Find this and comment here http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4378-0001 Thanks Steve Zeets for the heads up.
4910-9X
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Chapter I
[Docket No. FAA-2015-4378]
Clarification of the Applicability of Aircraft Registration Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Request for Information Regarding Electronic Registration for UAS
AGENCY: Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration.
ACTION: Clarification and request for information.
SUMMARY: This document clarifies the applicability of the statutory requirements regarding aircraft registration to UAS, including those operating as model aircraft. In addition, the DOT announces the formation of a UAS registration task force to explore and develop recommendations to streamline the registration process for UAS to ease the burden associated with the existing aircraft registration process.
This document requests information and recommendations regarding what information and registration platform would be appropriate for UAS registration and ways to minimize the burden to the regulated community.
In addition, we request comment on which UAS, based on their weight or performance capabilities, warrant a continued exercise of discretion with respect to requiring registration because of the negligible risk they pose to the national airspace system (NAS).
DATES: This clarification goes into effect [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. To assist the task force in developing its recommendations, the
Department requests that comments in response to the request for information be submitted to
docket FAA-2015-4378 at
www.regulations.gov, by [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
The docket will remain open after this time and the Department will consider all comments received in developing a registration process.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: Dockets Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC, 20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: Include the agency name and docket number FAA-2015-4378 for this document at the beginning of your comment. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: You may view the public docket through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office at the above address (See ADDRESSES).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this document may be directed to Earl Lawrence, Director, FAA UAS Integration Office, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington DC, 20591; phone: (202) 267-6556; email: UASRegistration@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) (the Act), Congress mandated that the DOT, in consultation with other government partners and industry stakeholders, develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil UAS in the NAS.
Since 2012, the Department has made progress in enabling UAS operations, through issuing exemptions under section 333 of the Act to permit commercial operations; creating a UAS test site program to encourage further research and testing of UAS operations in real-world environments; issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (RIN 2120-AJ60) (small UAS NPRM), that sets forth a framework for integrating small UAS operations in the NAS; and developing a Pathfinder program to encourage research and innovation that will enable advanced UAS operations.
A foundational statutory and regulatory requirement that the Department has employed for each of these integration programs is aircraft registration and marking. In order to operate in the NAS, the Department must ensure that operators are not only aware of the system in which they are operating, but that we also have a means to identify and track the UAS to its operator. One means to accomplish this is through aircraft registration and marking. To date, UAS operators that the Department has authorized have been required to register their UAS through the FAA’s existing paper-based registration process under 14 CFR part 47. As an exercise of discretion, historically we have not required model aircraft to be registered under this system.
UAS hold enormous promise for our economy and for the aviation industry. But for the industry to develop to its full potential, we have to ensure that it develops safely. Over the past several months, we have received increasing reports of unauthorized and unsafe use of small UAS. Pilot reports of UAS sightings in 2015 are double the rate of 2014. Pilots have reported seeing drones at altitudes up to 10,000 feet, or as close as half-a-mile from the approach end of a runway. In recent weeks, the presence of multiple UAS in the vicinity of wild fires in the western part of the country prompted firefighters to ground their aircraft on several occasions.
These UAS operations are unsafe and illegal. However, only a small percentage of these incidents have resulted in enforcement actions against individuals for unsafe or unauthorized UAS operation because identifying an individual or entity responsible for the dangerous operation of UAS is very difficult. This situation is troubling to the unmanned aircraft industry, to responsible model aircraft users, and to users of the NAS, all of whom always put safety first.
The risk of unsafe operations will only increase as more UAS enter the NAS. Some retailers
have projected huge holiday sales. We are committed to ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in the development and implementation of aviation technology, and in doing so, that we create a space for the creativity, innovation and exploration that will drive this industry forward in the years and decades ahead. At the same time, we must create a culture of accountability and responsibility among all UAS operators. To maintain safety in the NAS, the Department has reconsidered its past practice of exercising discretion with respect to requiring UAS to be registered, consistent with statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103, and has determined that registration of all UAS is necessary to enforce personal accountability while operating an aircraft in our skies.
Federal law requires that a person may only operate an aircraft when it is registered with the FAA. 49 U.S.C. 44101(a).1 “Aircraft” is defined as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.”2 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). In 2012, Congress confirmed that UAS, including those used for recreation or hobby purposes, are aircraft consistent with the statutory definition set forth in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). See Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 331(8), 336 (defining an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft,” and model aircraft as “an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes”); see also Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA-5730, at 12 (Nov. 17, 2014) (affirming that the statutory definition of aircraft is clear and unambiguous and “includes any air aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small.”). Because UAS, including model aircraft, are aircraft, they are subject to FAA regulation, including the statutory requirements regarding registration set forth in 49 U.S.C. 44101(a), and further prescribed in regulation at 14 CFR part 47.
Historically, the FAA, through the exercise of its discretion, has not enforced the statutory requirements for aircraft registration in 49 U.S.C. 44101 for model aircraft. As evidenced by the recent reports of unsafe UAS operations, the lack of awareness of operators regarding what must be done to operate UAS safely in the NAS, and the lack of identification of UAS and their operators pose significant challenges in ensuring accountability for responsible use. Without increased awareness and knowledge of the statutory and regulatory requirements for safe operation, the risk of unsafe UAS operations will only rise. Aircraft identification and marking will assist the Department in identifying owners of UAS that are operated in an unsafe manner, so we may continue to educate these users, and when appropriate, take enforcement action.
Requiring registration of all UAS, including those operated for hobby or recreation, embraces and applies the Academy of Model Aeronautics’ (AMA)’s policy of identification to UAS operators who may not be modelers registered with the AMA. Additionally, it would ensure consistency with other UAS operations currently required to be registered, such as public aircraft, those operated under exemptions, and certificated aircraft, as well as those operations contemplated in the small UAS NPRM.
Based on the Department’s experience in registering small UAS authorized by exemptions granted under the authority of section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and the comments received on the proposed registration requirements in the small UAS NPRM, it is apparent that the current paper-based system for aircraft registration is too burdensome for small UAS, to include model aircraft. To facilitate compliance with the statutory obligation for registration, the DOT is currently evaluating options for a streamlined, electronic-based registration system for small UAS.
The Department has convened a UAS registration task force, under the FAA’s authority in 49 U.S.C. 106(p)(5) to designate aviation rulemaking committees. This task force will provide recommendations on the type of registration platform needed to accommodate small UAS, as well as the information that will need to be provided to register these aircraft. The UAS registration task force also will explore and provide recommendations on whether it is appropriate for the FAA to continue to exercise discretion with respect to requiring registration of certain UAS based on their weight and performance capabilities. The task force will meet and provide its recommendations to the Department by November 20, 2015. To facilitate the task force’s work, we are requesting information and data from the public in the following areas:
1. What methods are available for identifying individual products? Does every UAS sold have an individual serial number? Is there another method for identifying individual products sold without serial numbers or those built from kits?
2. At what point should registration occur (e.g. point-of-sale or prior-to-operation)? How should transfers of ownership be addressed in registration?
3. If registration occurs at point-of-sale, who should be responsible for submission of the data? What burdens would be placed on vendors of UAS if DOT required registration to occur at point-of-sale? What are the advantages of a point-of-sale approach relative to a prior-to-operation approach?
4. Consistent with past practice of discretion, should certain UAS be excluded from registration based on performance capabilities or other characteristics that could be associated with safety risk, such as weight, speed, altitude operating limitations,
duration of flight? If so, please submit information or data to help support the suggestions, and whether any other criteria should be considered.
5. How should a registration process be designed to minimize burdens and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry?
6. Should the registration be electronic or web-based? Are there existing tools that could support an electronic registration process?
7. What type of information should be collected during the registration process to positively identify the aircraft owner and aircraft?
8. How should the registration data be stored? Who should have access to the registration data? How should the data be used?
9. Should a registration fee be collected and if so, how will the registration fee be collected if registration occurs at point-of-sale? Are there payment services that can be leveraged to assist (e.g. PayPal)?
10. Are there additional means beyond aircraft registration to encourage accountability and responsible use of UAS?
Comments received by [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] would be most helpful in assisting the UAS registration task force in developing its recommendations. The comment period will remain open after this period and the Department will consider the comments received, in addition to the UAS registration task force’s recommendations, in developing a stream-lined registration process for small UAS, including model aircraft.
Issued in Washington, DC on October 19, 2015.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Comments
There is and has been a lot of talk about IF and HOW. Here is what I see as the big picture: Congress has kicked the FAA in the rear and said "You will integrate UAS into the NAS like NOW". Truly integrating UAS into the NAS is hard to do and the FAA can't do it in time to say the least. So instead they look for ways that they can re-frame the problem. According to the FAA the problem is not "How do we integrate drones into the NAS", the problem is "People have drones".
Registration is the first step in fixing that problem. They have two ways to address it:
Outlaw personally operated drones - this pisses off everyone and invites public backlash as they affirmatively squash an innovative industry (they won't do this)
Regulate SUAS to death - put in so much overhead, requirements and red tape that it is so hard / expensive / risky to operate a "drone" that people will just not do it. This results in the same effect, but is not shooting the industry in the head directly. The public will not pay attention and the message will be all about "enabling safe operations" so no outrage.
Government agencies are terrible at their core missions, but without fail they are great at politics, manipulation, obfuscation and managing expectations. We can whine about it, but the only solution is to make it too politically expensive to try to axe us and that requires more than arguing logic. We can not assume that this effort is driven by logical reasoning and we can not use logic alone to rebuke it. This means calling your representatives, small drone OEMs lobbying and pressing for a change and getting involved. Without this, get used to outlaw flying because this is just the first salvo of an arsenal that is intended to kill your hobby.
@Jam, I understand your reluctance to antagonize people and agree that antagonization itself is counterproductive. But I do think it's important to raise awareness about the legal basis upon which the FAA claims it has the authority to do these things and that legal basis mandates absurdity such as registering paper airplanes. It may also make the general public aware that this legal basis gives the FAA authority to go after them also, not just that small group of other people flying drones.
As I'll bet Patrick will note more forcefully, the intention does not justify the means -- that is the road to totalitarianism. "It is necessary to protect the citizens of our country" is the universal justification for any government action, including the ones taken by North Korea.
Also, don't forget that the liberal media is on their side. And the liberal media has great influence over the general public. We are already seen as "villains" with our "evil drones." Don't make us look worse by attempting to jack with them. Let's be seen as a cooperative group that has better solutions than they have. Get the public on our side.
I agree, writing your congressman does little. But congress can help with this, as they control the purse and they can create laws that define the DOT's powers.
I have contacted my two congressmen and the representative for my district. My goal is to meet with them them personally, along with my flying club, so that we can educate them about our hobby. We would love to get them flying some of our aircraft so they can experience it for themselves. We will suggest alternative solutions, such as educating the public (most of the problems arise from non-hobbyists purchasing and flying off-the-shelf systems like the DJI Phantom - and not knowing any better), protecting airports with drone and owner detection (that we can help them develop), and promoting the AMA. We will point out that fees and an model aircraft registration itself is going to be impossible to implement and why, not to mention showing them how it will not accomplish their goals anyway.
I am reluctant to register paper airplanes or things of the sort because antagonizing them will not help our cause. I fear that kind of action would embolden them and make us look like bad people that need to be regulated. What we really need to do is convince them that we are safe, that the rouge drone flyers that cause trouble are not a part of our community, and that we want safe skies just like they do. And we're here to help. After all, protecting the citizens of our country is the US Government's constitutional duty, and that is the intention of the DOT/FAA. There is, I'm certain, a solution that can prevent that first airline disaster while not stripping hobbyists of their freedom to fly. Let's not let either happen!
Look, I'm more libertarian than at least 95% of the population. If your argument is too libertarian for me, it will clearly fail with the general population. Let's pick arguments involving less MUST and PERIOD so that we have some hope of winning them. You read my last paragraph, right? We're all on the same side here.
With regard to "they've never enforced the law for a long time so it's not valid", that was a big part of Pirker's argument and it has been rejected to the best jurisprudence we have currently. Once again, this is really a shame as I think Pirker surely must have prevailed eventually if he had continued appealing. If you manage to get into a similar situation as Pirker, I will be very happy to contribute generously to your legal fund to establish better jurisprudence. But that's how the best-available jurisprudence reads currently.
@Benjamin, sorry but all regulations MUST be based on law. If you can prove drones fall under U.S.C 44010a, which is actually a statue passed by congress, then they can enforce that law by imposing the requirement. However, one might argue that they have NEVER tried to make model aircraft fall under this statue in the past 40 years, so it's not a valid argument that they are just NOW enforcing the law.
Your attitude is the entire reason we have an out-of-control bureaucracy. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for congress to abdicate its responsibility to bureaucrats by 'giving them the authority to write regulations'. THEY must write a law, and the bureaucrats are to ENFORCE what is written. PERIOD. We HAVE to get back to the original intent of the constitution so our freedoms are NOT trampled by these UNELECTED bureaucrats on power trips.
...plus, the requirement for registration is in the US Code (49 U.S.C. 44101(a)), so it's a law, not a regulation.
The idea that no regulations have any authority because they weren't written by Congress is a lunatic-fringe idea and we shouldn't object to what the FAA is doing on those grounds because basically everyone in society will reject that argument. Congress authorized the FAA to create regulations, but only when following a certain rulemaking process. They did not follow this process for any of the things they've said about model aircraft -- there are no regulations regarding model aircraft unless all of the FARs apply to every flying thing down to paper airplanes. "Guidance", "clarification", "advisory", etc are all non-binding statements -- basically, opinions that the FAA has when interpreting real laws and regulations, and indications of when they will choose to enforce or not enforce the law (including regulations). There is certainly an interesting question of whether it is/was ok for the FAA to publicly and officially announce that they would not enforce a large part of the regulations (under the theory that AC 91-57 was doing this rather than the theory that the definition of "aircraft" doesn't apply to small models), but the best argument we currently have is Pirker's argument: Congress could not possibly have intended to authorize the FAA to regulate paper airplanes. It is, again, a tragedy that Pirker decided not to continue his legal fight. Now the second ruling in that case is being used to back up the reasoning in this restriction, and surely future ones to come.
It may or may not be true that the FAA will increase the registration fee above $5 in an effort to make money. But either way, surely $5 doesn't cover the true costs the FAA incurs right now -- that is, surely each registration is a net drain on FAA resources. This seems like an excellent time to comply with this new directive by registering your fleet of paper airplanes. It's a win-win: if the FAA declines to register them because they're not aircraft, that's a huge win for common sense in general and RC aircraft specifically. If the FAA does register them, 1) you have n N-numbered paper airplanes which is pretty cool and 2) it drains the FAA's resources. Even if you find that you are not able to complete the process, it is free to get the FAA to mail you a sufficient number of original form 8050-1's (copies cannot be used) to complete this task.
@Jam, Legally your are 100% correct. Unless congress passes a law requiring registration, the FAA has no authority to create any such regulation. But on the other hand, because citizens have not been properly educated, and lawyers and judges have corrupted the system, the FAA (and all other federal bureaucracies), are virtually treated like legislators. They write the regulations (virtual laws), and the bureaucrats, law-enforcement, and judges go along with it as if an actual law was passed by congress. The citizens have been so programmed that they MUST obey anything that comes out of this government, they just comply. As as result of this deception, we have virtually lost our liberties that you have described.
So what's the solution? Writing your congressman may have some effect, but my experience is no. I have written many letters to my congressman regarding many issues - not one reply has ever reached by mailbox. They just do not care about individual letters - only if they will receive backing from the financiers of the party. You can comment to the FAA, but that too just empowers them, as you are then pleading to a group of bureaucrats which again makes the assumption that they HAVE this power.
My 'personal' feeling about this is to TEST the matter by civil disobedience. When the first drone pilot is ticketed for not registering, SUE the government for the very violations you have described. In my opinion, this is the way to deal with out-of-control bureaucrats. If enough citizens actually STAND UP for their rights, we have a chance. Pleading with them not to do this isn't going to work. They have started the process, showing their will to do it.
Personally, I will not register any of my drones, no matter what regulations they pass, unless there is an act of congress that is actually constitutional.
Here is one comment already posted by Kyle Nystrom:
Central to United State philosophy of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, is Due Process. Due Process, whether under the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment, entitles individuals subject to the laws of the United States all legal rights.
Key to the fabric of society in the United States and Due Process is the presumption of innocence, fair trial, representation, etc. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial with adequate represenation.
The Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (MRA) Section 336 prohibits the FAA from proscribing "any rule or regulation" regarding model aircraft that meet certain criteria i.e. aircraft is under 55lbs, flown using community standards, ceiling of 400ft, not within so miles of an Airport.
It has been proposed that FAA has blanket authority under MRA for "safety" reasons to create a "rule or regulation" concerning model aircraft.
MRA 336(b) specifically addresses FAA authority to pursue enforcement action "persons" who endanger the safety of the National Airspace. This specific authority can not, in any reasonable sense, be interpreted to mean blanket authority to mandate "registration" of "model aircraft".
By mandating model aircraft registration under the auspices of "safety" (MRA 336(b)) the FAA and DOT have shown the complete overstep of their delegated authority. Furthermore, by mandating a model aircraft registry, under the auspices of MRA 336(b), the DOT and FAA presume guilt of all current and future model aircraft operators; thus violating the Due Process rights of those individuals. And DOT and FAA demonstrate their willingness and lack of concern when trampling upon the most essential right offered in the United States - that being the presumption of innocence or in other words innocent until proven guilty.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next