble recommended
permitting UAS operators to deviate from FAA regulations in emergencies
to mitigate injury, damage, or risk. Southern Company argued that by
not extending emergency deviation authority to UAS operators, the FAA
could be forcing a UAS operator to choose between deviating from FAA
regulations and ensuring safety.
    Several commenters, including Skycatch, Clayco, and AUVSI,
specifically recommended revising proposed Sec.  107.19 to be
consistent with 14 CFR 91.3--i.e., allow an operator to deviate from
any rule of part 107 to the extent required in an emergency requiring
immediate action, and require, upon the request of the Administrator,
the operator to submit a written report of that deviation. Textron
Systems said that 14 CFR 91.3 should apply to UAS, because an unmanned
aircraft is considered an aircraft according to 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6).
AIA said the provisions and intent of Sec.  91.3 should apply to UAS.
    Conversely, NBAA, Predesa, Planehook, and another commenter
supported the FAA's proposal not to provide a remote pilot with the
emergency powers available to a PIC under Sec.  91.3(b). NBAA and
Predesa concurred with the FAA's proposal but did not provide any
additional justification. Planehook cited Articles 28 and 8 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation, which the commenter said
creates the basis for nations to grant emergency powers to the PIC of
an aircraft in distress, and Article 8, which the commenter said states
that each contracting State undertakes to ensure that the flight of
such aircraft without a pilot in regions open to civil aircraft shall
be controlled so as to obviate danger to civil aircraft. Planehook
contended that the granting of emergency powers to operators of
unmanned aircraft would violate this existing international agreement.
One commenter argued that until UAS are able to communicate, operate
accurately in controlled airspace, follow in-flight restrictions and
spacing requirements, and fly specific altitudes and routes, emergency
powers are unnecessary.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters who pointed out that there are
emergency scenarios in which a remote pilot may need to deviate from
certain provisions of part 107, such as altitude and visual line of
sight, to avoid an unexpected and unforeseen collision with a manned
aircraft or a person on the ground. The FAA also agrees that in certain
emergency situations it may be safer to deviate from one or more
operational requirements of part 107 (e.g., regarding altitude or
controlled airspace) than attempt to land the small unmanned aircraft
immediately. For example, if a manned aircraft approaches the small
unmanned aircraft from below, the small unmanned aircraft may be unable
to immediately descend and land without risking a collision.
    Accordingly, during an in-flight emergency, this rule will allow
the remote pilot in command to deviate from the provisions of part 107
to the extent necessary to respond to that emergency. As the FAA
previously pointed out with regard to its emergency regulations, ``the
plain-meaning dictionary definition of an emergency is an unexpected
and unforeseen serious occurrence or situation that requires urgent,
prompt action.'' \76\ Just as it does with other FAA regulations, this
plain meaning will govern the agency's understanding of what
constitutes an emergency for part 107 purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Letter to George K. Shaefer from Donald Byrne, Assistant
Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (April 16, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, because part 107 will allow a deviation only during
an in-flight emergency, this deviation cannot be taken for situations
that were expected or foreseen prior to the takeoff of the small
unmanned aircraft. If a remote pilot in command expects or foresees an
emergency situation prior to aircraft takeoff, then the remote pilot in
command must delay or cancel takeoff or otherwise alter the parameters
of the operation to the extent necessary to ensure full compliance with
part 107.
    The FAA also emphasizes that the remote pilot in command must
always prioritize the safety of human life above all other
considerations. As such, the remote pilot in command may not endanger
human life in order to save the small unmanned aircraft. To the
contrary, the remote pilot in command is expected to sacrifice the
small unmanned aircraft if it begins to pose a danger to human life.
    The FAA further agrees with (and has included in this rule) the
recommendation that, just like Sec.  91.3, the remote pilot in command
must, upon FAA request, submit a report to the FAA if he or she has
exercised his or her emergency powers. This report must provide a
detailed explanation of

what happened. This requirement will enable FAA oversight over the
exercise of emergency powers by giving the agency a method to better
understand the circumstances and reasons that an individual remote
pilot in command had for deviating from part 107.
    The FAA disagrees with the comment arguing that granting emergency
powers to a remote pilot in command would violate U.S. international
obligations. The FAA notes that Article 28 of the Convention of
International Civil Aviation, which was the provision cited by the
commenter, does not address the granting of emergency powers to remote
pilots of unmanned aircraft. Article 8 of that Convention, which
governs ``Pilotless aircraft,'' states that:
    ``No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be flown
without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State without
special authorization by that State and in accordance with the terms of
such authorization. Each contracting State undertakes to insure that
the flight of such aircraft without a pilot in regions open to civil
aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil
aircraft.''
    The plain language of Article 8 does not prohibit a contracting
State from giving emergency powers to a remote pilot in command
operating within that State. Because neither Article 8 nor any other
provision of the Convention of International Civil Aviation prohibits
the granting of emergency powers to a remote pilot in command, this
approach will not violate U.S. international obligations.
    Several commenters addressed the issue of proper emergency training
for small UAS operators. One commenter said that if small UAS operators
have passed a reasonable operator license exam, they can indeed be
trusted to behave well in an emergency situation. The NJIT Working
Group said that remote pilots need to be properly trained so they will
better understand what constitutes an emergency. Pointing to the NPRM's
discussion of training small UAS pilots on emergency procedures, ALPA
concurred with the need for training and recommended it include
considerations in the exercise of emergency authority, however remote
the likelihood of emergency may be.
    The FAA concurs with commenters' points that small UAS pilots must
be proficient in emergency procedures and the proper exercise of
emergency authority. That is why, as discussed in section III.F.2.j of
this preamble, emergency procedures and emergency authority will be
tested on the initial and recurrent knowledge tests. Thus, in order to
pass an initial knowledge test and obtain a remote pilot certificate,
applicants for a remote pilot certificate will need to acquire
proficiency in these areas of knowledge. UAS-specific exercises of
emergency procedures and authority will also be included in the
training course that part 61 pilot certificate \77\ holders will be
able to take instead of the initial and recurrent knowledge tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ For the purposes of this rule, references to ``part 61
pilot certificate holders'' specifically refer to holders of pilot
certificates other than student pilot certificates, which include
sport pilot, recreational pilot, private pilot, commercial pilot and
air transport pilot certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that the FAA conduct further analysis
before providing a small UAS pilot with emergency powers in the final
rule. The FAA disagrees. Emergency powers have been a longstanding
feature in FAA regulations without an adverse effect on safety because
they allow the PIC to respond to an emergency situation in a context-
specific manner.\78\ As discussed earlier in this section, deviating
from certain operational requirements may, at times, be unavoidable in
order to minimize risk to other people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See, e.g., 14 CFR 91.3, 121.557, 121.559, 135.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters suggested that the FAA prescribe specific methods to
respond to an emergency situation. One commenter stated that lost link
is an emergency and should be declared to ATC or on Unicom to notify
other air traffic. Another commenter similarly said small UAS operators
should be required to send out a distress signal to aircraft within the
vicinity if there is signal loss or other operational failures.
    The FAA does not mandate a specific response to an emergency, as
the safest response to an emergency situation may vary based on the
surrounding context. For example, the safest response to an emergency
situation in a rural area may differ from the safest response to the
same situation in an urban area. As such, the FAA will not limit the
remote pilot in command's ability to respond to an emergency situation
in a context-appropriate manner. Rather, a remote pilot in command is
permitted to respond as necessary to resolve the urgent situation.
There is neither a requirement nor a prohibition from declaring an
emergency, either by radio communication or by other means, if doing so
is appropriate under the circumstances. For example, in a lost-link
scenario, the remote pilot in command may declare an emergency if it
appears that the small unmanned aircraft may hit a person on the
ground. Conversely, lost link may not be an emergency if there are no
people or manned aircraft near the area of operation.
    The FAA also disagrees with the commenter who suggested that the
remote pilot in command must be required to send out a distress signal
if there is signal loss or other operational failures. Due to the
limited operational capabilities of small UAS, an operation failure or
signal loss may not necessarily constitute a hazard to persons or
property.
2. See-and-Avoid and Visibility Requirements
    To ensure that the person piloting the small UAS can safely see and
avoid other aircraft and people and property on the ground, the NPRM
proposed that small unmanned aircraft: (1) May only be operated within
visual line of sight; (2) must yield right of way to all other
aircraft; (3) may only be operated between the hours of sunrise and
sunset; and (4) must meet minimum weather and visibility requirements.
a. Visual Line of Sight
    Currently, 14 CFR 91.113(b) imposes a generally applicable
requirement that, during flight, ``vigilance shall be maintained by
each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other
aircraft.'' This see-and-avoid requirement is at the heart of the FAA's
regulatory structure, mitigating the risk of aircraft colliding in
midair. This requirement is currently satisfied in manned-aircraft
operations by a pilot on board the manned aircraft looking out from
inside the aircraft to see whether other aircraft are on a collision
course with the pilot's aircraft. However, the person controlling the
small UAS cannot see other aircraft in the same manner because he or
she is not inside the aircraft. That is why Public Law 112-95, section
333(b)(1) requires the FAA to consider, as a critical factor in this
rulemaking, whether a small UAS operation is conducted ``within visual
line of sight.''
    To address this issue, the NPRM proposed that the operator of the
small UAS must always be capable of maintaining visual line of sight of
the small unmanned aircraft unaided by any technology other than
glasses or contact lenses. The NPRM also proposed creating a new
position of visual observer to assist the operator in maintaining
visual line of sight. Under that proposal, if a visual observer is used
in the operation, then the visual observer could watch the small
unmanned aircraft instead of the operator. However, if a visual
observer was not used in the operation, then the operator would have to
exercise his or

her visual-line-of-sight capability to watch the small unmanned
aircraft.
    As proposed in the NPRM, the operator or visual observer would have
to be able to see the small unmanned aircraft throughout the entire
flight in order to: (1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location; (2)
determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction;