Today the DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (84
FR 72438-72524) [Note: this link is very slow to load today, an alternate
that works] that would require the remote identification of unmanned
aircraft systems.
Overview
The new rule would require the classification of nearly all
(amateur-built UAS and UAS weighing less than 0.55-lbs would be exempt)
unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in the United states into one of three
categories:
• Standard remote
operation UAS (SRO/UAS);
• Limited remote
operation UAS (LRO/UAS); and
The application of these categories depends on the ability
of the UAS to broadcast its identifying information. Two means of broadcast are
being defined in the rulemaking:
• Connecting to the internet (typically
via the UAS control station) and transmitting through that internet connection
to a Remote ID UAS Service Supplier (USS); and
• Broadcasting directly from the
unmanned aircraft.
An SRO/UAS would be capable of utilizing both means of
communications. An LRO/UAS would only be capable of using the internet
connection mode. Needless to say, the third category would have neither communication
mode available; subsequently, they would only be allowed to operate within an
FAA-recognized identification area.
All three categories of UAS would be required to be individually
registered with the FAA. Those currently exempted
from individual UAS registration under 14
CFR 48.100(b) would be required to submit individual UAS registrations
including: manufacturer, model, and, if the unmanned aircraft is a standard or
limited remote identification unmanned aircraft, the aircraft's serial number.
UAS manufacturers would be required
to:
• Issue each unmanned aircraft a
serial number that complies with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number standard.
• Label the unmanned aircraft to
indicate that it is remote identification compliant and indicate whether the
UAS is standard remote identification or limited remote identification.
• Submit a declaration of
compliance for acceptance by the FAA, declaring that the UAS complies with the
requirements of the proposed rule.
Communications Standards
The FAA has not established a specific communications
standard for either of the communication modes required in the NPRM. It would,
however, specifically
prohibit the use of ADS-B Out and transponders for nearly all UAS
operations. The FAA expects the UAS industry to develop the required standards
and has provided
minimum performance requirements for such systems.
UAS Service Supplier
The FAA would not provide USS services directly. The FAA envisions that
the USS would be a service provider qualified by the Administrator to provide
remote identification services to UAS. The USS would operate under a contractual
agreement with the FAA to provide those services. They would be required
to be able to demonstrate the ability:
• To share the remote
identification message elements in near real-time with the FAA upon request;
• To maintain remote identification
information securely and to limit access to such information;
• To meet contractually-established
technical parameters; and
• To inform the FAA when their
services are active and inactive.
Effective Date
Because the development of the communications standards and
equipment would take some amount of time to accomplish, the NPRM envisions that
the effective date of the final rule would be three years after its
publication.
Comments
The FAA is soliciting comments on this NPRM. Comments may be
submitted vial the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # FAA-2019-1100).
Comments should be submitted before March 2, 2020.
Commentary
The need for the FAA and/or police agencies to be able to
identify UAS in flight is becoming ever more apparent. This rulemaking is a
rather minimalistic (if very wordy) attempt at making that possible without
ruffling too many feathers. The big problem that is not directly addressed in
this NPRM is that a large number of UAS of all sizes are flying in US airspace today
without the capability to comply with this rulemaking. Commercial UAS makers
will probably be able retrofit the requisite communications equipment with
relatively minimal costs.
The problem is going to be the very large number (millions?)
of small UAS in the hands of private individuals; most of them will never be
upgradeable. Even if they were, it is likely that large numbers of the owners
would not make the effort to upgrade them and the FAA does not have the
enforcement personnel to make a dent in that non-compliance rate.
This is part of the reason that Congress initially exempted ‘model
aircraft’ from FAA registration requirements in §336 of the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012. The FAA found a way around that exemption when the
published their interim final rule on UAS registration in 2016; instead of
registering the actual UAS they required hobby UAS operators to register under
§48.100(b). While the courts temporarily nullified that registration requirement,
Congress more clearly mandated the exemption in adding 49
USC 44809 and repealed the earlier language. While eliminating the term ‘model
aircraft’ §44809 introduced the ‘limited recreational operations’ terminology
that the FAA is using in this NPRM.
Now Congress left a way out for the FAA to conduct these
registration activities in §44809(f):
(f) Exceptions.—Nothing in this
section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating rules generally
applicable to unmanned aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for
the exception set forth in this section, relating to—
(1) updates to the operational
parameters for unmanned aircraft in subsection (a);
(2) the registration and
marking of unmanned aircraft;
(3) the standards for remotely
identifying owners and operators of unmanned aircraft systems and associated
unmanned aircraft; and
(4) other standards consistent
with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system.
An attempt was made by the FAA to address this small UAS in ‘limited
recreational operations’ by including the proposed rules for the operation of UAS
without remote identification equipment in an FAA-recognized identification
area. This provision coincides with the congressional mythology of the
operation of community-based organizations for the hobby use of model aircraft.
While such organizations certainly exist, they support only a very small
percentage of small recreational UAS users.
While the FAA has partially addressed this issue by
exempting micro UAS (UAS weighing less than 0.55-lbs), that does not address
the widespread existing use of recreational quadcopters and other small UAS (larger
than 0.55-lbs) that will not be modifiable to meet the communications
requirements of this rule. The FAA can say that they will not be allowed to
operate in backyards, parks and city streets, but without an effective enforcement
effort this rule will be effectively ignored.
There is an old leadership rule that I learned in the Army:
Never give an order that you know will be disobeyed. Such an order undermines
the authority of the issuer. The FAA, by not specifically addressing this
issue, will undermine their authority to regulate small recreational UAS. And
this class of aircraft is almost certainly the largest number of UAS in
operation.