• FAA Proposes Rule To Require Remote Identification Of Drones (15/19)

    From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 27 05:53:15 2019
    [continued from previous message]

    portion of part 107 operators may be able to immediately perform
    operations over people and
    operations at night without a waiver once their UAS has remote
    identification. As many as
    68.4 million operations over people and at night could be enabled by
    the proposed shortening the
    of the operational compliance period. Assuming that the flight time
    for each of these 68.4 million
    operations lasts 30 minutes and the wage for a remote pilot is $12.09
    per operation, the economic
    benefit in terms of pilot wages alone is about $827 million
    undiscounted (not present value).
    170

    169 As previously discussed, the proposal does not preclude early
    compliance for producers or operators to realize
    earlier expanded operations and commercial opportunities. The FAA
    provides a sensitivity analysis of costs for
    earlier developer and producer compliance by the effective date of the
    final rule (60 days after publication). This
    analysis shows that if Remote ID USS and UAS with remote
    identification are available by the effective date of the
    final rule (as proposed), then total net costs reduce by about 60-70%
    and operations over people and at night would
    be enabled beginning in the first year after publication.
    170 https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Drone_Pilot/Hourly_Rate
    233
    5. Alternatives Considered
    The FAA considered both more and less costly alternatives as part of
    the proposed rule.
    The alternatives and the FAA’s reasons for rejecting those
    alternatives are discussed below.
    i. Alternative Compliance Periods - Producers
    The chosen compliance period to estimate producer costs is two years
    beyond the
    effective date of the final rule. The FAA considered a producer
    compliance period of one year,
    especially considering potential retrofits, however this alternative
    was determined to be
    impractical since no FAA-accepted means of compliance currently
    available for producers to
    build to. Until an FAA-accepted means of compliance exists, producers
    would not be able to
    submit a declaration of compliance. Accordingly, the FAA believes it
    is practical for an industry
    consensus standard to be developed that could be submitted for
    acceptance as a means of
    compliance by the end of year 1 after the effective date of the final
    rule, with an additional year
    for producers to design, build, and test UAS that meet the standard.
    The two-year compliance period for producers is consistent with
    information on timelines
    for available technology from the UAS-ID ARC Report and expected
    availability of USS. The
    ARC found technologies similar to planned Remote ID USS transmissions
    have a “readiness for
    implementation” of one year or less. This means products would be
    available for original
    equipment manufacturers within one year of the requirements being
    known. This one-year period
    would start after the availability of FAA-accepted means of compliance
    and Remote ID USS—
    the FAA expects means of compliance and Remote ID USS availability to
    take up to one year
    after the effective date of the final rule.
    234
    At this time, the two-year producer compliance period appears
    reasonable and has a
    technical basis. The FAA has not identified or analyzed an
    alternative. The current proposal does
    not preclude earlier producer compliance (in light of a potential
    economic incentive to comply
    earlier). Likewise, this proposal would not preclude producer
    compliance through retrofits within
    the two-year producer compliance period or earlier, as long as
    retrofits use an FAA-accepted
    means of compliance.
    ii. Alternative Operational Compliance Period
    The FAA considered allowing three years beyond the producer compliance
    date for
    owners and operators to comply with the remote identification
    requirements of this proposed
    rule. This period of time coincides with the three-year lifespan of a
    small UAS and would have
    prevented grounding or replacement of UAS prior to end of useful life.
    However, the FAA
    determined that the three-year compliance period was less preferable
    since it prolonged safety
    and security risks to air traffic and airports by delaying the ability
    of law enforcement personnel
    to identify unauthorized UAS operations. In addition, as previously
    discussed, some producers
    would be able to retrofit UAS in the existing fleet and comply early.
    To reduce the delay in
    implementing remote identification, the owner/operator compliance
    period was reduced from
    three years to one year.
    The FAA analyzed the costs of allowing up to three years for
    owners/operators to be in
    compliance and found this alternative minimizes costs to
    owners/operators of existing UAS that
    could not be retrofit, since on average the affected existing fleet of
    UAS could be replaced at the
    end of useful life (three years). In addition, this alternative is
    more likely to reduce uncertainty of
    adverse impacts to producers with inventories of UAS produced before
    the compliance date that
    would likely not meet the remote identification provisions of this
    proposal, including with
    235
    retrofits. Given the average three-year UAS lifespan, the three-year operational compliance
    period would likely assist producers in depleting existing
    non-compliant inventories with
    reduced impact compared to the proposed one-year compliance period.
    Under this alternative, present value costs at a three percent
    discount rate total $494.2
    million with annualized costs of $57.9 million. The present value
    costs at a seven percent
    discount rate total $394.4 million with annualized costs of $56.2
    million. Present value cost
    savings at a three percent discount rate total $2.45 million with
    annualized cost savings of $0.29
    million. At a seven percent discount rate, present value costs savings
    total $1.82 million with
    annualized cost savings of $0.26 million. As a result, present value
    net costs at a three percent
    discount rate are $491.7 million with annualized net costs of $57.7
    million. At a seven percent
    discount rate, present value net costs are $392.6 million with
    annualized net cost of $55.9
    million. The cost associated with this alternative are slightly less
    than the proposal that assumes
    producers would be capable of retrofits within one year of the
    effective date of the final rule.
    iii. Requiring ADS-B Out
    The FAA could have proposed transponders or ADS-B Out for UAS as a
    means to
    remotely identify those aircraft. The FAA does not propose the use of transponders or ADS-B
    Out for remote identification for three primary reasons. First, the
    use of these technologies would
    require significant additional infrastructure, including radars and
    receivers, to cover the lower
    altitudes where unmanned aircraft are expected to primarily operate.
    Second, the FAA expects
    that, due to the volume of unmanned aircraft operations projected, the additional radio frequency
    signals would saturate the available spectrum and degrade the overall cooperative surveillance
    system. Finally, transponders and ADS-B Out do not provide any
    information about the location
    of control stations, as these systems were designed for manned
    aircraft. For these reasons, the
    236
    FAA has determined that existing cooperative surveillance systems are
    incapable of supporting
    UAS remote identification and is proposing a new cooperative
    surveillance technology
    specifically for UAS.
    iv. FAA Provided Remote Identification Services
    The proposed rule assumes that Remote ID USS would come forward to
    offer remote
    identification services to indiviRequireduals operating UAS in the
    airspace of the United States.
    The alternative would be for the FAA to provide these services
    directly to operators of UAS
    instead of providing them through a third-party provider. The FAA
    chose the Remote ID
    alternative for several reasons. First, the LAANC service model has
    been effective due to the
    success of public and private sector partnerships in implementing
    LAANC and clear
    Congressional approval of the model. Second, similar to LAANC USS, the
    FAA will not provide
    payment for the development or operation of Remote ID USS products or
    services. The FAA
    anticipates that the Remote ID USS would recoup the costs of providing
    services either through
    the sale of subscriptions for remote identification services, online advertising, or “value added”
    services that can be purchased from the service provider.
    v. Not Allowing FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
    The FAA considered not allowing FAA-recognized identification areas.
    If the proposed
    rule did not allow for these areas, operators of UAS with no remote identification equipment
    would not be allowed to operate unless the UAS were redesigned to have
    remote identification.
    By identifying a defined location where operations of UAS without
    remote identification would
    be occurring, the FAA-recognized identification area itself becomes
    the form of identification.
    The intent for allowing FAA-recognized identification areas is to
    minimize the regulatory burden
    237
    for operators of existing UAS used exclusively for limited
    recreational operations that do not
    have remote identification equipment, while still meeting the intent
    of the rule.
    Assumptions
    ? Individuals want to operate UAS without remote identification within FAA-recognized
    identification areas
    ? Each individual owns two aircraft which are used for limited
    recreational operations.
    ? These unmanned aircraft have a lifespan that extends beyond the
    10-year analysis period
    of the proposed rulemaking.
    Should the FAA not allow FAA-recognized identification areas for the
    operation of UAS
    without remote identification, it is estimated that as many as 400,000
    UAS that are used for
    recreational flying would be grounded at the end of year 3.
    vi. Requiring all UAS to be Standard Remote Identification UAS (Except
    for UAS
    without Remote Identification Operated at FAA-Recognized
    Identification Areas)
    The preferred alternative allows operators of limited remote
    identification UAS to
    operate at places other than FAA-recognized identification areas. The
    FAA considered requiring
    all UAS to be standard remote identification UAS. Under this
    alternative, owners desiring to
    operate any UAS that is not a standard remote identification UAS would
    be required to travel to
    an FAA-recognized identification area. The FAA analyzed the shortest
    distance between zip
    codes for each online hobbyist registration and the zip code closest
    to one of over 2,000 AMA
    flying fields.171 The zip code analysis indicates a person operating
    UAS that are not standard

    171 As of April 26, 2019, there are 1,013,893 individuals registered
    as hobbyists.
    238
    remote identification UAS would be required to travel an average of 16
    miles one-way to the
    nearest FAA-recognized identification area.
    Assumptions
    ? Operators of UAS that are not standard remote identification UAS are
    willing to travel to
    an FAA-recognized identification area.
    ? The average distance between an FAA-recognized identification area
    and the homes for
    operators of UAS used for limited recreational operations is 32 miles
    round trip.
    On average, operators of UAS that are not standard remote
    identification UAS would
    travel to an FAA-recognized identification area 52 times per year.
    ? The share of the UAS fleet operated by recreational flyers that is
    not a standard remote
    identification UAS is assumed to be 82 percent.
    Based on these assumptions, the present value travel costs and
    opportunity cost of time
    accrued to recreational flyers is $2,276 million at a seven percent
    discount rate. These costs
    accrue during years 4-10 of the analysis period. Additionally, under
    this alternative, affected
    recreational flyers would no longer be required to subscribe to a
    Remote ID USS since they
    would only be flying at an FAA-recognized identification area. Thus
    this affected group would
    avert subscription costs. Averted present value subscription costs in
    this alternative total
    $72.7 million at a seven percent discount rate.
    As discussed above, the costs of this alternative are calculated based
    on individuals
    traveling an average of 52 times per year to an FAA-recognized
    identification area. Given that
    there is uncertainty regarding the average number of trips that this
    affected group would take on
    an annual basis, the FAA conducted a sensitivity analysis by varying
    the input for travel
    239
    frequency. Using 26 trips per year, the total cost becomes $1,138
    million, and using 90 trips per
    year the cost is $3,939.5 million.
    172
    vii. Grandfathering of Legacy UAS
    The FAA considered allowing UAS that would not be able to retrofit to
    continue
    operating in the airspace of the United States using software-based
    flight notification with
    telemetry.173 This would be accomplished through software based
    mission planning services. The
    UAS operator would self-declare information pertaining to area their
    drone would be flying in,
    including altitude, duration and type of aircraft. This information
    would be shared prior to flight
    to enable authorities to clearly identify compliant operations.
    Software apps are currently
    available on the marketplace that would support this alternative.
    The FAA did not pursue this option because it would not meet the
    mission needs of the
    proposed rule for security, performance, and information quality.
    While this alternative would
    allow for the rapid adoption of Remote ID and Tracking for nearly all
    classes of UAS, it relies on
    the individual operator to proactively report their location to a USS. Conversely, the proposed
    rule requires remote identification UAS to automatically connect to a
    USS. If the UAS cannot
    connect to the USS, the unmanned aircraft will not take off.

    172 These trip frequencies assume that an individual travels, on
    average, every other weekend (26 trips/year), every
    weekend (52 trips/year), or once every four days (90 trips/year) to an FAA-Recognized Identification Area. This is
    used as a sensitivity analysis of the number of times an individual
    would travel to an FAA-recognized identification
    area in the period of one year. The lower bound of the sensitivity
    analysis is based on the average number of rounds
    a golfer plays in a year (Source: https://www.ngf.org/golf-industry-research/#golfers ). The upper bound
    of the
    sensitivity analysis is based on the number of times in a year a
    person engages in a running/jogging/trail running
    activity (Source: https://outdoorindustry.org/resource/2018-outdoor-participation-report/.
    Page 23).
    173 This option was discussed in the UAS Identification and Tracking
    (UAS ID) Aviation Rulemaking Committee
    (ARC) - ARC Recommendations Final Report, September 30, 2017.
    240
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
    establishes “as a
    principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
    consistent with the objectives of the
    rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
    businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
    principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
    regulatory proposals and to
    explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
    are given serious
    consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
    including small businesses, notfor-profit organizations, and small
    governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the
    agency determines that it will,
    the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described
    in the RFA.
    The FAA believes this proposed rule would have a significant economic
    impact on a
    substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under Section 603(b)
    of the RFA, the initial
    analysis must address:
    ? Description of reasons the agency is considering the action.
    ? Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the proposed rule.
    ? Description of the record-keeping and other compliance requirements
    of the proposed rule.
    ? All Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
    proposed rule.
    ? Description and estimated number of small entities to which the
    proposed rule will apply.
    ? Description of Significant Regulatory Alternatives for Small
    Entities.
    241
    1. Description of Reasons the Agency is Considering the Action
    The remote identification of UAS is necessary to ensure public safety
    and the safety and
    efficiency of the airspace of the United States. The remote
    identification framework would
    provide UAS-specific data, which could be used in tandem with new
    technologies and
    infrastructure to facilitate more advanced operational capabilities
    (such as detect-and-avoid and
    aircraft-to-aircraft communications that support beyond visual line of
    sight operations) and to
    develop the necessary elements for UTM. Furthermore, remote
    identification of UAS would
    provide airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, and
    law enforcement entities,
    which could be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a
    safety or security risk.
    Current rules for registration and marking of unmanned aircraft
    facilitate the
    identification of the owners of unmanned aircraft, but normally only
    upon physical examination
    of the aircraft. Existing electronic surveillance technologies, like transponders and ADS-B, were
    considered as potential solutions for the remote identification of UAS
    but were determined to be
    unsuitable due to the lack of infrastructure for these technologies at
    lower altitudes and potential
    saturation of available radio frequency spectrum. Currently, the lack
    of real-time and historical
    data regarding UAS operations affects the ability of the FAA to
    oversee the safety and security
    of the airspace of the United States, creates challenges for national
    security agencies and law
    enforcement entities in identifying threats, and impedes the further integration of UAS into the
    airspace of the United States. The FAA proposes to address the
    identification issues associated
    with UAS by requiring the use of systems and technology to enable the
    remote identification of
    UAS.
    242
    The proposed requirement is consistent with the FAA’s safety mission
    of overseeing and
    promoting safety in air commerce and national security and promoting
    the safe and efficient use
    of the navigable airspace and would serve the public interest by
    creating situational awareness of
    all UAS flying in the airspace of the United States. It would also
    strengthen the FAA’s oversight
    of UAS operations and support efforts of law enforcement to address
    and mitigate disruptive
    behavior and hazards, which may threaten the safety and security of
    the airspace of the United
    States, other UAS, manned aviation, and persons and property on the
    ground. The near real-time
    access to remote identification information would also assist Federal
    security partners in threat
    discrimination—allowing them to identify an operator and make an
    informed decision regarding
    the need to take actions to mitigate a perceived security or safety
    risk. The proposed rule would
    enhance the FAA’s ability to monitor compliance with applicable
    regulations; would contribute
    to the FAA’s ability to undertake compliance, enforcement, and
    educational actions required to
    mitigate safety risks; and would advance the safe integration of UAS
    into the airspace of the
    United States.
    2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule
    Statement of the legal basis. The FAA promulgates this rulemaking
    pursuant to various
    authorities. First, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and (2), the FAA is
    directed to issue 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.
    Second, under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), the FAA must promote safe flight
    of civil aircraft
    by prescribing regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety in air
    commerce and national
    security.
    243
    Third, under section 2202 of Pub. L. 114-190, the Administrator must
    convene industry
    stakeholders to facilitate the development of consensus standards for
    remotely identifying
    operators and owners of UAS and associated unmanned aircraft and to
    issue regulations or
    guidance based on any standards developed.
    Fourth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805, the Administrator must establish a
    process for, among
    other things, accepting risk-based consensus safety standards related
    to the design and
    production of small UAS.
    Fifth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805(b)(7), the Administrator must take into
    account any
    consensus identification standard regarding remote identification of
    unmanned aircraft developed
    pursuant to section 2202 of Pub. L. 114-190.
    Sixth, under 49 U.S.C. 44809(f), the Administrator is not prohibited
    from promulgating
    rules generally applicable to unmanned aircraft, including those
    unmanned aircraft eligible for
    the exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned
    aircraft. Among other things, this
    authority extends to rules relating to the registration and marking of
    unmanned aircraft and the
    standards for remotely identifying owners and operators of UAS and
    associated unmanned
    aircraft.
    Seventh, the FAA has authority to regulate registration of aircraft
    under
    49 U.S.C. 44101–44106 and 44110–44113 which require aircraft to be
    registered as a condition
    of operation and establish the requirements for registration and
    registration processes.
    Lastly, this rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
    in 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
    which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate
    regulations and rules, and
    49 U.S.C. 40101(d), which authorizes the FAA to consider in the public interest, among other
    244
    things, the enhancement of safety and security as the highest
    priorities in air commerce, the
    regulation of civil and military operations in the interest of safety
    and efficiency, and assistance
    to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws related to
    regulation of controlled
    substances, to the extent consistent with aviation safety.
    Objectives for the proposed rule. The FAA is integrating UAS
    operations into the
    airspace of the United States through a phased, incremental, and
    risk-based approach.
    174
    On June 28, 2016, the FAA achieved a major step towards UAS
    integration when it
    issued the final rule for Operation and Certification of Small
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems.175
    This was one of multiple UAS-related regulatory actions taken by the
    FAA to enable the safe
    integration of UAS into the airspace of the United States. As
    technology progresses and the
    utility of UAS increases, the FAA anticipates a need for further
    rulemaking to continue to foster
    the safe, secure, and efficient use of the airspace of the United
    States. The FAA believes that the
    next step in the regulatory process involves the enactment of
    regulatory requirements to enable
    the remote identification of UAS operating in the airspace of the
    United States.
    This action would implement requirements for the remote identification
    of UAS. The
    remote identification of UAS in the airspace of the United States
    would address safety, security,
    and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of
    these aircraft into the airspace
    while also enabling greater operational capabilities.

    174 Consult http://www.faa.gov/uas for additional information
    regarding UAS operations.
    175 81 FR 42064.
    245
    3. Description of the Record-Keeping and other Compliance Requirements
    of
    the Proposed Rule
    UAS owners, UAS operators (including pilots, remote pilots, and
    persons manipulating
    the flight controls of UAS), UAS manufacturers (i.e., persons
    responsible for the production of
    UAS), developers of remote identification means of compliance, and
    Remote ID USS would
    have important roles in the remote identification of UAS. Please see
    section I.C of this preamble
    for additional detail describing the roles and responsibilities of
    each group within the scope of
    the proposed rule.
    This proposed rule imposes recordkeeping requirements. First, all
    entities intending to
    use the small unmanned aircraft for limited recreational operations
    would be required to include
    the manufacturer, model, and serial number of each small unmanned
    aircraft in the registration of
    that aircraft. Requiring the manufacturer, model, and serial number
    would obligate registrants to
    add this additional information to the registration for all their
    aircraft used for limited
    recreational operations.
    Next, the FAA is proposing that persons who develop standards that the
    FAA may accept
    as a means of compliance submit those standards for review and
    acceptance by the FAA. A
    person who submits a means of compliance is proposed to be required to
    retain the data for as
    long as the means of compliance is accepted plus an additional 24
    calendar months.
    The FAA is proposing that persons who produce UAS with remote
    identification must
    meet the minimum performance requirements of the proposed rule using
    an FAA-accepted
    means of compliance. To demonstrate the UAS has been produced to meet
    the minimum
    performance requirements using an FAA-accepted means of compliance,
    persons responsible for
    the production of UAS would be required to submit to the FAA a
    declaration of compliance. A
    246
    person who submits a declaration of compliance would be required to
    retain the data submitted
    for 24 calendar months after the cessation of production of the UAS
    with remote identification.
    The proposed rule would require a producer to label the UAS to show
    that it was
    produced with remote identification technology capable of meeting the
    proposed rule. The
    proposed labeling requirement would inform the operator that the UAS
    is eligible to conduct
    operations within the airspace of the United States.
    The FAA proposes standard remote identification UAS and limited remote identification
    UAS be designed and produced to connect to the internet and transmit
    remote identification
    message elements to Remote ID USS. The collection of this information
    in the form of message
    elements is necessary to comply with the statutory requirement to
    develop standards for remotely
    identifying operators and owners of UAS and associated unmanned
    aircraft. The information
    transmitted between the UAS and the Remote ID USS is collected
    electronically without input
    from the human operator, thus there is no burden on the person
    manipulating the flight controls
    of the unmanned aircraft to manually submit information to the Remote
    ID USS. There would be
    an exchange of information between the Remote ID USS and the FAA when identification of the
    UAS is required. At this time, it is unknown how often exchanges
    between the FAA and Remote
    ID USS will occur.
    To support the transmission of these message elements, the FAA
    envisions that a Remote
    ID USS (an FAA-qualified third party service provider) demonstrate
    four primary capabilities:
    (1) the ability to share the remote identification message elements in
    near real-time with the FAA
    upon request; (2) the ability to maintain remote identification
    information; (3) the ability to meet
    contractually-established technical parameters; and (4) the ability to
    inform the FAA when their
    services are active and inactive. Each Remote ID USS would be required
    to establish a
    247
    contractual relationship with the FAA through a Memorandum of
    Agreement (MOA), and to
    comply with a series of terms, conditions, limitations, and technical requirements, and to outline
    how the Remote ID USS must interpret and provide data to external
    users, as well as store and
    protect such data.
    The FAA is proposing that representatives of CBOs submitting
    applications for flying
    sites to become FAA-recognized identification areas may apply for such designation in a form
    and manner acceptable to the FAA. The application would collect
    certain information regarding
    the location and requirements of the flying site, and require the CBO representative to confirm
    certain information regarding the site.
    4. All Federal Rules that may Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
    Proposed Rule
    The FAA is unaware that the proposed rule will overlap, duplicate or
    conflict with
    existing Federal rules.
    5. Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to which the
    Proposed Rule Will Apply
    This proposed rule would apply to four communities of small entities:
    producers of UAS,
    entities that either own or operate UAS, community based
    organizations, and Remote ID USS.
    The first affected group of small entities discussed will be
    producers. For purposes of this
    rulemaking, the FAA estimates that there are approximately 154 U.S.
    entities that produce small
    248
    UAS as of January 2019.176 Out of these 154 U.S. entities, data on
    entity size, as defined by
    number of employees, was available for only 117. Out of the 117
    entities for which data was
    available, 87 of the entities are categorized as small, 12 of the
    entities are categorized as
    medium, and 18 are categorized as large.177 Data for the remaining 37
    entities was not available
    and thus the entity size could not be determined, however a majority
    are believed to be small.
    NAICS code 336411 is titled “Miscellaneous Aircraft Manufacturing.”
    The manufacture of
    unmanned and robotic aircraft are included in this code. The SBA
    defines industries within this
    code to be small if they employ 1,500 employees or less.
    The next group of entities affected by the proposed rule are owners
    and operators of UAS
    that conduct operations under part 107 or part 91. Based on analysis
    conducted by the
    Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), over
    85 percent of part 107
    waivers granted have been to small businesses.178 Using this finding
    based on part 107 waiver
    data as a proxy for the size of all entities operating UAS under part
    107, the FAA assumes that
    approximately 85 percent of the entities operating under part 107 are
    small. The FAA requests
    information on this assumption and the number of small entities
    affected by the proposal.
    Model aircraft organizations179 currently operating flying sites are
    affected by this
    rulemaking. These organizations would be required to submit a request
    to the FAA to have an
    established flying site approved as an FAA-recognized identification
    area. Based on membership

    176 AUVSI Air Platform Database. Accessed January 2019.
    177 This is based on AUVSI criteria for number of employees. The AUVSI
    criteria for a manufacturer of unmanned
    aircraft to be identified as a small entity is 49 employees or fewer.
    The criteria to be identified as a medium entity is
    50-499 employees. Large entities are determined to have 500 or more
    employees.
    178 (AUVSI) Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. As
    of July 31, 2017, 1,074 waivers had been
    issued of which 85 percent were granted to small entities (entities
    with less than 10 employees).
    179 Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/whatisama.aspx; more than
    2,500 AMA fields.
    249
    of AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics), it is estimated that each
    flying club has, on average,
    78 members.180 SBA standards for NAICS code 713990 “All Other
    Amusement and Recreation
    Activities” is $7.5 million in annual receipts, or less, to be
    considered a small entity. Financial
    records for these individual community based organizations are not
    public information, but it is
    believed that none have receipts totaling $7.5 million, and thus each
    is considered a small entity.
    The last group of entities affected by the proposed rule are Remote ID
    USS. Because
    Remote ID USS do not yet exist, the FAA is unable to classify the
    entities as either small or
    large.
    The FAA determines that a majority of entities impacted by this
    proposed rule are small.
    Therefore, the FAA determines this proposed rule would have a
    significant economic impact on
    a substantial number of small entities.
    6. Description of Significant Regulatory Alternatives Considered for
    Small
    Entities

    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)