Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 80 › 80 FR 9544

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 21, 43, 45, 47, 61, 91, 101, 107, and 183 [Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150; Notice No. 15-01] RIN 2120-AJ60 Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

The FAA is proposing to amend its regulations to adopt specific rules to allow the operation of small unmanned aircraft systems in the National Airspace System. These changes would address the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, certification of their operators, registration, and display of registration markings. The proposed rule would also find that airworthiness certification is not required for small unmanned aircraft system operations that would be subject to this proposed rule. Lastly, the proposed rule would prohibit model aircraft from endangering the safety of the National Airspace System.

DATES:

Send comments on or before April 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0150 using any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process

Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Lance Nuckolls, Office of Aviation Safety, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, AFS-80, Federal Aviation Administration, 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW., Suite 3200, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-8447; email UAS-rule@faa.gov.

For legal questions concerning this action, contact Alex Zektser, Office of Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division, AGC-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email Alex.Zektser@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95)

ternational Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division, AGC-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email Alex.Zektser@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95). Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 directs the Secretary of Transportation 1 to determine whether “certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system.” If the Secretary determines, pursuant to section 333, that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, then the Secretary must “establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” 2

1 The primary authority for this rulemaking is based on section 333 of Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012). In addition, this rulemaking also relies on FAA statutory authorities. Thus, for the purposes of this rulemaking, the terms “FAA,” “the agency,” “DOT,” and “the Secretary,” are used synonymously throughout this document.

2 Public Law 112-95, section 333(c). In addition, Public Law 112-95, section 332(b)(1) requires the Secretary to issue “a final rule on small unmanned aircraft systems that will allow for civil operation of such systems in the national airspace system, to the extent the systems do not meet the requirements for expedited operational authorization under sections 333 of [Pub. L. 112-95].”

This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C

Pub. L. 112-95].”

Finally, the model-aircraft component of this rulemaking incorporates the statutory mandate in section 336(b) that preserves the FAA's authority, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and 44701(a)(5), to pursue enforcement “against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC Advisory Circular

AGL Above Ground Level

ACR Airman Certification Representative

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee

ATC Air Traffic Control

CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement

CAR Civil Air Regulation

CFI Certified Flight Instructor

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization

DPE Designated Pilot Examiner

FR Federal Register

FSDO Flight Standards District Office

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NAS National Airspace System

NOTAM Notice to Airmen

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

PIC Pilot in Command

Pub. L. Public Law

PMA Parts Manufacturer Approval

TFR Temporary Flight Restriction

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSO Technical Standard Order

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

U.S.C. United States Code

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action C. Costs and Benefits II. Background A

Pub. L. Public Law

PMA Parts Manufacturer Approval

TFR Temporary Flight Restriction

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSO Technical Standard Order

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

U.S.C. United States Code

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action C. Costs and Benefits II. Background A. Analysis of Public Risk Posed by Small UAS Operations B. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Small UAS C. Integrating Small UAS Operations Into the NAS III. Discussion of the Proposal A. Incremental Approach and Privacy B. Applicability 1. Air Carrier Operations 2. External Load and Towing Operations 3. International Operations 4. Foreign-Owned Aircraft That Are Ineligible for U.S. Registration 5. Public Aircraft Operations 6. Model Aircraft 7. Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons C. Definitions 1. Control Station 2. Corrective Lenses 3. Operator and Visual Observer 4. Small Unmanned Aircraft 5. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (small UAS) 6. Unmanned Aircraft D. Operating Rules 1. Micro UAS Classification 2. Operator and Visual Observer i. Operator ii. Visual Observer 3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility Requirements i. See-and-Avoid ii. Additional Visibility Requirements iii. Yielding Right of Way 4. Containment and Loss of Positive Control i. Confined Area of Operation Boundaries ii. Mitigating Loss-of-Positive-Control Risk 5. Limitations on Operations in Certain Airspace i. Controlled Airspace ii. Prohibited or Restricted Areas iii. Areas Designated by Notice to Airmen 6. Airworthiness, Inspection, Maintenance, and Airworthiness Directives i. Inspections and Maintenance ii. Airworthiness Directives 7. Miscellaneous Operating Provisions i. Careless or Reckless Operation ii. Drug and Alcohol Prohibition iii. Medical Conditions iv. Sufficient Power for the Small UAS v. Registration and Marking E. Operator Certificate 1. Applicability 2

esignated by Notice to Airmen 6. Airworthiness, Inspection, Maintenance, and Airworthiness Directives i. Inspections and Maintenance ii. Airworthiness Directives 7. Miscellaneous Operating Provisions i. Careless or Reckless Operation ii. Drug and Alcohol Prohibition iii. Medical Conditions iv. Sufficient Power for the Small UAS v. Registration and Marking E. Operator Certificate 1. Applicability 2. Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate—Eligibility & Issuance i. Minimum Age ii. English Language Proficiency iii. Pilot Qualification a. Flight Proficiency and Aeronautical Experience b. Initial Aeronautical Knowledge Test c. Areas of Knowledge Tested on the Initial Knowledge Test d. Administration of the Initial Knowledge Test e. Recurrent Aeronautical Knowledge Test i. General Requirement and Administration of the Recurrent Knowledge Test ii. Recurrent Test Areas of Knowledge iv. Issuance of an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate With Small UAS Rating v. Not Requiring an Airman Medical Certificate 4. Military Equivalency 5. Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate: Denial, Revocation, Suspension, Amendment, and Surrender i. Transportation Security Administration Vetting and Positive Identification ii. Drugs and Alcohol Violations iii. Change of Name iv. Change of Address v. Voluntary Surrender of Certificate F. Registration G. Marking 1. Display of Registration Number 2. Marking of Products and Articles H. Fraud and False Statements I. Oversight 1. Inspection, Testing, and Demonstration of Compliance 2. Accident Reporting J. Section 333 Statutory Findings 1. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public 2. National Security 3. Airworthiness Certification IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation 1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 2. Who is potentially affected by this Rule? 4. Benefit Summary 5. Cost Summary B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination (IRFA) 1. Description of Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action 2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule 3

. Airworthiness Certification IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation 1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 2. Who is potentially affected by this Rule? 4. Benefit Summary 5. Cost Summary B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination (IRFA) 1. Description of Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action 2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule 3. Description of the Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule 4. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule 5. Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply 6. Alternatives Considered C. International Trade Impact Assessment D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment E. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. Obtaining an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate With a Small UAS Rating 2. Registering a Small Unmanned Aircraft 3. Accident Reporting F. International Compatibility and Cooperation G. Environmental Analysis H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use VI. Additional Information A. Comments Invited B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This rulemaking proposes operating requirements to allow small unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) to operate for non-hobby or non-recreational purposes. A small UAS consists of a small unmanned aircraft (which, as defined by statute, is an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds 3 ) and equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft. The FAA has accommodated non-recreational small UAS use through various mechanisms, such as special airworthiness certificates, exemptions, and certificates of waiver or authorization (COA). This proposed rule would be the next phase of integrating small UAS into the NAS

nmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds 3 ) and equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft. The FAA has accommodated non-recreational small UAS use through various mechanisms, such as special airworthiness certificates, exemptions, and certificates of waiver or authorization (COA). This proposed rule would be the next phase of integrating small UAS into the NAS.

3 Public Law 112-95, sec. 331(6).

The following are examples of possible small UAS operations that could be conducted under this proposed framework:

• Crop monitoring/inspection;

• Research and development;

• Educational/academic uses;

• Power-line/pipeline inspection in hilly or mountainous terrain;

• Antenna inspections;

• Aiding certain rescue operations such as locating snow avalanche victims;

• Bridge inspections;

• Aerial photography; and

• Wildlife nesting area evaluations.

Because of the potential societally beneficial applications of small UAS, the FAA has been seeking to incorporate the operation of these systems into the national airspace system (NAS) since 2008. In April 2008, the FAA chartered the small UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). In April 2009, the ARC provided the FAA with recommendations on how small UAS could be safely integrated into the NAS. Since that time, the FAA has been working on a rulemaking to incorporate small UAS operations into the NAS.

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 directed the Secretary to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount of public risk and no threat to national security could safely be operated in the NAS and if so, to establish requirements for the safe operation of these systems in the NAS, prior to completion of the UAS comprehensive plan and rulemakings required by section 332 of Public Law 112-95

ection 333 of Public Law 112-95 directed the Secretary to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount of public risk and no threat to national security could safely be operated in the NAS and if so, to establish requirements for the safe operation of these systems in the NAS, prior to completion of the UAS comprehensive plan and rulemakings required by section 332 of Public Law 112-95. As part of its ongoing efforts to integrate UAS operations in the NAS in accordance with section 332, and as authorized by section 333 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA is proposing to amend its regulations to adopt specific rules for the operation of small UAS in the NAS.

Based on our experience with the certification, exemption, and COA process, the FAA has developed the framework proposed in this rule to enable certain small UAS operations to commence upon adoption of the final rule and accommodate technologies as they evolve and mature. This proposed framework would allow small UAS operations for many different non-recreational purposes, such as the ones discussed previously, without requiring airworthiness certification, exemption, or a COA.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

Specifically, the FAA is proposing to add a new part 107 to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow for routine civil operation of small UAS in the NAS and to provide safety rules for those operations. Consistent with the statutory definition, the proposed rule defines small UAS as those UAS weighing less than 55 pounds. To mitigate risk, the proposed rule would limit small UAS to daylight-only operations, confined areas of operation, and visual-line-of-sight operations. This proposed rule also addresses aircraft registration and marking, NAS operations, operator certification, visual observer requirements, and operational limits in order to maintain the safety of the NAS and ensure that they do not pose a threat to national security. Below is a summary of the major provisions of the proposed rule

, confined areas of operation, and visual-line-of-sight operations. This proposed rule also addresses aircraft registration and marking, NAS operations, operator certification, visual observer requirements, and operational limits in order to maintain the safety of the NAS and ensure that they do not pose a threat to national security. Below is a summary of the major provisions of the proposed rule.

Summary of Major Provisions of Proposed Part 107 Operational Limitations • Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg). • Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the operator or visual observer. • At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the operator for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. • Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly involved in the operation. • Daylight-only operations (official sunrise to official sunset, local time). • Must yield right-of-way to other aircraft, manned or unmanned. • May use visual observer (VO) but not required. • First-person view camera cannot satisfy “see-and-avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways. • Maximum airspeed of 100 mph (87 knots). • Maximum altitude of 500 feet above ground level. • Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station. • No operations are allowed in Class A (18,000 feet & above) airspace. • Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission. • Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission • No person may act as an operator or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time. • No operations from a moving vehicle or aircraft, except from a watercraft on the water. • No careless or reckless operations. • Requires preflight inspection by the operator

E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission. • Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission • No person may act as an operator or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time. • No operations from a moving vehicle or aircraft, except from a watercraft on the water. • No careless or reckless operations. • Requires preflight inspection by the operator. • A person may not operate a small unmanned aircraft if he or she knows or has reason to know of any physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS. • Proposes a microUAS category that would allow operations in Class G airspace, over people not involved in the operation, and would require airman to self-certify that they are familiar with the aeronautical knowledge testing areas. Operator Certification and Responsibilities • Pilots of a small UAS would be considered “operators”. • Operators would be required to: ○ Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center. ○ Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration. ○ Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing pilot airman certificates, never expires). ○ Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test every 24 months. ○ Be at least 17 years old. ○ Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule. ○ Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage. ○ Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation. Aircraft Requirements • FAA airworthiness certification not required. However, operator must maintain a small UAS in condition for safe operation and prior to flight must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation

erty damage. ○ Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation. Aircraft Requirements • FAA airworthiness certification not required. However, operator must maintain a small UAS in condition for safe operation and prior to flight must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. Aircraft Registration required (same requirements that apply to all other aircraft). • Aircraft markings required (same requirements that apply to all other aircraft). If aircraft is too small to display markings in standard size, then the aircraft simply needs to display markings in the largest practicable manner. Model Aircraft • Proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95. • The proposed rule would codify the FAA's enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the NAS. Operator Certification: Under the proposed rule, the person who manipulates the flight controls of a small UAS would be defined as an “operator.” A small UAS operator would be required to pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating from the FAA before operating a small UAS. In order to maintain his or her operator certification, the operator would be

Visual Observer: Under the proposed rule, an operator would not be required to work with a visual observer, but a visual observer could be used to assist the operator with the proposed visual-line-of-sight and see-and-avoid requirements by maintaining constant visual contact with the small unmanned aircraft in place of the operator. While an operator would always be required to have the capability for visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft, this proposed rule would not require the operator to exercise this capability if he or she is augmented by at least one visual observer

ine-of-sight and see-and-avoid requirements by maintaining constant visual contact with the small unmanned aircraft in place of the operator. While an operator would always be required to have the capability for visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft, this proposed rule would not require the operator to exercise this capability if he or she is augmented by at least one visual observer. No certification requirements are being proposed for visual observers. A small UAS operation would not be limited in the number of visual observers involved in the operation, but the operator and visual observer(s) must remain situated such that the operator and any visual observer(s) are all able to view the aircraft at any given time. The operator and visual observer(s) would be permitted to communicate by radio or other communication-assisting device, so they would not need to remain in close enough physical proximity to allow for unassisted oral communication.

Since the operator and any visual observers would be required to be in a position to maintain or achieve visual line of sight with the aircraft at all times, the proposed rule would effectively prohibit a relay or “daisy-chain” formation of multiple visual observers by requiring that the operator must always be capable of seeing the small unmanned aircraft. Such arrangements would potentially expand the area of a small UAS operation and pose an increased public risk if there is a loss of aircraft control.

Operational Scope: A small UAS operator would be required to see and avoid all other users of the NAS in the area in which the small UAS is operating. The proposed rule contains operating restrictions designed to help ensure that the operator is able to yield right-of-way to other aircraft at all times.

The proposed rule would limit the exposure of small unmanned aircraft to other users of the NAS by restricting small UAS operations in controlled airspace

see and avoid all other users of the NAS in the area in which the small UAS is operating. The proposed rule contains operating restrictions designed to help ensure that the operator is able to yield right-of-way to other aircraft at all times.

The proposed rule would limit the exposure of small unmanned aircraft to other users of the NAS by restricting small UAS operations in controlled airspace. Specifically, small UAS would be prohibited from operating in Class A airspace, and would require prior permission from Air Traffic Control to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace, or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport. The risk of collision with other aircraft would be further reduced by limiting small UAS operations to a maximum airspeed of 87 knots (100 mph) and a maximum altitude of 500 feet above ground.

Further, in order to enable maximum visibility for small UAS operation, the proposed rule would restrict small UAS to daylight-only operations (sunrise to sunset), and impose a minimum weather-visibility of 3 statute miles (5 kilometers) from the small UAS control station.

Aircraft Maintenance: Under the proposed rule, the operator of a small UAS would be required to conduct a preflight inspection before each flight operation, and determine that the small UAS (aircraft, control station, launch and recovery equipment, etc.) is safe for operation.

Airworthiness: Pursuant to section 333(b)(2) of Public Law 112-95, the Secretary has determined that small UAS subject to this proposed rule would not require airworthiness certification because the safety concerns associated with small UAS operation would be mitigated by the other provisions of this proposed rule. Rather, this proposed rule would require the operator to ensure that the small UAS is in a condition for safe operation by conducting an inspection prior to each flight

determined that small UAS subject to this proposed rule would not require airworthiness certification because the safety concerns associated with small UAS operation would be mitigated by the other provisions of this proposed rule. Rather, this proposed rule would require the operator to ensure that the small UAS is in a condition for safe operation by conducting an inspection prior to each flight.

Registration and Marking: This proposed rule would apply to small unmanned aircraft the current registration requirements that apply to all aircraft. Once a small unmanned aircraft is registered, this proposed rule would require that aircraft to display its registration marking in a manner similar to what is currently required of all aircraft.

C. Costs and Benefits

This proposed rule reflects the fact that technological advances in small UAS have led to a developing commercial market for their uses by providing a safe operating environment for them and for other aircraft in the NAS. In time, the FAA anticipates that the proposed rule would provide an opportunity to substitute small UAS operations for some higher risk manned flights, such as inspecting towers, bridges, or other structures. The use of small unmanned aircraft would avert potential fatalities and injuries to those in the aircraft and on the ground. It would also lead to more efficient methods of performing certain commercial tasks that are currently performed by other methods. The FAA has not quantified the benefits for this proposed rulemaking because we lack sufficient data. The FAA invites commenters to provide data that could be used to quantify the benefits of this proposed rule.

For any commercial operation occurring because this rule is enacted, the operator/owner of that small UAS will have determined the expected revenue stream of the flights exceeds the cost of the flights operation. In each such case this rule helps enable new markets to develop.

The costs are shown in the table below

provide data that could be used to quantify the benefits of this proposed rule.

The costs are shown in the table below.

Total and Present Value Cost Summary by Provision [Thousands of current year dollars] Type of cost Total costs (000) 7% P.V. (000) Applicant/small UAS operator: Travel Expense $151.7 $125.9 Knowledge Test Fees 2,548.6 2,114.2 Positive Identification of the Applicant Fee 434.3 383.7 Owner: Small UAS Registration Fee 85.7 70.0 Time Resource Opportunity Costs: Applicants Travel Time 296.1 245.3 Knowledge Test Application 108.9 90.2 Physical Capability Certification 20.0 17.7 Knowledge Test Time 1,307.1 1,082.9 Small UAS Registration Form 220.5 179.7 Change of Name or Address Form 14.9 12.3 Knowledge Test Report 154.9 128.5 Pre-flight Inspection Not quantified Accident Reporting Minimal cost Government Costs: TSA Security Vetting 1,026.5 906.9 FAA—sUAS Operating Certificate 39.6 35.0 FAA—Registration 394.3 321.8 Total Costs 6,803.1 5,714.0 * Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding. II. Background

This NPRM addresses the operation, airman certification, and registration of civil small UAS.

A small UAS consists of a small unmanned aircraft and associated elements that are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft in the NAS. Associated elements that are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft include the interface that is used to control the small unmanned aircraft (known as a control station) and communication links between the control station and the small unmanned aircraft

ned aircraft and associated elements that are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft in the NAS. Associated elements that are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft include the interface that is used to control the small unmanned aircraft (known as a control station) and communication links between the control station and the small unmanned aircraft. A small unmanned aircraft is defined by statute as “an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.” 4 Due to the size of a small unmanned aircraft, the FAA envisions considerable potential business and non-business applications, particularly in areas that are hard to reach for a manned aircraft.

4 Sec. 331(6) of Public Law 112-95.

The following are examples of possible small UAS operations that could be conducted under this proposed framework:

• Crop monitoring/inspection;

• Research and development;

• Educational/academic uses;

• Power-line/pipeline inspection in hilly or mountainous terrain;

• Antenna inspections;

• Aiding certain rescue operations such as locating snow avalanche victims;

• Bridge inspections;

• Aerial photography; and

• Wildlife nesting area evaluations.

The following sections discuss: (1) The public risk associated with small UAS operations; (2) the current legal framework governing small UAS operations; and (3) the FAA's ongoing efforts to incorporate small UAS operations into the NAS.

A. Analysis of Public Risk Posed by Small UAS Operations

Small UAS operations pose risk considerations that are different from the risk considerations associated with manned-aircraft operations. On one hand, certain operations of a small unmanned aircraft, discussed more fully in section III.D of this preamble, have the potential to pose significantly less risk to persons and property than comparable operations of a manned aircraft. The typical total takeoff weight of a general aviation aircraft is between 1,300 and 6,000 pounds

k considerations associated with manned-aircraft operations. On one hand, certain operations of a small unmanned aircraft, discussed more fully in section III.D of this preamble, have the potential to pose significantly less risk to persons and property than comparable operations of a manned aircraft. The typical total takeoff weight of a general aviation aircraft is between 1,300 and 6,000 pounds. By contrast, the total takeoff weight of a small unmanned aircraft is less than 55 pounds. Consequently, because a small unmanned aircraft is significantly lighter than a manned aircraft, in the event of a mishap, the small unmanned aircraft would pose significantly less risk to persons and property on the ground. As such, a small UAS operation whose parameters are well defined so it does not pose a significant risk to other aircraft would also pose a smaller overall public risk or threat to national security than the operation of a manned aircraft.

However, even though small UAS operations have the potential to pose a lower level of public risk in certain types of operations, the unmanned nature of the small UAS operations raises two unique safety concerns that are not present in manned-aircraft operations. The first safety concern is whether the person operating the small unmanned aircraft, who would be physically separated from that aircraft during flight, would have the ability to see manned aircraft in the air in time to prevent a mid-air collision between the small unmanned aircraft and another aircraft. As discussed in more detail below, the FAA's regulations currently require each person operating an aircraft to maintain vigilance “so as to see and avoid other aircraft.” 5 This is one of the fundamental principles for collision avoidance in the NAS.

5 14 CFR 91.113(b).

For manned-aircraft operations, “see and avoid” is the responsibility of persons on board an aircraft

and another aircraft. As discussed in more detail below, the FAA's regulations currently require each person operating an aircraft to maintain vigilance “so as to see and avoid other aircraft.” 5 This is one of the fundamental principles for collision avoidance in the NAS.

5 14 CFR 91.113(b).

For manned-aircraft operations, “see and avoid” is the responsibility of persons on board an aircraft. By contrast, small unmanned aircraft operations have no human beings physically on the unmanned aircraft with the same visual perspective and the ability to see other aircraft in the manner of a manned-aircraft pilot. Thus, the challenge for small unmanned aircraft operations is to ensure that the person operating the small unmanned aircraft is able to see and avoid other aircraft.

In considering this issue, the FAA examined to what extent existing technology could provide a solution to this problem. The FAA notes that advances in technologies that use ground-based radar and aircraft sensors to detect the reply signals from aircraft ATC transponders have provided significant improvement in the ability to detect other aircraft in close proximity to each other. The Traffic Collision Avoidance System also has the ability to provide guidance to flight crews to maneuver appropriately to avoid a mid-air collision. Both of these technologies have done an excellent job in reducing the mid-air collision rate between manned aircraft. Unfortunately, the equipment required to utilize these widely available technologies is

utilize these widely available technologies is

The second safety concern with small UAS operations is the possibility that, during flight, the person operating the small UAS may become unable to use the control interface to operate the small unmanned aircraft due to a failure of the control link between the aircraft and the operator's control station. This is known as a loss of positive control. This situation may result from a system failure or because the aircraft has been flown beyond the signal range or in an area where control link communication between the aircraft and the control station is interrupted. A small unmanned aircraft whose flight is unable to be directly controlled could pose a significant risk to persons, property, or other aircraft.

B. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Small UAS

Due to the lack of an onboard pilot, small unmanned aircraft are unable to see and avoid other aircraft in the NAS. Therefore, small UAS operations conflict with the FAA's current operating regulations codified in 14 CFR part 91 that apply to general aviation. Specifically, at the heart of the part 91 operating regulations is § 91.113(b), which requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain vigilance “so as to see and avoid other aircraft.”

The FAA created this requirement in a 1968 rulemaking that combined two previous aviation regulatory provisions, Civil Air Regulations (CAR) §§ 60.13(c) and 60.30. 6 Both of the provisions that were combined to create the “see and avoid” requirement of § 91.113(b) were intended to address aircraft collision-awareness problems by requiring that a pilot on board the aircraft look out of the aircraft during flight to observe whether other aircraft are on a collision path with his or her aircraft. Those provisions did not contemplate the use of technology to substitute for the human vision of a pilot on board the aircraft

e and avoid” requirement of § 91.113(b) were intended to address aircraft collision-awareness problems by requiring that a pilot on board the aircraft look out of the aircraft during flight to observe whether other aircraft are on a collision path with his or her aircraft. Those provisions did not contemplate the use of technology to substitute for the human vision of a pilot on board the aircraft. Similarly, there is no evidence that those provisions contemplated a pilot fulfilling his or her “see and avoid” responsibilities from outside the aircraft. To the contrary, CAR section 60.13(c) stated that one of the problems it intended to address was “preoccupation by the pilot with cockpit duties,” which indicates that the regulation contemplated the presence of a pilot on board the aircraft.

6 Pilot Vigilance, 33 FR 10505 (July 24, 1968).

Because the regulations that resulted in the see-and-avoid requirement of § 91.113(b) did not contemplate that this requirement could be complied with by a pilot who is outside the aircraft, § 91.113(b) currently requires an aircraft pilot to have the perspective of being inside the aircraft as that aircraft is moving in order to see and avoid other aircraft. Since the operator of a small UAS does not have this perspective, operation of a small UAS could not meet the see and avoid requirement of § 91.113(b) at this time.

In addition to currently being prohibited by § 91.113(b), there are also statutory considerations that apply to small UAS operations. Specifically, even though a small UAS is different from a manned aircraft, the operation of a small UAS still involves the operation of an aircraft. This is because the FAA's statute defines an “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air.” 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). Since a small unmanned aircraft is a contrivance that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, a small unmanned aircraft is an aircraft for purposes of the FAA's statutes

of a small UAS still involves the operation of an aircraft. This is because the FAA's statute defines an “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air.” 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). Since a small unmanned aircraft is a contrivance that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, a small unmanned aircraft is an aircraft for purposes of the FAA's statutes. 7

7 Public Law 112-95 reaffirmed that an unmanned aircraft is indeed an aircraft by defining an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.” Sec. 331(8), Public Law 112-95 (emphasis added).

Because a small UAS involves the operation of an “aircraft,” this triggers the FAA's registration and certification statutory requirements. Specifically, subject to certain exceptions, a person may not operate a civil aircraft that is not registered. 49 U.S.C. 44101(a). In addition, a person may not operate a civil aircraft in air commerce without an airworthiness certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1). Finally, a person may not serve in any capacity as an airman on a civil aircraft being operated in air commerce without an airman certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). 8

8 The statutes also impose other requirements that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For example, 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(4) prohibits a person from operating as an air carrier without an air-carrier operating certificate.

44711(a)(4) prohibits a person from operating as an air carrier without an air-carrier operating certificate.

The term “air commerce,” as used in the FAA's statutes, is defined broadly to include “the operation of aircraft within the limits of a Federal airway, or the operation of aircraft that directly affects, or may endanger safety in foreign or interstate air commerce.” 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(3). Because of this broad definition, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held that “any use of an aircraft, for purpose of flight, constitutes air commerce.” 9 Courts that have considered this issue have reached similar conclusions that “air commerce,” as defined in the FAA's statute, encompasses a broad range of commercial and non-commercial aircraft operations. 10

9 Administrator v. Barrows, 7 N.T.S.B. 5, 8-9 (1990).

10 See, e.g. , United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 84-85 (1964) (holding that “air commerce” is not limited to commercial airplanes); Hill v. NTSB, 886 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1989) (“[t]he statutory definition of “air commerce” is therefore clearly not restricted to interstate flights occurring in controlled or navigable airspace”); United States v. Drumm, 55 F. Supp. 151, 155 (D. Nev. 1944) (“any operation of any aircraft in the air space either directly affects or may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce”).

Accordingly, because “air commerce” encompasses such a broad range of aircraft operations, a civil small unmanned aircraft cannot currently be operated, for purposes of flight, if: (1) It is not registered (49 U.S.C. 44101(a)); (2) it does not possess an airworthiness certificate (49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1)); and (3) the airman operating the aircraft does not possess an airman certificate (49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A)). However, the FAA's current processes for issuing airworthiness and airman certificates were designed to be used for manned aircraft and do not take into account the considerations associated with civil small UAS

; (2) it does not possess an airworthiness certificate (49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1)); and (3) the airman operating the aircraft does not possess an airman certificate (49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A)). However, the FAA's current processes for issuing airworthiness and airman certificates were designed to be used for manned aircraft and do not take into account the considerations associated with civil small UAS.

Specifically, obtaining a type certificate and a standard airworthiness certificate, which permits the widest range of aircraft operation, currently takes about 3 to 5 years. Because the pertinent existing regulations do not differentiate between manned and unmanned aircraft, a small UAS is currently subject to the same airworthiness certification process as a manned aircraft. However, it is not practically feasible for many small UAS manufacturers to go through the certification process required of manned aircraft. This is because small UAS technology is rapidly evolving at this time, and consequently, if a small UAS manufacturer goes through a 3-to-5-year process to obtain a type certificate, which enables the issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, the small UAS would be technologically outdated by the time it completed the certification process. For example, advances in lightweight battery technology may allow new lightweight transponders and power sources within the next 3 to 5 years that are currently unavailable for small UAS operations.

The FAA notes that there are several other certification options available to

• A special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category may be issued to UAS pursuant to 14 CFR 21.191-21.195. This certificate is time-limited, and cannot be used for any activities other than research and development, market surveys, and crew training.

• A special flight permit may be issued pursuant to 14 CFR 21.197. At this time, however, a special flight permit for a UAS is limited to production flight testing of new production aircraft

category may be issued to UAS pursuant to 14 CFR 21.191-21.195. This certificate is time-limited, and cannot be used for any activities other than research and development, market surveys, and crew training.

• A special flight permit may be issued pursuant to 14 CFR 21.197. At this time, however, a special flight permit for a UAS is limited to production flight testing of new production aircraft. 11

11 A special flight permit for production flight testing is not limited to small UAS and can be obtained for unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds. We emphasize, however, that a special flight permit is limited at this time to production flight testing and will include operational requirements and limitations.

• A special airworthiness certificate in the restricted category is issued pursuant to 14 CFR 21.25(a). There are two options for obtaining this certificate.

First, pursuant to § 21.25(a)(2), a certificate may be issued for aircraft accepted by an Armed Force of the United States and later modified for a special purpose.

Second, pursuant to § 21.25(a)(1), a certificate may be issued for aircraft used in special purpose operations, which consist of:

(1) agricultural operations;

(2) forest and wildlife conservation;

(3) aerial surveying;

(4) patrolling (pipelines, power lines, and canals);

(5) weather control;

(6) aerial advertising; and

(7) any other operation specified by the FAA.

As can be seen from the above list, the current certification options are limited to very specific purposes. Accordingly, they do not provide sufficient flexibility for most routine civil small UAS operations within the NAS.

UAS operations within the NAS.

In addition to obtaining an airworthiness certificate, any person serving as an airman in the operation of a small UAS must obtain an airman certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). The statute defines an “airman” to include an individual who is “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 person operating the small UAS is in command and is a member of the crew who navigates the aircraft, that person is an airman and must obtain an airman certificate.

Under current pilot certification regulations, depending on the type of operation, the operator of the small UAS currently must obtain either a private pilot certificate or a commercial pilot certificate. A private pilot certificate cannot be used to operate a small UAS for compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to the operator's business or employment. 12 Typically, to obtain a private pilot certificate, the small UAS operator currently has to: (1) Receive training in specific aeronautical knowledge areas; (2) receive training from an authorized instructor on specific areas of aircraft operation; (3) obtain a minimum of 40 hours of flight experience; and (4) obtain a third-class airman medical certificate. 13 Conversely, holding at least a commercial pilot certificate allows the small UAS to generally be used for compensation or hire, but is more difficult to obtain. In addition to the requirements necessary to obtain a private pilot certificate, applicants for a commercial pilot certificate currently need to also obtain 250 hours of flight time, satisfy extensive testing requirements, and obtain a second-class airman medical certificate. 14

12 See 14 CFR 61.113.

13 See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart E and § 61.23(a)(3)(i).

14 See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart F and § 61.23(a)(2)

o the requirements necessary to obtain a private pilot certificate, applicants for a commercial pilot certificate currently need to also obtain 250 hours of flight time, satisfy extensive testing requirements, and obtain a second-class airman medical certificate. 14

12 See 14 CFR 61.113.

13 See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart E and § 61.23(a)(3)(i).

14 See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart F and § 61.23(a)(2).

While these airman certification requirements are necessary for manned aircraft operations, they impose an unnecessary burden for many small UAS operations. This is because a person typically obtains a private or commercial pilot certificate by learning how to operate a manned aircraft. Much of that knowledge would not be applicable to small UAS operations because a small UAS is operated differently than a manned aircraft. In addition, the knowledge currently necessary to obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate would not equip the certificate holder with the tools necessary to safely operate a small UAS. Specifically, applicants for a private or commercial pilot certificate currently are not trained in how to deal with the “see-and-avoid” and loss-of-positive-control safety issues that are unique to small unmanned aircraft. Thus, requiring persons wishing to operate a small UAS to obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate imposes the cost of certification on those persons, but does not result in a significant safety benefit because the process of obtaining the certificate does not equip those persons with the tools necessary to mitigate the public risk posed by small UAS operations.

gnificant safety benefit because the process of obtaining the certificate does not equip those persons with the tools necessary to mitigate the public risk posed by small UAS operations.

Recognizing the problem of applying the operating rules of part 91 to small UAS operations and the cost imposed on small UAS operations by existing certification processes, the FAA fashioned a temporary solution. Specifically, the FAA issued an advisory circular (AC) 91-57 and a policy statement elaborating on AC 91-57, which provide guidance for the safe operation of “model aircraft.” The policy statement defines a “model aircraft” as a UAS that is used for hobby or recreational purposes. 15 The policy statement explains that AC 91-57:

15 See Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System, 72 FR 6689, 6690 (Feb. 13, 2007) (explaining how AC 91-57 functions).

[E]ncourages good judgment on the part of operators so that persons on the ground or other aircraft in flight will not be endangered. The AC contains among other things, guidance for site selection. Users are advised to avoid noise sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. Hobbyists are advised not to fly in the vicinity of spectators until they are confident that the model aircraft has been flight tested and proven airworthy. Model aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the surface to avoid other aircraft in flight. The FAA expects that hobbyists will operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-sight. 16

16 Id.

Neither AC 91-57 nor the associated policy statement contains any registration or certification requirements. 17

operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-sight. 16

16 Id.

Neither AC 91-57 nor the associated policy statement contains any registration or certification requirements. 17

17 The policy statement did, however, explain the COA process that is currently used to allow public aircraft operations with UAS. This process is discussed in detail in section III.C of this preamble. As discussed in that section, this proposed rule would allow public aircraft operations with UAS to voluntarily comply with proposed part 107, but would otherwise leave the existing public aircraft operations COA process unchanged.

To date, the FAA has used its discretion 18 to not bring enforcement action against model-aircraft operations that comply with AC 91-57. However, the use of discretion to permit continuing violation of FAA statutes and regulations is not a viable long-term solution for incorporating UAS operations into the NAS. Additionally, because AC 91-57 and the associated policy statement are limited to model aircraft, they do not apply to non-recreational UAS operations. Thus, even with the use of enforcement discretion, because of the difficulty of obtaining the

18 As used in this context, “discretion” refers to the FAA's power to decide whether to commence an enforcement action.

C. Integrating Small UAS Operations Into the NAS

To address the issues discussed above, the FAA chartered the small UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on April 10, 2008. On April 1, 2009, the ARC provided the FAA with recommendations on how small UAS could be safely integrated into the NAS. 19 In 2013, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a comprehensive plan and subsequently the FAA issued a roadmap of its efforts to achieve safe integration of UAS operations into the NAS. 20

19 A copy of the small UAS ARC Report and Recommendations can be found in the docket for this rulemaking

provided the FAA with recommendations on how small UAS could be safely integrated into the NAS. 19 In 2013, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a comprehensive plan and subsequently the FAA issued a roadmap of its efforts to achieve safe integration of UAS operations into the NAS. 20

19 A copy of the small UAS ARC Report and Recommendations can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.

20 http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). In section 332(b) of Public Law 112-95, Congress directed the Secretary to issue a final rule on small unmanned aircraft systems that will allow for civil operations of such systems in the NAS. 21 In section 333 of Public Law 112-95, Congress also directed the Secretary to determine whether “certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system.” To make a determination under section 333, we must assess “which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security.” Public Law 112-95, Sec. 333(b)(1). The Secretary must also determine whether a certificate of waiver or authorization, or airworthiness certification is necessary to mitigate the public risk posed by the unmanned aircraft systems that are under consideration. Public Law 112-95, Sec. 333(b)(2). If the Secretary determines that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the NAS, then the Secretary must “establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Public Law 112-95, Sec. 333(c). The flexibility provided for in section 333 did not extend to airman certification and security vetting, aircraft marking, or registration requirements

etary determines that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the NAS, then the Secretary must “establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Public Law 112-95, Sec. 333(c). The flexibility provided for in section 333 did not extend to airman certification and security vetting, aircraft marking, or registration requirements.

21 As discussed in more detail further in the preamble, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 also contained a provision prohibiting the FAA from issuing rules and regulations for model aircraft meeting certain criteria specified in section 336 of the Act.

As noted above, section 333(b)(2) provided the Secretary of Transportation with discretionary power as to whether airworthiness certification should be required for certain small UAS. 22 As discussed previously, the FAA's statute normally requires an aircraft being flown outdoors to possess an airworthiness certificate. 23 However, subsection 333(b)(2) allows for the determination that airworthiness certification is not necessary for certain small UAS. The key determinations that must be made in order for UAS to operate under the authority of section 333 are: (1) The operation must not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public; and (2) the operation must not pose a threat to national security. 24 In making these determinations, we must consider the following factors: Size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight. Of these factors, operation within visual line of sight is a primary factor for evaluation. At this point in time, we have determined that technology has not matured to the extent that would allow small UAS to be used safely in lieu of visual line of sight without creating a hazard to other users of the NAS or the public, or posing a threat to national security.

22 Public Law 112-95, sec. 333(b)(2).

23 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1)

hin visual line of sight is a primary factor for evaluation. At this point in time, we have determined that technology has not matured to the extent that would allow small UAS to be used safely in lieu of visual line of sight without creating a hazard to other users of the NAS or the public, or posing a threat to national security.

22 Public Law 112-95, sec. 333(b)(2).

23 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1).

24 Public Law 112-95, sec. 333(b)(1).

This construction of section 333 is a reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the statutory text and reflects Congressional intent in adopting the provision. We invite comments on whether there are well-defined circumstances and conditions under which operation beyond the line of sight would pose little or no additional risk to other users of the NAS, the public, or national security. Finally, we invite comments on the technologies and operational capabilities or procedures needed to allow UAS flights beyond visual line of sight, and how such technologies, capabilities and procedures could be accommodated under this rule or in a future rulemaking.

As a result of its ongoing integration efforts, the FAA seeks to change its regulations to take the first step in the process of integrating small UAS operations into the NAS. This proposal would utilize the airworthiness-certification flexibility provided by Congress in section 333 of Public Law 112-95, and allow some small UAS operations to commence in the NAS. 25

25 As discussed in section III.B.6 below, 14 CFR part 107 that would be created by this proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the statutory criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95. The FAA has recently published an interpretive rule for public comment explaining the statutory criteria of section 336. See Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 FR 36172, 36175 (June 25, 2014)

, 14 CFR part 107 that would be created by this proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the statutory criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95. The FAA has recently published an interpretive rule for public comment explaining the statutory criteria of section 336. See Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 FR 36172, 36175 (June 25, 2014).

In addition, to further facilitate the integration of UAS into the NAS, the FAA has selected six test sites to test UAS technology and operations. As of August 2014, all of the UAS test sites, which were selected based on geographic and climatic diversity, are operational and will remain in place for the next 5 years to help us gather operational data to foster further integration, as well as evaluate new technologies. In addition, the FAA is in the process of selecting a new UAS Center of Excellence which will also serve as another resource for these activities. The FAA invites comments on how it can improve or further leverage its test site program to encourage innovation, safe development and UAS integration into the NAS.

III. Discussion of the Proposal

As discussed in the previous section, in order to determine whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS pursuant to section 333, the Secretary must find that the operation of the UAS would not: (1) Create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public; or (2) pose a threat to national security. The Secretary must also determine whether small UAS operations subject to this proposed rule pose a safety risk sufficient to require airworthiness certification. The following preamble sections discuss the specific components of this proposed rule, and in section III.J below, we explain how these components work together and allow the Secretary to make the statutory findings required by section 333.

A. Incremental Approach and Privacy

The FAA began its small UAS rulemaking in 2005

le pose a safety risk sufficient to require airworthiness certification. The following preamble sections discuss the specific components of this proposed rule, and in section III.J below, we explain how these components work together and allow the Secretary to make the statutory findings required by section 333.

A. Incremental Approach and Privacy

The FAA began its small UAS rulemaking in 2005. In its initial approach to this rulemaking, which the FAA utilized from 2005 until November 2013, the FAA attempted to implement the ARC's recommendations and craft a rule that encompassed the widest possible range of small UAS operations. This approach utilized a regulatory structure similar to the one that the FAA uses for manned aircraft. Specifically, small UAS operations that pose a low risk to people, property, and other

In exploring this approach, the FAA found that, as discussed previously, there are two unique safety issues associated with UAS: (1) Extending “see and avoid” anti-collision principles to a pilot that is not physically present on the aircraft; and (2) loss of positive control of the unmanned aircraft. In addition, at the time that it was considering this approach, the FAA did not have the discretion necessary to exempt these aircraft from the statutory requirement for airworthiness certification, as the section 333 authority did not come into effect until February 14, 2012. As a result of these issues, the FAA's original broadly-scoped approach to the rulemaking effort took significantly longer than anticipated. Consequently, the FAA decided to proceed with multiple incremental UAS rules rather than a single omnibus rulemaking in order to utilize the flexibility with regard to airworthiness certification that Congress provided in section 333.

Accordingly, at this time, the FAA is proposing a rule that, pursuant to section 333 of Public Law 112-95, will integrate small UAS operations posing the least amount of risk

y, the FAA decided to proceed with multiple incremental UAS rules rather than a single omnibus rulemaking in order to utilize the flexibility with regard to airworthiness certification that Congress provided in section 333.

Accordingly, at this time, the FAA is proposing a rule that, pursuant to section 333 of Public Law 112-95, will integrate small UAS operations posing the least amount of risk. Because these operations pose the least amount of risk, this proposed rule would treat the entire spectrum of operations that would be subject to this rule in a similar manner by imposing less stringent regulatory burdens that would ensure that the safety and security of the NAS would not be reduced by operation of these UAS. In the meantime, the FAA will continue working on integrating UAS operations that pose greater amounts of risk, and will issue notices of proposed rulemaking for those operations once the pertinent issues have been addressed, consistent with the approach set forth in the UAS Comprehensive Plan for Integration and FAA roadmap for integration. 26 Once the entire integration process is complete, the FAA envisions the NAS populated with UAS that operate well beyond the operational limits proposed in this rule. Those UAS will be regulated differently than the UAS that would be integrated through this rule, and will be addressed in subsequent rulemakings. The FAA has selected this approach because it would allow lower-risk small UAS operations to be incorporated into the NAS immediately instead of waiting until the issues associated with higher-risk UAS operations are resolved.

sociated with higher-risk UAS operations are resolved.

26 Section 332(a) of Public Law 112-95 requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil UAS into the NAS. This plan must be developed in consultation with representatives of the aviation industry, federal agencies that employ UAS technology in the NAS, and the UAS industry. Section 332(a) also requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop a 5-year roadmap for the introduction of civil UAS into the NAS. Both the comprehensive plan and the roadmap were published in November 2013.

The approach of this proposal is meant to address low risk operations; to the greatest extent possible, it takes a data-driven, risk-based approach to defining specific regulatory requirements for small UAS operations. It is well understood that regulations that are articulated in terms of the desired outcomes ( i.e., “performance standards”) are generally preferable to those that specify the means to achieve the desired outcomes ( i.e., “design” standards). According to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 (“Regulatory Analysis”), performance standards “give the regulated parties the flexibility to achieve the regulatory objectives in the most cost-effective way.” 27

27 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf

Design standards have a tendency to lock in certain approaches that limit the incentives to innovate and may effectively prohibit new technologies altogether. The distinction between design and performance standards is particularly important where technology is evolving rapidly, as is the case with small UAS.

In this proposal, the regulatory objectives are to enable integration of small UAS into the NAS in a manner that does not impose unacceptable risk to other aircraft, people, or property

te and may effectively prohibit new technologies altogether. The distinction between design and performance standards is particularly important where technology is evolving rapidly, as is the case with small UAS.

In this proposal, the regulatory objectives are to enable integration of small UAS into the NAS in a manner that does not impose unacceptable risk to other aircraft, people, or property. The FAA seeks comment on whether there are additional requirements that could be specified in ways that are more performance-oriented in order to minimize any disincentives to develop new technologies that achieve the regulatory objectives at lower cost.

Recently, the FAA, with the approval of the Secretary, has been issuing exemptions in accordance with 14 CFR part 11 and section 333 of Public Law 112-95 to accommodate an increasing number of small UAS operations that are not for hobby or recreational purposes. If adopted, this rule will eliminate the need for the vast majority of these exemptions. The exemption process will continue to be available for UAS operations that fall outside the parameters of this rule. Such operations may involve the use of more advanced technologies that are not yet mature at the time of this rulemaking.

The FAA also notes that, because UAS-associated technologies are rapidly evolving at this time, new technologies could come into existence after this rule is issued or existing technologies may evolve to the extent that they establish a level of reliability sufficient to allow those technologies to be relied on for risk mitigation. These technologies may alleviate some of the risk concerns that underlie the provisions of this rulemaking like the line of sight rule

idly evolving at this time, new technologies could come into existence after this rule is issued or existing technologies may evolve to the extent that they establish a level of reliability sufficient to allow those technologies to be relied on for risk mitigation. These technologies may alleviate some of the risk concerns that underlie the provisions of this rulemaking like the line of sight rule. Accordingly, the FAA invites comments as to whether the final rule should relax operating restrictions on small UAS equipped with technology that addresses the concerns underlying the operating limitations of this proposed rule, for instance through some type of deviation authority (such as a letter of authorization or a waiver).

The FAA also notes that privacy concerns have been raised about unmanned aircraft operations. Although these issues are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, recognizing the potential implications for privacy and civil rights and civil liberties from the use of this technology, and consistent with the direction set forth in the Presidential Memorandum, Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (February 15, 2015), the Department and FAA will participate in the multi-stakeholder engagement process led by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to assist in this process regarding privacy, accountability, and transparency issues concerning commercial and private UAS use in the NAS. We also note that state law and other legal protections for individual privacy may provide recourse for a person whose privacy may be affected through another person's use of a UAS.

de recourse for a person whose privacy may be affected through another person's use of a UAS.

The FAA conducted a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of this rule as required by section 522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17, 2002). The assessment considers any impacts of the proposed rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form. The FAA has determined that this proposed rule would impact the FAA's handling of personally identifiable information (PII). As part of the PIA that the FAA conducted as part of this rulemaking, the FAA analyzed the effect this impact might have on collecting, storing, and

As proposed, the process for granting unmanned aircraft operator certificates with a small UAS rating would be brought in line with the process for granting traditional airman certificates. Thus, the privacy implications of this rule to the privacy of the information that would be collected, maintained, stored, and disseminated by the FAA in accordance with this rule are the same as the privacy implications of the FAA's current airman certification processes. These privacy impacts have been analyzed by the FAA in the following Privacy Impact Assessments for the following systems: Civil Aviation Registry Applications (AVS Registry); the Integrated Airman Certification and Ratings Application (IACRA); and Accident Incident Database. These Privacy Impact Assessments are available in the docket for this rulemaking and at http://www.dot.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-impact-assessments#Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

B. Applicability

To integrate small UAS operations into the NAS, this proposed rule would create a new part in title 14 of the CFR: Part 107

d Ratings Application (IACRA); and Accident Incident Database. These Privacy Impact Assessments are available in the docket for this rulemaking and at http://www.dot.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-impact-assessments#Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

B. Applicability

To integrate small UAS operations into the NAS, this proposed rule would create a new part in title 14 of the CFR: Part 107. Subject to the exceptions discussed below, proposed part 107 would prescribe the rules governing the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small UAS within the United States. As mentioned previously, a small UAS is a UAS that uses an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds. This proposed rule would allow non-recreational small UAS to operate in the NAS. The operations enabled by this proposed rule would include business, academic, and research and development flights, which are hampered by the current regulatory framework.

Under this proposal, the regulations of part 107, which are tailored to address the risks associated with small UAS operations, would apply to small UAS operations in place of certain existing FAA regulations that impede civil small UAS operations. Specifically, for small UAS operations, the requirements of proposed part 107 would generally replace the airworthiness provisions of part 21, the airman certification provisions of part 61, and the operating limitations of part 91.

However, proposed part 107 would not apply to all small UAS operations. For the reasons discussed below, proposed part 107 would not apply to: (1) Air carrier operations; (2) external load and towing operations; (3) international operations; (4) foreign-owned aircraft that are ineligible to be registered in the United States; (5) public aircraft; (6) certain model aircraft; and (7) moored balloons, kites, amateur rockets, and unmanned free balloons.

AS operations. For the reasons discussed below, proposed part 107 would not apply to: (1) Air carrier operations; (2) external load and towing operations; (3) international operations; (4) foreign-owned aircraft that are ineligible to be registered in the United States; (5) public aircraft; (6) certain model aircraft; and (7) moored balloons, kites, amateur rockets, and unmanned free balloons.

1. Air Carrier Operations

When someone is transporting persons or property by air for compensation, that person is considered an air carrier by statute and is required to obtain an air carrier operating certificate. 28 Because there is an expectation of safe transportation when payment is exchanged, air carriers are subject to more stringent regulations to mitigate the risks posed to persons or non-operator-owned property on the aircraft.

28 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(4).

The FAA notes that some industries may desire to transport property via UAS. 29 Proposed part 107 would not prohibit this type of transportation so long as it is not done for compensation and the total weight of the aircraft, including the property, is less than 55 pounds. For example, research and development operations transporting property could be conducted under proposed part 107, as could operations by corporations transporting their own property within their business under the other provisions of this proposed rule.

29 Property that is transported as an external load is discussed in the next section of the preamble.

The FAA seeks comment on whether UAS should be permitted to transport property for payment within the other proposed constraints of the rule, e.g., the ban on flights over uninvolved persons, the requirements for line of sight, and the intent to limit operations to a constrained area. The FAA also seeks comment on whether a special class or classes of air carrier certification should be developed for UAS operations.

n whether UAS should be permitted to transport property for payment within the other proposed constraints of the rule, e.g., the ban on flights over uninvolved persons, the requirements for line of sight, and the intent to limit operations to a constrained area. The FAA also seeks comment on whether a special class or classes of air carrier certification should be developed for UAS operations.

2. External Load and Towing Operations

The FAA considered allowing small unmanned aircraft to conduct external-load operations and to tow other aircraft or objects. These operations involve a greater level of public risk due to the dynamic nature of external-load configurations and inherent risks associated with the flight characteristics of a load that is carried, or extends, outside the aircraft fuselage and may be jettisonable. These types of operations may also involve evaluation of the aircraft frame for safety performance impacts, which may require airworthiness certification.

Given the risks associated with external load and towing operations, the FAA cannot find that a certification is not required. However, the FAA invites comments, with supporting documentation, on whether external-load UAS operations and towing UAS operations should be permitted, whether they would require airworthiness certification, whether they would require higher levels of airman certification, whether they would require additional operational limitations, and on other relevant issues.

3. International Operations

At this time, the FAA also proposes to limit this rulemaking to small UAS operations conducted entirely within the United States

ons should be permitted, whether they would require airworthiness certification, whether they would require higher levels of airman certification, whether they would require additional operational limitations, and on other relevant issues.

3. International Operations

At this time, the FAA also proposes to limit this rulemaking to small UAS operations conducted entirely within the United States. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recognizes that:

The safe integration of UAS into non-segregated airspace will be a long-term activity with many stakeholders adding their expertise on such diverse topics as licensing and medical qualification of UAS crew, technologies for detect and avoid systems, frequency spectrum (including its protection from unintentional or unlawful interference), separation standards from other aircraft, and development of a robust regulatory framework. 30

30 ICAO Circular 328 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)) (2011).

ICAO has further stated that “[u]nmanned aircraft . . . are, indeed aircraft; therefore existing [ICAO standards and recommended practices] SARPs apply to a very great extent. The complete integration of UAS at aerodromes and in the various airspace classes will, however, necessitate the development of UAS-specific SARPs to supplement those already existing.” 31 ICAO has begun to issue and amend SARPs to specifically address UAS operations. For example, the standard contained in paragraph 3.1.9 of Annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation states 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.” This 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

nal Civil Aviation states 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.” This 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. ICAO standards in Annex 7 (Aircraft Nationality and Registration Marks) to the Convention also require remotely

31 Id.

While we embrace the basic principle that UAS operations should minimize hazards to persons, property or other aircraft, we believe that it is possible to achieve this goal with respect to certain small UAS operations in a much less restrictive manner than current ICAO standards require. Accordingly, the FAA proposes, for the time being, to limit the applicability of proposed part 107 to small UAS operations that are conducted entirely within the United States. The FAA envisions that international operations would be dealt with in a future FAA rulemaking. The FAA believes that the experience that the FAA will gain with UAS operations under this rule will assist with future rulemakings. The FAA also anticipates that ICAO will continue 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.

The FAA notes that 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 operating in the airspace above the U.S. territorial sea would be operating within the United States for the purposes of this proposed rule

otes that 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 operating in the airspace above the U.S. territorial sea would be operating within the United States for the purposes of this proposed rule.

The FAA also emphasizes that proposed part 107 would not prohibit small UAS operators from operating in international airspace or in other countries; however, the proposed rule also would not provide authorization for such operations. UAS operations that do not take place entirely within the United States would need to obtain all necessary authorizations from the FAA and the relevant foreign authorities outside of the part 107 framework, as that framework would not apply to operations that do not take place entirely within the United States. It is important to note that Article 8 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, to which the U.S. is a party, provides:

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.

Accordingly, UAS operations in foreign countries may not take place without the required authorizations and permission of that country.

4. Foreign-Owned Aircraft That Are Ineligible for U.S. Registration

The FAA proposes to limit the scope of this rulemaking to U.S.-registered aircraft. Under 49 U.S.C

gions open to civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil aircraft.

Accordingly, UAS operations in foreign countries may not take place without the required authorizations and permission of that country.

4. Foreign-Owned Aircraft That Are Ineligible for U.S. Registration

The FAA proposes to limit the scope of this rulemaking to U.S.-registered aircraft. 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.

An aircraft that does not satisfy the above criteria is typically owned by a foreign person or entity and is subject to special operating rules. 32 As previously noted, the ICAO framework for international UAS operations is at a relatively early stage in its development. Accordingly, proposed part 107 would only apply to small unmanned aircraft that meet the criteria specified in § 47.3, which must be satisfied in order for an aircraft to be eligible for U.S. registration. The FAA notes existing U.S. international trade obligations do permit certain kinds of operations, known as specialty air services

S operations is at a relatively early stage in its development. Accordingly, proposed part 107 would only apply to small unmanned aircraft that meet the criteria specified in § 47.3, which must be satisfied in order for an aircraft to be eligible for U.S. registration. The FAA notes existing U.S. international trade obligations do permit 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 will consult with the Secretary to determine the process through which it might permit foreign-owned small unmanned aircraft to operate in the United States. The FAA invites comments on the inclusion of foreign-registered small unmanned aircraft in this new framework.

32 See, e.g., 14 CFR part 91, subpart H (specifying operating rules for foreign civil aircraft).

As provided by 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A), the FAA Administrator must carry out his responsibilities under Part A (Air Commerce and Safety) of title 49, United States Code, consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements. The FAA invites comments regarding whether the proposed rule needs to be modified to ensure that it is consistent with any relevant obligations of the United States under international agreements.

5. Public Aircraft Operations

This proposed rule would also not apply to public aircraft operations with small UAS that are not operated as civil aircraft

. Government under international agreements. The FAA invites comments regarding whether the proposed rule needs to be modified to ensure that it is consistent with any relevant obligations of the United States under international agreements.

5. Public Aircraft Operations

This proposed rule would also 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, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 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 § 91.113(b). Because unmanned aircraft operations currently are incapable of complying with § 91.113(b), the FAA has required public aircraft operations that use unmanned aircraft to obtain an FAA-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) providing the public aircraft operation with a waiver/deviation from the “see and avoid” requirement of § 91.113(b).

The existing COA system has been in place for over eight years, and has not caused any significant human injuries or other significant adverse safety impacts. 33 Accordingly, this proposed rule would not abolish the COA system. However, this proposed rule 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 34

33 The FAA has been issuing COAs to public aircraft operations using UAS for over 20 years; however, prior to 2005, those COAs were issued using different processes.

34 The FAA notes that section 334(b) of Public Law 112-95 requires the FAA to develop standards regarding the operation of public UAS by December 31, 2015.

eration and comply with the provisions of proposed part 107 instead 34

33 The FAA has been issuing COAs to public aircraft operations using UAS for over 20 years; however, prior to 2005, those COAs were issued using different processes.

34 The FAA notes that section 334(b) of Public Law 112-95 requires the FAA to develop standards regarding the operation of public UAS by December 31, 2015.

6. Model Aircraft

Proposed 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 of Public Law 112-95 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.” 35 Because section 336 of Public Law 112-95 defines a model aircraft as an “unmanned aircraft,” a model aircraft that weighs less than 55 pounds would fall into the definition of small UAS under this rule.

35 Sec. 336(c) of Public Law 112-95.

However, Public Law 112-95 specifically prohibits the FAA from promulgating rules regarding model aircraft that meet all of the following statutory criteria: 36

36 Sec. 336(a) of Public Law 112-95.

• 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 certified 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

nal 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

Because of the statutory prohibition on FAA rulemaking regarding model aircraft that meet the above criteria, model aircraft meeting these criteria would not be subject to the provisions of proposed part 107. Likewise, operators of model aircraft excepted from part 107 by the statute would not need to hold an unmanned aircraft operator's certificate with a small UAS rating. However, the FAA emphasizes that because the prohibition on rulemaking in section 336 of Public Law 112-95 is limited to model aircraft that meet all of the above statutory criteria, model aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds that fail to meet all of the statutory criteria would be subject to proposed part 107.

In addition, although Public Law 112-95 excepted certain model aircraft from FAA rulemaking, it specifically states that the law's exception does not limit the Administrator's authority to pursue enforcement action against those model aircraft operators that “endanger the safety of the national airspace system.” 37 This proposed rule would codify the FAA's enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the NAS.

37 Sec. 336(b) of Public Law 112-95

tates that the law's exception does not limit the Administrator's authority to pursue enforcement action against those model aircraft operators that “endanger the safety of the national airspace system.” 37 This proposed rule would codify the FAA's enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the NAS.

37 Sec. 336(b) of Public Law 112-95.

The FAA also notes that it recently issued an interpretive rule explaining the provisions of section 336 and concluding that “Congress intended for the FAA to be able to rely on a range of our existing regulations to protect users of the airspace and people and property on the ground.” 38 In this interpretive rule, the FAA gave examples of existing regulations the violation of which could subject model aircraft to enforcement action. Those regulations include:

38 Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 FR 36172, 36175 (June 25, 2014). This document was issued as a notice of interpretation and has been in effect since its issuance on June 25, 2014. However, we note that the FAA has invited comment on this interpretation, and may modify the interpretation as a result of comments that were received.

• Prohibitions on careless or reckless operation and dropping objects so as to create a hazard to persons or property (14 CFR 91.13 and 91.15);

• Right-of-way rules for converging aircraft (14 CFR 91.113);

• Rules governing operations in designated airspace (14 CFR part 73 and §§ 91.126 through 91.135); and

• Rules relating to operations in areas covered by temporary flight restrictions and notices to airmen (NOTAMs) (14 CFR 91.137 through 91.145). 39

39 Id. at 36175-76.

The FAA notes that the above list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all existing regulations that apply to model aircraft meeting the statutory criteria of Public Law 112-95, section 336

§§ 91.126 through 91.135); and

• Rules relating to operations in areas covered by temporary flight restrictions and notices to airmen (NOTAMs) (14 CFR 91.137 through 91.145). 39

39 Id. at 36175-76.

The FAA notes that the above list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all existing regulations that apply to model aircraft meeting the statutory criteria of Public Law 112-95, section 336. Rather, as explained in the interpretive rule, “[t]he FAA anticipates that the cited regulations are the ones that would most commonly apply to model aircraft operations.” 40

40 Id. at 36176.

7. Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons

Lastly, proposed part 107 would not apply to moored balloons, kites, amateur rockets, and unmanned free balloons. These types of aircraft currently are regulated by the provisions of 14 CFR part 101. Because these aircraft are already incorporated into the NAS through part 101 and because the safety risks associated with these specific aircraft are already mitigated by the regulations of part 101, there is no need to make these aircraft subject to the provisions of proposed part 107.

C. Definitions

Proposed part 107 would create a new set of definitions to address the unique aspects of a small UAS. Those proposed definitions are as follows.

1. Control Station

Proposed part 107 would define a “control station” as an interface used by the operator to control the flight path of the small unmanned aircraft. In a manned aircraft, the interface used by the pilot to control the flight path of the aircraft is a part of the aircraft and is typically located inside the aircraft flight deck. Conversely, the interface used to control the flight path of a small unmanned aircraft is typically physically separated from the aircraft and remains on the ground during aircraft flight. Defining the concept of a control station would clarify the interface that is considered part of the small UAS under this regulation.

of the aircraft and is typically located inside the aircraft flight deck. Conversely, the interface used to control the flight path of a small unmanned aircraft is typically physically separated from the aircraft and remains on the ground during aircraft flight. Defining the concept of a control station would clarify the interface that is considered part of the small UAS under this regulation.

2. Corrective Lenses

Proposed part 107 would also define “corrective lenses” as spectacles or contact lenses. As discussed in the Operating Rules section of this preamble, this proposed rule would require the operator and/or visual observer to have visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft with vision that is not enhanced by any device other than corrective lenses. This is because spectacles and contact lenses do not restrict a user's peripheral vision while other vision-enhancing devices may restrict that vision. Because peripheral vision is necessary in order for the operator and/or visual observer to be able to see and avoid other air traffic in the NAS, this proposed rule would limit the circumstances in which vision-enhancing devices other than spectacles or contact lenses may be used.

3. Operator and Visual Observer

Because of the unique nature of small UAS operations, this proposed rule would create two new crewmember positions: The operator and the visual observer. These positions are discussed further in section III.D.1 of this preamble.

4. Small Unmanned Aircraft

Public Law 112-95 defines a “small unmanned aircraft” as “an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.” 41 This statutory definition of small unmanned aircraft 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.

41 Sec. 331(6) of Public Law 112-95

ned aircraft” as “an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.” 41 This statutory definition of small unmanned aircraft 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.

41 Sec. 331(6) of Public Law 112-95.

This proposed rule would define a small unmanned aircraft as an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds, including everything that is on board the aircraft. The FAA proposes to interpret the statutory definition of small unmanned aircraft as referring to total weight at the time of takeoff because heavier aircraft generally pose greater amounts of public risk in the event of an accident. In the event of a crash, a heavier aircraft can do more damage to people and property on the ground. The FAA also notes that 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. 42

42 See 14 CFR 1.1 (referring to “takeoff weight” for large, light-sport, and small aircraft in the definitions for those aircraft).

5. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (Small UAS)

This proposed rule would define a small UAS 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 NAS. Except for one difference, this proposed definition would be similar to the definition of “unmanned aircraft system” provided in Public Law 112-95

ll UAS 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 NAS. Except for one difference, this proposed definition would be similar to the definition of “unmanned aircraft system” provided in Public Law 112-95. 43 The difference between the two definitions is that the proposed definition in this rule would not refer to a pilot-in-command because, as discussed further in this preamble, this proposed rule would create a new position of operator to replace the traditional manned-aviation positions of pilot and pilot-in-command for small UAS operations.

43 Sec. 331(9) of Public Law 112-95. Public Law 112-95 defines an “unmanned aircraft system” as “an unmanned aircraft and associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.”

6. Unmanned Aircraft

Lastly, this proposed rule would define an 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 definition of “unmanned aircraft” specified in Public Law 112-95. 44

44 Sec. 331(8) of Public Law 112-95.

D. 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 this proposed rule would 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 would be permitted by this proposed rule

entally and issue a rule governing small UAS operations that pose the least amount of risk. Subpart B of this proposed rule would 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 would be permitted by this proposed rule. However, those operations present additional safety issues that the FAA needs more time to address. In the meantime, under this proposed rule, operations that could be conducted within the proposed operational constraints would be incorporated into the NAS.

The FAA also considered whether to further subdivide small UAS into different categories of unmanned aircraft that would be regulated differently based on their weight, operational characteristics, and operating environment. This subdivision would have been based on five category groups (Groups A through E). Each of these groups would have been regulated based on its specific weight and operating characteristics.

This is the framework that the FAA used in its initial approach to this rulemaking. However, because this framework attempted to integrate a wide range of UAS operations posing different risk profiles whose integration raised policy questions on which data was either limited or unavailable, the FAA's initial approach would have been unduly burdensome on all UAS groups that would have been covered under that approach

rk that the FAA used in its initial approach to this rulemaking. However, because this framework attempted to integrate a wide range of UAS operations posing different risk profiles whose integration raised policy questions on which data was either limited or unavailable, the FAA's initial approach would have been unduly burdensome on all UAS groups that would have been covered under that approach. For example, UAS in Group A, which posed the least safety risk under the FAA's initial framework, would have been required to: (1) Obtain a permit to operate (PTO) from the FAA, which would have to be renewed after one year; (2) file quarterly reports with the FAA providing their operational data; (3) establish a level of airworthiness that would be sufficient to obtain an airworthiness certification (the initial approach would have merged airworthiness certification into the PTO); (4) obtain a pilot certificate by passing a knowledge test, a practical test, and completing required ground training with an FAA-certificated instructor; (5) obtain a NOTAM from the FAA prior to conducting certain UAS operations (the operator would do this by filing notice with the FAA); and (6) maintain records documenting the complete maintenance history of the UAS.

After extensive deliberation, the FAA ultimately determined that such a regulatory framework was too complex, costly, and burdensome for both the public and the FAA. The FAA then examined the entire small UAS category of aircraft (unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) in light of the new authority provided for under section 333 of Public Law 112-95 and determined that appropriate operational risk mitigations could be developed to allow the entire category of small UAS to avoid airworthiness certification and be subject to the least burdensome level of regulation that is necessary to protect the safety and security of the NAS

rcraft weighing less than 55 pounds) in light of the new authority provided for under section 333 of Public Law 112-95 and determined that appropriate operational risk mitigations could be developed to allow the entire category of small UAS to avoid airworthiness certification and be subject to the least burdensome level of regulation that is necessary to protect the safety and security of the NAS. Furthermore, the FAA decided to also substantially simplify the operational limitations and airman (operator) certification requirements in a manner that would equally accommodate all types of small UAS business users with the least amount of complexity and regulatory burden.

The FAA believes that treating small UAS as a single category without airworthiness certification would accommodate a large majority of small UAS businesses and other non-recreational users of UAS. The operational limits in this proposed rule would mitigate risk associated with small UAS operations in a way that would provide an equivalent level of safety to the NAS with the least amount of burden to business and other non-recreational users of even the smallest UAS. The FAA invites comments, with supporting documentation, on whether the regulation of small UAS should be further subdivided based on the size, weight, and operating environment of the small UAS.

1. Micro UAS Classification

In addition to part 107 as proposed, the FAA is considering including a

In developing this micro UAS classification, the FAA examined small UAS policies adopted in other countries. In considering other countries' aviation policies, the FAA noted that each country has its unique aviation statutory and rulemaking requirements, which may include that country's unique economic, geographic, and airspace density considerations. Canada is our only North American neighbor with a regulatory framework for small UAS

ation, the FAA examined small UAS policies adopted in other countries. In considering other countries' aviation policies, the FAA noted that each country has its unique aviation statutory and rulemaking requirements, which may include that country's unique economic, geographic, and airspace density considerations. Canada is our only North American neighbor with a regulatory framework for small UAS. The chart below summarizes Transport Canada's operational limitations for micro UAS (4.4 pounds (2 kilograms) and under) and compares it with the regulatory framework in proposed part 107 as well as the micro UAS classification that the FAA is considering.

Comparison of Canadian Rules Governing Micro UAS Class With Provisions of Proposed Part 107 and Micro UAS Sub-Classification Provision Canada Small UAS NPRM Micro UAS Sub-classification Definition of Small UAS Up to 4.4 lbs (2 kg) Up to 55 lbs (24 kg) Up to 4.4 lbs (2 kg). Maximum Altitude Above Ground 300 feet 500 feet 400 feet. Airspace Limitations Only within Class G airspace Allowed within Class E in areas not designated for an airport. Otherwise, need ATC permission. Allowed within Class B, C and D with ATC permission. Allowed in Class G with no ATC permission Only within Class G airspace. Distance from people and structures 100 feet laterally from any building, structure, vehicle, vessel or animal not associated with the operation and 100 feet from any person Simply prohibits UAS operations over any person not involved in the operations (unless under a covered structure) Flying over any person is permitted. Ability to extend operational area No Yes, from a waterborne vehicle No. Autonomous operations No Yes No. Aeronautical knowledge required Yes; ground school Yes; applicant would take knowledge test Yes; applicant would self-certify. First person view permitted No Yes, provided operator is visually capable of seeing the small UAS No. Operator training required Yes, ground school No No. Visual observer training required Yes No No

rea No Yes, from a waterborne vehicle No. Autonomous operations No Yes No. Aeronautical knowledge required Yes; ground school Yes; applicant would take knowledge test Yes; applicant would self-certify. First person view permitted No Yes, provided operator is visually capable of seeing the small UAS No. Operator training required Yes, ground school No No. Visual observer training required Yes No No. Operator certificate required No Yes (must pass basic UAS aeronautical test) Yes (no knowledge test required). Preflight safety assessment Yes Yes Yes. Operate within 5 miles of an airport No Yes No. Operate in a congested area No Yes Yes. Liability insurance Yes, $100,000 CAN No No. Daylight operations only Yes Yes Yes. Aircraft must be made out of frangible materials No No Yes. The FAA is considering the following provisions for the micro UAS classification:

• The unmanned aircraft used in the operation would weigh no more than 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms). This provision would be based on the ARC's recommendations and on how other countries, such as Canada, subdivide their UAS into micro or lightweight UAS;

• The unmanned aircraft would be made out of frangible materials that break, distort, or yield on impact so as to present a minimal hazard to any person or object that the unmanned aircraft collides with. Examples of such materials are breakable plastic, paper, wood, and foam. This provision would be based on the ARC's recommendations;

• During the course of the operation, the unmanned aircraft would not exceed an airspeed of 30 knots. This provision would be based on the ARC's recommendation, which was concerned with damage that could be done by unmanned aircraft flying at higher speeds;

• During the course of the operation, the unmanned aircraft would not travel higher than 400 feet above ground level (AGL)

ecommendations;

• During the course of the operation, the unmanned aircraft would not travel higher than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). This provision would be based on the ARC's recommendations;

• The unmanned aircraft would be flown within visual line of sight; first-person view would not be used during the operation; and the aircraft would not travel farther than 1,500 feet away from the operator. These provisions would be based on ARC recommendations and Canada's requirements for micro UAS;

• The operator would maintain manual control of the flight path of the unmanned aircraft at all times, and the operator would not use automation to control the flight path of the unmanned aircraft. This provision would be based on ARC recommendations and Canada's requirements for micro UAS;

• The operation would be limited entirely to Class G airspace. This provision would be based on Canada's requirements for micro UAS; and

• The unmanned aircraft would maintain a distance of at least 5 nautical miles from any airport. This provision would be based on Canada's requirements for micro UAS.

The operational parameters discussed above may provide significant additional safety mitigations. Specifically, a very light (micro) UAS operating at lower altitudes and at lower speeds, that is made up of materials that break or yield easily upon impact, may pose a much lower risk to persons, property, and other NAS users than a UAS that does not operate within these

The FAA is also considering whether to require, as part of the micro UAS approach, that the micro UAS be made out of frangible material

ly, a very light (micro) UAS operating at lower altitudes and at lower speeds, that is made up of materials that break or yield easily upon impact, may pose a much lower risk to persons, property, and other NAS users than a UAS that does not operate within these

The FAA is also considering whether to require, as part of the micro UAS approach, that the micro UAS be made out of frangible material. A UAS that is made out of frangible material presents a significantly lower risk to persons on the ground, as that UAS is more likely to shatter if it should impact a person rather than injuring that person. Without the risk mitigation provided by frangible-material construction, the FAA would be unable to allow micro UAS to operate directly over a person not involved in the operation. The FAA notes that, currently, a majority of fixed-wing small UAS are made out of frangible materials that would satisfy the proposed requirement. The FAA invites comments on whether it should eliminate frangibility from the micro UAS framework.

The FAA also invites commenters to submit data and any other supporting documentation on whether the micro UAS classification should be included in the final rule, and what provisions the FAA should adopt for such a classification. The FAA invites further comments, with supporting documentation, estimating the costs and benefits of implementing a micro UAS approach in the final rule. Finally, the FAA invites comments to assess the risk to other airspace users posed by the lesser restricted integration of micro UAS into the NAS. The FAA notes, however, that due to statutory constraints, the FAA would be unable to eliminate the requirement to hold an airman certificate and register the unmanned aircraft even if it were to adopt a micro UAS approach in the final rule.

During the course of this rulemaking, the FAA also received a petition for rulemaking from UAS America Fund LLC

icted integration of micro UAS into the NAS. The FAA notes, however, that due to statutory constraints, the FAA would be unable to eliminate the requirement to hold an airman certificate and register the unmanned aircraft even if it were to adopt a micro UAS approach in the final rule.

During the course of this rulemaking, the FAA also received a petition for rulemaking from UAS America Fund LLC. This petition presented the FAA with an alternative approach to regulating micro UAS, complete with a set of regulatory provisions that would be specific to micro UAS operations. Because the FAA was already in the process of rulemaking at the time this petition was filed, pursuant to 14 CFR 11.73(c), the FAA will not treat this petition as a separate action, but rather, will consider it as a comment on this rulemaking. Accordingly, the FAA has placed a copy of UAS America Fund's rulemaking petition in the docket for this rulemaking and invites comments on the suggestions presented in this petition. Any comments received in response to the proposals in the petition will be considered in this rulemaking.

2. Operator and Visual Observer

As briefly mentioned earlier, this proposed rule would create two new crewmember positions: An operator and a visual observer. The FAA proposes these positions for small UAS operations instead of the traditional manned-aircraft positions of pilot, flight engineer, and flight navigator. This is being proposed because, by their very nature, small UAS operations are different from manned aircraft operations, and this necessitates a different set of qualifications for crewmembers.

i. Operator

ecessitates a different set of qualifications for crewmembers.

i. Operator

The FAA proposes to define an operator as a person who manipulates the flight controls of a small UAS. Flight controls include any system or component that affects the flight path of the aircraft. The position of operator would be somewhat analogous to the position of a pilot who controls the flight of a manned aircraft. However, the FAA proposes to create the position of an operator rather than expand the existing definition of pilot to emphasize that, even though the operator directly controls the flight of the unmanned aircraft, the operator is not actually present on the aircraft.

The FAA notes that even though a small UAS operator is not a pilot, the operator would still be considered an airman and statutorily required to obtain an airman certificate. The statutory flexibility provided in section 333 of Public Law 112-95 is limited to airworthiness certification and does not extend to airman certification. Thus, as mentioned previously, the FAA's statute prohibits a person without an airman certificate from serving in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft used or intended to be used in air commerce. 45 The statute defines an “airman,” in part, as an individual who, as a member of the crew, navigates the aircraft when under way. 46 Because under this proposed rule the operator would be a member of the crew and would navigate the small unmanned aircraft when that aircraft is under way, an operator would be an airman as defined in the FAA's statute. Accordingly, the operator would statutorily be required to obtain an airman certificate in order to fly the small unmanned aircraft.

45 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).

46 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8)(A).

rdingly, the operator would statutorily be required to obtain an airman certificate in order to fly the small unmanned aircraft.

45 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).

46 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8)(A).

The FAA proposes to codify this statutory requirement in § 107.13(a), which would require a person who wishes to serve as an operator to obtain an unmanned aircraft airman certificate with a small UAS rating. An unmanned aircraft airman certificate would be a new type of airman certificate that would be created by this proposed rule specifically for UAS operators to satisfy the statutory requirement for an airman certificate. The certificate necessary to operate small UAS would have a small UAS rating. The FAA anticipates that certificates used to operate UAS not subject to this proposed rule would have different certification requirements. The specific details of this certificate are discussed further in section III.E of this preamble.

The FAA also proposes to give each operator the power and responsibility typically associated with a pilot-in-command (PIC) under the existing regulations. Under the existing regulations, the PIC “is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the operation of [the] aircraft.” 47 The PIC position provides additional accountability for the safety of an operation by: (1) Ensuring that a single person on board the aircraft is accountable for that operation; and (2) providing that person with the authority to address issues affecting operational safety.

47 14 CFR 91.3(a).

An accountability system, such as the existing PIC concept, would provide similar benefits for small UAS operations. Accordingly, the FAA proposes, in § 107.19(a), to make each operator: (1) Directly responsible for the

as the existing PIC concept, would provide similar benefits for small UAS operations. Accordingly, the FAA proposes, in § 107.19(a), to make each operator: (1) Directly responsible for the

The FAA also considered providing the operator with the emergency powers available to the PIC under 14 CFR 91.3(b). Under § 91.3(b), a PIC can deviate from FAA regulations to respond to an in-flight emergency. However, the FAA does not believe that this power is necessary for the operator because a small unmanned aircraft is highly maneuverable and much easier to land than a manned aircraft. Thus, in an emergency, an operator should be able to promptly land the small unmanned aircraft in compliance with FAA regulations. Accordingly, the FAA proposes not to provide an operator with the emergency powers available to the PIC under § 91.3(b). The FAA invites comments on this issue.

The FAA also does not believe that it is necessary to create a separate “operator-in-command” position for small UAS operations. The existing regulations create a separate PIC position because many manned aircraft are operated by multiple pilots. Thus, it is necessary to designate one of those pilots as the accountable authority for the operation. By contrast, only one operator is needed for a small UAS flight operation even though additional non-operator persons could be involved in the operation. Thus, at this time, it is not necessary to create an operator-in-command position. The FAA invites comments on whether a separate operator-in-command position should be created for small UAS operations.

The FAA finally notes that the term “operate” is currently a defined term in 14 CFR 1.1 that is used in manned-aircraft operations. While, for purposes of proposed part 107, the proposed definition of “operator” would supersede any conflicting definitions in § 1.1, the FAA invites comments as to whether defining a new crewmember position as an “operator” would cause confusion with the existing terminology

finally notes that the term “operate” is currently a defined term in 14 CFR 1.1 that is used in manned-aircraft operations. While, for purposes of proposed part 107, the proposed definition of “operator” would supersede any conflicting definitions in § 1.1, the FAA invites comments as to whether defining a new crewmember position as an “operator” would cause confusion with the existing terminology. If so, the FAA invites suggestions as to an alternative title for this crewmember position.

ii. Visual Observer

To assist the operator with the proposed see-and-avoid and visual-line-of-sight requirements discussed in the next section of this preamble, the FAA proposes to create the position of a visual observer. Under this proposed rule, a visual observer would be defined as a person who assists the small unmanned aircraft operator in seeing and avoiding other air traffic or objects aloft or on the ground. The visual observer would do this by augmenting the operator as the person who must satisfy the see-and-avoid and visual-line-of-sight requirements of this proposed rule. As discussed in more detail below, an operator must always be capable of seeing the small unmanned aircraft. However, if the operation is augmented by at least one visual observer, the operator is not required to exercise this capability, as long as the visual observer maintains a constant visual-line-of-sight of the small unmanned aircraft.

the visual observer maintains a constant visual-line-of-sight of the small unmanned aircraft.

The FAA emphasizes that, as proposed, a visual observer is not a required crewmember, as the operator could always satisfy the pertinent requirements him- or herself. Under this proposed rule, an operator could, at his or her discretion, use a visual observer to increase the flexibility of the operation. The FAA notes, however, that as discussed in III.D.3.i of this preamble, even if a visual observer is used to augment the operation, a small unmanned aircraft would still be required by § 107.33(c) to always remain close enough to the control station for the operator to be capable of seeing that aircraft.

To ensure that the visual observer can carry out his or her duties, the FAA proposes, in § 107.33(b), that the operator be required to ensure that the visual observer is positioned in a location where he or she is able to see the small unmanned aircraft in the manner required by the proposed visual-line-of-sight and see-and-avoid provisions of §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The operator can do this by specifying the location of the visual observer. The FAA also proposes to require, in § 107.33(d), that the operator and visual observer coordinate to: (1) Scan the airspace where the small unmanned aircraft is operating for any potential collision hazard; and (2) maintain awareness of the position of the small unmanned aircraft through direct visual observation. This would be accomplished by the visual observer maintaining visual contact with the small unmanned aircraft and the surrounding airspace and then communicating to the operator the flight status of the small unmanned aircraft and any hazards which may enter the area of operation so that the operator can take appropriate action.

To make this communication possible, this proposed rule would require, in § 107.33(a), that the operator and visual observer maintain effective communication with each other at all times

urrounding airspace and then communicating to the operator the flight status of the small unmanned aircraft and any hazards which may enter the area of operation so that the operator can take appropriate action.

To make this communication possible, this proposed rule would require, in § 107.33(a), that the operator and visual observer maintain effective communication with each other at all times. This means that the operator and visual observer must work out a method of communication prior to the operation that allows them to understand each other, and utilize that method in the operation. The FAA notes that this proposed communication requirement would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as radios, to facilitate communication between the operator and visual observer from a distance. The FAA considered requiring the visual observer to be stationed next to the operator to allow for unassisted oral communication, but decided that this requirement would be unduly burdensome, as it is possible to have effective oral communication through a communication-assisting device. The FAA invites comments on whether the visual observer should be required to stand close enough to the operator to allow for unassisted verbal communication.

Under this proposed rule, the visual observer would not be permitted to manipulate any controls of the small UAS, share in operational control, or exercise operation-related judgment independent of the operator. Because the visual observer's role in the small UAS operation would be limited to simply communicating what he or she is seeing to the operator, the visual observer would not be an “airman” as defined in the FAA's statute. 48 Consequently, as proposed, the visual observer would not statutorily be required to obtain an airman certificate. 49

48 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8)

t independent of the operator. Because the visual observer's role in the small UAS operation would be limited to simply communicating what he or she is seeing to the operator, the visual observer would not be an “airman” as defined in the FAA's statute. 48 Consequently, as proposed, the visual observer would not statutorily be required to obtain an airman certificate. 49

48 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8). This statute defines an “airman” as an individual: “(A) in command, or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, who navigates aircraft when under way; (B) except to the extent the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may provide otherwise for individuals employed outside the United States, who is directly in charge of inspecting, maintaining, overhauling, or repairing aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances; or (C) who serves as an aircraft dispatcher or air traffic control-tower operator.” The visual observer's limited role in the operation of a small UAS would not meet any of these criteria.

49 See 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A) (prohibiting a person without an airman certificate from serving in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft used or intended to be used in air commerce).

While an airman certificate for a visual observer is not statutorily mandated, the FAA considered requiring that the visual observer obtain an airman certificate. 50 However, due to the fact that this proposed rule would not permit the visual observer to

50 This requirement would be imposed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which gives FAA the power to prescribe regulations that it finds necessary for safety in air commerce.

3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility Requirements

the power to prescribe regulations that it finds necessary for safety in air commerce.

3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility Requirements

Turning to the see-and-avoid and visibility requirements mentioned in the previous section, one of the issues with small UAS operations is that the small UAS operator cannot see and avoid other aircraft in the same manner as a pilot who is inside a manned aircraft. Because at this time there is no technology that can provide an acceptable see-and-avoid replacement for human vision for small UAS operations, this proposed rule would limit small UAS operations to within the visual line of sight of the operator and a visual observer. This proposed rule would also impose requirements to ensure maximum visibility for the operation of the small UAS and ensure that small unmanned aircraft always yield the right-of-way to other users of the NAS.

i. See-and-Avoid

Currently, 14 CFR 91.113(b) imposes a requirement on all aircraft operations 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. As such, in crafting this proposed rule, the FAA sought a standard under which the small UAS operator would have the ability to see and avoid other aircraft similar to that of a manned-aircraft pilot.

The FAA considered proposing that a UAS operator be permitted to exercise his or her see-and-avoid responsibilities through technological means, such as onboard cameras. We recognize that technology is developing that could provide an acceptable substitute for direct human vision in UAS operations. FAA does not, however, believe this technology has matured to the extent that would allow it to be used safely in small UAS operations in lieu of visual line of sight

xercise his or her see-and-avoid responsibilities through technological means, such as onboard cameras. We recognize that technology is developing that could provide an acceptable substitute for direct human vision in UAS operations. FAA does not, however, believe this technology has matured to the extent that would allow it to be used safely in small UAS operations in lieu of visual line of sight. The FAA has not identified an acceptable technological substitute for the safety protections provided by direct human vision in small UAS operations at this time. For these reasons and consistent with the statutory direction provided for in section 333, the FAA proposes to require, in §§ 107.31 and 107.37(a)(1), that the operator (and visual observer, if used) must be capable of maintaining a visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft throughout that aircraft's entire flight with human vision that is unaided by any device other than spectacles or contact lenses.

If a visual observer is not used, the operator must exercise this capability and maintain watch over the small unmanned aircraft during flight. However, if an operation is augmented by at least one visual observer, then the visual observer can be used to satisfy the visual-line-of-sight requirements, as long as the operator always remains situated such that he or she can exercise visual-line-of-sight capability.

The FAA notes that this proposed requirement does not require the person maintaining visual line of sight to constantly watch the unmanned aircraft for every single second of that aircraft's flight. The FAA understands and accepts that this person may lose sight of the unmanned aircraft for brief moments of the operation. This may be necessary either because the small UAS momentarily travels behind an obstruction or to allow the person maintaining visual line of sight to perform actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UAS control station

t aircraft's flight. The FAA understands and accepts that this person may lose sight of the unmanned aircraft for brief moments of the operation. This may be necessary either because the small UAS momentarily travels behind an obstruction or to allow the person maintaining visual line of sight to perform actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UAS control station. The visual-line-of-sight requirement of this proposed rule would allow the person maintaining visual line of sight brief moments in which he or she cannot directly see the small unmanned aircraft provided that the person is able to see the surrounding operational area sufficiently well to carry out his or her visual-line-of-sight-related responsibilities. Anything more than brief moments during which the person maintaining visual line of sight is unable to see the small unmanned aircraft would be prohibited under this proposed rule.

To ensure that the operator's vision (and that of a visual observer, if used) of the small unmanned aircraft is sufficient to see and avoid other aircraft in the NAS, the proposed rule would require that the operator's or visual observer's vision of the small unmanned aircraft must be sufficient to allow him or her to: (1) Know the small unmanned aircraft's location; (2) determine the small unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction; (3) observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and (4) determine that the small unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another. Because maintaining this type of awareness in real-time is a concentration-intensive activity, proposed § 107.35 would limit an operator or visual observer to operating no more than one small UAS at the same time. 51

51 The use of a visual observer would not be sufficient to allow an operator to operate more than one small UAS because the operator would still need to maintain sufficient concentration to react to the information provided to him or her by the visual observer

nsive activity, proposed § 107.35 would limit an operator or visual observer to operating no more than one small UAS at the same time. 51

Binoculars, onboard cameras, and other vision-enhancing devices (aside from spectacles or contact lenses) cannot be used to satisfy this proposed requirement because those devices restrict the user's peripheral field of vision. Since a pilot often uses peripheral vision to identify other aircraft in the NAS, 52 a device that restricts peripheral vision hinders the user's ability to see other aircraft. However, the FAA recognizes that there are advantages to using vision-enhancing devices, such as those used when utilizing camera video transmitted to a screen at the operator's station (also known as first person view) when conducting inspections of bridges or towers. This proposed rule is not intended to prohibit the use of those devices. Rather, the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement requires simply that at least one person involved in the operation, either the operator or a visual observer, must maintain an unenhanced visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft. Anyone else involved in the operation may use a vision-enhancing device (including first-person view) so long as that device is not used to meet the proposed requirements of §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The FAA invites comments on this proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement. The FAA also invites suggestions, with supporting documentation, for other ways in which a first-person-view device could be used by the operator without compromising the risk mitigation provided by the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement

t device is not used to meet the proposed requirements of §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The FAA invites comments on this proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement. The FAA also invites suggestions, with supporting documentation, for other ways in which a first-person-view device could be used by the operator without compromising the risk mitigation provided by the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement. The FAA also invites comments on whether it should permit operations beyond visual line of sight in its final rule, for example through deviation authority, once the pertinent technology matures to the extent that it

52 Pilot Safety brochure: “Pilot Vision.” http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/pilot_vision.pdf. A copy of this document is also available in the docket for this rulemaking.

ii. Additional Visibility Requirements

To further ensure that a small UAS operator/visual observer can see and avoid other aircraft, the FAA proposes (1) to limit the operation of small UAS to daylight-only operations, and (2) to impose weather-minimum visibility requirements

First, the FAA proposes, in § 107.29, to prohibit the operation of a small UAS outside the hours of official sunrise and sunset. The Federal Air Almanac provides tables which are used to determine sunrise and sunset at various latitudes. The FAA considered proposing to allow small UAS operations outside the hours of official sunrise and sunset, recognizing that this would integrate a greater quantity of small UAS operations into the NAS. However, the FAA has decided to propose limiting small UAS use to daylight-only operations due to the relatively small size of the small unmanned aircraft and the difficulty in being able to see it in darker environments to avoid other airspace users

ions outside the hours of official sunrise and sunset, recognizing that this would integrate a greater quantity of small UAS operations into the NAS. However, the FAA has decided to propose limiting small UAS use to daylight-only operations due to the relatively small size of the small unmanned aircraft and the difficulty in being able to see it in darker environments to avoid other airspace users. The FAA also notes that most small unmanned aircraft flights under this proposed rule would take place at low altitudes, and flying at night would limit the small UAS operator's ability to see people on the ground and take precautions to ensure that the small unmanned aircraft does not pose a hazard to those people. Moreover, allowing small UAS operations outside of daylight hours would require equipage specifications (such as a lighting system emitting a certain minimum amount of light) and airworthiness certification requirements that are contrary to the FAA's goal of a minimally burdensome rule for small unmanned aircraft. The FAA also notes that, for manned aircraft operations, the regulations provide for very specific lighting systems necessary to safely operate in the NAS. Those regulations require, among other things: (1) Lighting system angles; (2) lighting system intensity; (3) lighting system color and position; (4) lighting system installation; and (5) lighting system configuration. 53 This level of regulation and airworthiness certification would be beyond the level of a minimally burdensome rule encompassing low-risk operation that is contemplated by section 333 of Public Law 112-95.

53 See 14 CFRs 23.1381 through 23.1401.

ion 333 of Public Law 112-95.

53 See 14 CFRs 23.1381 through 23.1401.

The FAA realizes the proposed daylight-only operations requirement may affect the ability to use small unmanned aircraft in more northern latitudes (specifically Alaska), and is willing to consider any reasonable mitigation which would ensure that an equivalent level of safety is maintained while operating in low-light areas. The FAA welcomes public comments with suggestions on how to effectively mitigate the risk of operations of small unmanned aircraft during low-light or nighttime operations.

In addition, to ensure that small UAS operators and visual observers have the ability to see and avoid other aircraft, the FAA is proposing to require, in § 107.51(c), a minimum flight visibility of 3 statute miles (5 kilometers) from the control station for small UAS operations. A visibility of 3 statute miles currently is required for aircraft operations in controlled airspace. 54 The FAA also requires a 3-mile visibility in the context of other unmanned aircraft operations (moored balloons and kites). 55 The reason for the increased visibility requirement is to provide the small UAS operator with additional time after seeing a manned aircraft to maneuver and avoid an accident or incident with the manned aircraft.

54 See 14 CFR 91.115.

55 14 CFR 101.13(a)(3).

In addition, the FAA is proposing to require, in § 107.51(d), that the small unmanned aircraft must be no less than: (1) 500 feet (150 meters) below clouds; and (2) 2,000 feet (600 meters) horizontal from clouds. This is similar to the requirements imposed by 14 CFR 91.155 on aircraft operating in controlled airspace under visual flight rules. The FAA proposes to impose these cloud-clearance requirements on small UAS operations because, as mentioned previously, small UAS operators do not have the same see-and-avoid capability as manned-aircraft pilots.

iii

2,000 feet (600 meters) horizontal from clouds. This is similar to the requirements imposed by 14 CFR 91.155 on aircraft operating in controlled airspace under visual flight rules. The FAA proposes to impose these cloud-clearance requirements on small UAS operations because, as mentioned previously, small UAS operators do not have the same see-and-avoid capability as manned-aircraft pilots.

iii. Yielding Right of Way

Now that we have discussed how a small UAS operator sees other users of the NAS, we turn to how that operator avoids those users. In aviation, this is accomplished through right-of-way rules, which pilots are required to follow when encountering other aircraft. These rules specify how pilots should respond to other NAS users based on the types of aircraft or the operational scenario.

The operation of small UAS presents challenges to the application of the traditional right-of-way rules. The smaller visual profile of the small unmanned aircraft makes it difficult for manned pilots to see and, therefore, avoid the unmanned aircraft. This risk is further compounded by the difference in speed between manned aircraft and the often slower small unmanned aircraft. Because of these challenges, the FAA proposes to require, in § 107.37(a)(2), that the small UAS operator must always be the one to initiate an avoidance maneuver to avoid collision with any other user of the NAS. Optimally, the small UAS operator should give right-of-way to all manned aircraft in such a manner that the manned aircraft is never presented with a see-and-avoid decision or the impression that it must maneuver to avoid the small UAS.

avoid the small UAS.

When a small UAS operator encounters another unmanned aircraft, each operator must exercise his or her discretion to avoid a collision between the aircraft. In extreme situations where collision is imminent, the small UAS operator must always consider the safety of people, first and foremost, over the value of any equipment, even if it means the loss of the unmanned aircraft. To further mitigate the risk of a mid-air collision, the FAA also proposes to codify, in § 107.37(b), the existing requirement in 14 CFR 91.111(a), which prohibits a person from operating an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

4. Containment and Loss of Positive Control

As discussed above, one of the issues unique to UAS operations is the possibility that during flight, the UAS operator may become unable to directly control the unmanned aircraft due to a failure of the control link between the aircraft and the operator's control station. This failure is known as a loss of positive control. Because the UAS operator's direct connection to the aircraft is funneled through the control link, a failure of the control link could have significant adverse results.

To address this issue, the FAA proposes a performance-based operator-responsibility standard built around the concept of a confined area of operation. Confining the flight of a small unmanned aircraft to a limited area would allow the operator to become familiar with the area of operation and to create contingency plans for using the environment in that area to mitigate the risk associated with possible loss of positive control

proposes a performance-based operator-responsibility standard built around the concept of a confined area of operation. Confining the flight of a small unmanned aircraft to a limited area would allow the operator to become familiar with the area of operation and to create contingency plans for using the environment in that area to mitigate the risk associated with possible loss of positive control. For example, the operator could mitigate loss-of-control risk to people on the ground by setting up a perimeter and excluding people

As an alternative method of addressing this issue, the FAA considered technological approaches such as requiring a flight termination system that would automatically terminate the flight of the small unmanned aircraft if the operator lost positive control of that aircraft. However, as previously discussed, due to the size and weight of a small UAS, operations subject to this proposed rule would not pose the same level of risk as other operations regulated by the FAA. Since small UAS operations subject to this rule pose a lower level of risk, there are operational alternatives available to mitigate their risk to an acceptable level without imposing an FAA requirement for technological equipage and airworthiness certification requirements. Therefore, this proposed rule would not mandate the use of a flight termination system nor would this proposed rule mandate the equipage of any other navigational aid technology. Instead, the FAA invites comments on whether a flight termination system or other technological equipage should be required and how it would be integrated into the aircraft for small UAS that would be subject to this proposed rule. The FAA also invites comments, with supporting documentation, as to the costs and benefits of requiring a flight termination system or other technological equipage.

Instead, the FAA invites comments on whether a flight termination system or other technological equipage should be required and how it would be integrated into the aircraft for small UAS that would be subject to this proposed rule. The FAA also invites comments, with supporting documentation, as to the costs and benefits of requiring a flight termination system or other technological equipage.

i. Confined Area of Operation Boundaries

The FAA notes that the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement in § 107.31 would create a natural horizontal boundary on the area of operation. Due to the distance limitations of human vision, the operator or visual observer would be unable to maintain visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft sufficient to satisfy proposed § 107.31 if the aircraft travels too far away from them. Accordingly, the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement in proposed § 107.31 would effectively confine the horizontal area of operation to a circle around the person maintaining visual contact with the aircraft with the radius of that circle being limited to the farthest distance at which the person can see the aircraft sufficiently to maintain compliance with proposed § 107.31.

The FAA notes that there are two issues with defining the horizontal boundary of the area of operation in this manner. First, a small UAS operation could use multiple visual observers to expand the outer bounds of the horizontal circle created by the visual-line-of-sight requirement. To address this issue, the FAA proposes to require, in § 107.33(c), that if an operation uses a visual observer, the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the operator at all times during flight for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. This approach would prevent the use of visual observers to expand the horizontal outer bounds of the confined area of operation

§ 107.33(c), that if an operation uses a visual observer, the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the operator at all times during flight for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. This approach would prevent the use of visual observers to expand the horizontal outer bounds of the confined area of operation. This approach would also create a safety-beneficial redundancy in that, while the operator is not required to look at the small unmanned aircraft in an operation that uses a visual observer, should something go wrong, the operator would be able to look up and see for him- or herself what is happening with the aircraft.

As an alternative method of addressing this issue, the FAA considered imposing a numerical limit on how far away a small unmanned aircraft can be from the operator. The FAA ultimately decided not to propose this approach, as it currently lacks sufficient data to designate a specific numerical limit. However, the FAA invites comments on whether the horizontal boundary of the contained area of operation should be defined through a numerical limit. If the boundary is defined through a numerical limit, what should that limit be?

The second way that the horizontal boundary of the confined operational area could be expanded is by stationing the operator on a moving vehicle or aircraft. If the operator is stationed on a moving vehicle, then the horizontal area-of-operation boundary tied to the operator's line of sight would move with the operator, thus increasing the size of the small unmanned aircraft's area of operation. To prevent this scenario, the FAA proposes, in § 107.25, consistent with the ARC recommendations, 56 to prohibit the operation of a small UAS from a moving aircraft or land-borne vehicle. However, proposed § 107.25 would make an exception for water-borne vehicles. This is because there are far less people and property located over water than on land

the small unmanned aircraft's area of operation. To prevent this scenario, the FAA proposes, in § 107.25, consistent with the ARC recommendations, 56 to prohibit the operation of a small UAS from a moving aircraft or land-borne vehicle. However, proposed § 107.25 would make an exception for water-borne vehicles. This is because there are far less people and property located over water than on land. Consequently, a loss of positive control that occurs over water would have a significantly smaller chance of injuring a person or damaging property than a loss of positive control that occurs over land. Allowing use of a small UAS from a water-borne vehicle would also increase the societal benefits of this proposed rule without sacrificing safety by incorporating small UAS operations such as bridge inspections and wildlife nesting area evaluations into the NAS.

56 ARC report and recommendations, Sec. 6.11

The FAA is considering alternatives for regulation of the operation of small UAS from moving land vehicles, while protecting safety. It invites comments, with supporting documentation, on whether small UAS operations should be permitted from moving land-based vehicles, and invites comment on a regulatory framework for such operations. The FAA specifically invites comments as to whether distinctions could be drawn between different types of land-based vehicles or operating environments such that certain operations from moving land-based vehicles could be conducted safely. The FAA also invites comments on whether deviation authority should be included in the final rule to accommodate these types of operations.

comments on whether deviation authority should be included in the final rule to accommodate these types of operations.

Next, we turn to the vertical boundary of the confined area of operation. With regard to the vertical boundary, the FAA proposes, in § 107.51(b), to set an altitude ceiling of 500 feet above ground level (AGL) for small UAS operations that would be subject to this proposed rule. The FAA chose to propose 500 feet as the vertical area-of-operation boundary because most manned aircraft operations take place above 500 feet. Specifically, most manned aircraft operations conducted over unconge

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.