The AMA just announced that the Federal Register (item #19 here) is wrong and the AMA knows that the NPRM is going to be out in June. Meanwhile the Governement records indicate the process is running on schedule for NPRM release in March.

The AMA is telling everyone that the AMA knows more about the situation than the governement itself.

The AMA claims the FAA "reconfirmed" the July or later dates last week, but provided no document or FAA source to support that claim.

So who is spreading misinformation, the AMA or the Federal Register ? I let you decide.

From the AMA (bolding mine):

"Over the past week there’s been a fair amount of speculation and misinformation on the internet regarding the proposed date for the sUAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). There have even been assertions that the public comment period for the proposed rule has come and gone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In December of “09”, the FAA announced its target date of June 2011 for the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This is the date the proposed rule will be noticed (posted) in the Federal Register and the point at which the public comment period will commence. This date was reconfirmed last week by the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Program Office; if anything there’s the possibility this date could slip into July or even August.

So what caused all the fuss… ?

Well, the misunderstanding stemmed from a notice in the Federal Register posted in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The RFA requires agencies to publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the Federal Register describing regulatory actions they are developing that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Act also requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and comment on proposed rules with the potential for such an impact.

FAA posted its regulatory agenda relating to the sUAS rulemaking earlier this year. The rational for an RFA review was based on, “the novel legal or policy issues about the minimum safety parameters for operating recreational remote control model and toy aircraft in the NAS”.

The March 2011 date in the Federal Register relates to OMB’s review of the proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This review occurs before the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register and opened for public comment. Again, we expect the NPRM to occur in June 2011.

Please continue to check the AMA webpage for the most current sUAS rulemaking information. Timely alerts are also available on the web or on your cell phone at: "

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • The AMA Forum Administrator posted this message about the AMA's alleged NPRM date:
    "It's great to get reliable info directly from the source."
    I guess they all think the AMA is "The " source for all reliable FAA information.
    As for me, I would like to see proof that the FAA is even in communication with the AMA anymore, let alone leaking confidential information.
  • They general public is allowed to comment om the NPRM and there are some rules to follow, but well written recommendations for changes with good reasons for those changes will be what will be considered. Ranting and raving will most likely be ignored. Write like you were addressing a jury in court (which is what you are in essence doing). When the NPRM comes out I will put the instructions and links here, if I am still able to. I have already been banned from RC forums for being an "AMA basher". I hope this one doesn't get "influenced" by the AMA.
  • T3

    Do you have any information on the Public Comment Period how does this work do we all write in as individuals and bitch? Do we get the rules and come up with some proposed changes and pass around a petition? Do we send pleading notes to the White House not to sign etc?
  • In defense of the FAA, the AMA is no longer the org. for small aircraft and kids any more. It is more about big aircraft, big competitions, and selling insurance and magazines. I am suprised the big manufacturers/distributors haven't been lobbying on this issue, esp. when the big three are on the AMA marketing committee.
  • Moderator
    Yes all the shouting of its not fair and no one told us will shortly start. Same thing happened over here and it had all been on the table for years. Thankfully we ended up with sensible regulations. In part I think because the CAA here has aeromodellers in it that are up to speed. Strikes me the FAA guys have forgotten the little boys they probably once were flying their models dreaming of being pilots. There are probably big defense developers standing over them with a big stick and the cry of lost jobs. This one put its case in the press last weekend All to save the Global Hawk which is looking less and less likely to be bought in the numbers they need.
  • At this point only the FAA knows what is going on and they are not allowed by law to comment on the process. So. if someone from the FAA is talking to the AMA they are commiting a felony unless it is a Govt approved "leak" of disinformation. Maybe they want the AMA to miss the deadlines for comment?
    My guess is that turbines will be banned for "recreational model aircraft" use. I am willing to bet that the FAA will stick to the 400' limit except for designated locations. Those locations will be far from the aorports that many AMA clubs seem to have taken a liking to over the last 30 years. Seems to me that the AMA went out of their way to urinate all over AC 91-57. I will not be suprised oof the FAA says "its our turn now".

    Thank the AMA for "securing" recreational flying for everyone. If they had been proactive in the mess they would be sitting pretty but they just ignored the coming storm for the last 5 years or so. We all new this was coming almost a decade ago but almost everyone buried their heads in the sands and called us watchdogs a bunch of idiots and liars. Now the stuff has hit the props and all anyone can do is duck and cover.
  • Moderator
    If the AMA is like the BMFA in the UK they will want nothing to do with UAS, probably rightly so. The snag comes for normal model activities, like say soaring. That will be severely affected by the 400' ceiling. Did the banning of jets thing ever continue through??? I thought that was on the table at one time over there.
  • The AMA doesn't seem to understand the rule making process.
    After the FAA completes the proposed rules, it goes to the US Secretary of Transportation (OST) first (1/24/2011), then the Office of Managent and Budget at the White House (2/3/2-11) which either aproves or rejects (3/7/2011). If approved it will be published as a Notice of Proposed Rile Making (NPRM) on 3/10/2011.

    All of these dates are firm and are a matter of Federal law and the process ends if dates are not met without requesting and being granted an extension. Anyone who has missed a Govt deadline will know all too well that they take deadlines seriously. Recall that a Presidential veto occurs when the President doesn't sign a bill by the deadline given to him. Wow, even the President has to follow legislative deadlines. I remind people that this process is being pushed through, in part, by Homeland Security, no sane person is going to drag their heels on this rulemaking process.
    I am wondering whether the AMA is being fed bad info or if the AMA is making up the bad info. As yet the AMA has produced no evidence to back up their rumors of delays.
This reply was deleted.