Background: Operations Over People and Remote ID
The concept of aircraft registration and identification has been vital to the safe expansion of global commercial aviation dating back to radio call signs allocated in the early twentieth century. Unlike large manned aircraft with visible tail numbers, the size and operating capabilities of UAS present unique challenges and concerns in terms of their identification and safe integration into the NAS. In light of these concerns, proposed UAS operations over people and remote identification (remote ID) requirements have been inextricably linked since 2016 when the FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) for a federal regulatory framework for safe operations over people.
The FAA had intended to release a proposed OOP Rule in late 2016, but the process was derailed during interagency review due to law enforcement agencies’ insistence that the FAA first establish remote ID requirements. Remote ID information provides law enforcement and other public safety stakeholders with critical information on unmanned aircraft operations to reduce the risk of their interference with other aircraft and people and property on the ground. In June 2017, the FAA convened the UAS Identification and Tracking ARC to provide recommendations regarding technologies available for remote ID and tracking of UAS. The ARC was composed of members representing aviation community and industry organizations, law enforcement agencies and public safety organizations, manufacturers, technology companies, UAS operators, researchers, and standards bodies.
On February 13, 2019, the FAA published its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the OOP Rule, which proposed regulations to, among other things, permit routine operations of sUAS over people and at night under certain conditions. The OOP NPRM noted, however, that the FAA intended to finalize its policy on remote ID prior to issuing the final OOP Rule. Acting on the 2017 recommendations of the UAS Identification and Tracking ARC, on December 31, 2019, the FAA published its NPRM for the Remote ID Rule, which proposed requirements for the identification of unmanned aircraft in flight as well as the location of their control stations—the ground-based user interface that operators use to communicate with and control unmanned aircraft. After reviewing nearly 54,000 cumulative public comments on both the Remote ID and OOP NPRMs, the FAA published both final rules concurrently on January 15, 2021.
The Remote ID Rule
The Remote ID Rule establishes requirements for the remote ID of unmanned aircraft to be operated in U.S. airspace under new regulations in 14 C.F.R part 89 (part 89), which are now set to become effective on April 21, 2021. Under the Remote ID Rule, any unmanned aircraft that is required to be registered with the FAA—meaning all unmanned aircraft weighing over .55 pounds or being operated under part 107 (without regard to minimum weight)—must be compliant with remote ID requirements. After the effective date, the Remote ID Rule provides for an 18-month implementation period for manufacturers of unmanned aircraft that will be operated in the U.S. and a 30-month implementation period for unmanned aircraft operators in the U.S. to meet all applicable remote ID requirements. After the implementation periods, no unmanned aircraft required to comply with remote ID requirements may be manufactured or operated in the U.S. unless it complies with the rule’s equipage and broadcast requirements.
The FAA made several important changes between the NPRM and final Remote ID Rule in response to concerns raised in comments to the NPRM from recreational flyers, UAS and other aviation manufacturers, UAS interest groups, airlines, state and local governments, news media organizations, academia, and others.
Elimination of Network Transmission Requirement
In the final Remote ID Rule, the FAA replaced the concept of network transmission (via internet connection) of unmanned aircraft remote ID information originally proposed in the NPRM with a “broadcast-only solution,” whereby remote ID information must be broadcast over the radio-frequency spectrum (broadcast remote ID). The FAA’s decision in the final rule to require broadcast remote ID only was due, in part, to a multitude of comments received from individuals, UAS associations, and government organizations on the technical challenges of the network requirement. The FAA found that commenters expressed valid concerns about “privacy, cybersecurity, and other security-related issues, and access and protection of data transmitted to, and stored by, a Remote ID [UAS service supplier],” such that “the unknowns regarding UAS integration make it impractical to expand this rule beyond a broadcast-only solution.” According to the FAA, the new broadcast-only solution “provides an initial remote identification framework and sets the foundation for future regulatory actions.”
Broadcast Modules
To address the elimination of the concept of network transmission, the Remote ID Rule introduced and adopted the concept of the remote ID broadcast module, which may be used to retrofit unmanned aircraft that do not meet standard remote ID requirements. Broadcast modules will allow unmanned aircraft without integrated remote ID capability to identify remotely. The FAA updated the remote ID design and production requirements for unmanned aircraft that will be operated in the NAS to include broadcast modules, and these requirements will apply regardless of where the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module is manufactured.
Operational Requirements: Three Means of Compliance
With the elimination of the network requirement and the introduction of broadcast modules, the Remote ID Rule established three ways to comply with its operational requirements: (1) operate a standard remote ID unmanned aircraft that broadcasts identification, location, and performance information of the unmanned aircraft and its control station; (2) operate an unmanned aircraft with a remote ID broadcast module; or (3) operate an unmanned aircraft without remote ID at specific FAA-recognized identification areas (FRIAs).
1. Standard Remote ID
Standard remote ID unmanned aircraft must be certified by the manufacturer to locally broadcast identification and location information of the unmanned aircraft and control station. Under this method of compliance, unmanned aircraft must broadcast remote ID information directly from the unmanned aircraft through a radio-frequency broadcast, including (1) identifying information (either serial number or a session ID, a randomly generated alphanumeric code assigned on a per-flight basis); (2) the latitude, longitude, and altitude of the unmanned aircraft and the control station; (3) the velocity of the unmanned aircraft; (4) emergency status (if applicable); and (5) a time mark.
2. Remote ID Broadcast Modules
Unmanned aircraft operating with a remote ID broadcast module, which may be a separate device attached to the unmanned aircraft, must broadcast identification, location, and takeoff information, including the following: (1) the serial number of the broadcast module; (2) the latitude, longitude, and altitude of the unmanned aircraft and the takeoff location; (3) the velocity of the unmanned aircraft; and (4) a time mark.
3. FRIAs
Unmanned aircraft operating in FRIAs, which are intended for recreational operators, are not required to broadcast remote ID information but must be operated within visual line of sight of the operator. The FAA will begin accepting applications for geographic designation as an FRIA 18 months after part 89 goes into effect, including from community-based organizations and educational institutions.
Design and Production
In addition to the above operational requirements, the Remote ID Rule requires manufacturers of standard remote ID unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules to comply with certain design and production requirements. Recognizing that the UAS industry continues to evolve and similar to the way other regulatory bodies such as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency have approached sUAS regulation, the FAA opted for performance-based design and production requirements to describe desired outcomes, goals, and results, as opposed to mandating specific design and production requirements and processes. Under this approach, manufacturers of standard remote ID unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules for operation in the U.S. must show that the relevant device meets the requirements of an FAA-accepted means of compliance. The rule also requires that manufacturers issue each standard remote ID unmanned aircraft or broadcast module a serial number that complies with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard. Manufacturers must also both label the device and submit a declaration of compliance to the FAA indicating that the device complies with part 89.
Looking Forward
The Remote ID Rule paves the way for broader integration of UAS into the NAS as it establishes a framework to provide public safety stakeholders with critical information on unmanned aircraft operations. With this framework in place, the FAA now has the ability to conduct further rulemaking on expanded UAS operations, as it did with the OOP Rule issued on the same day as the Remote ID Rule and as it is expected to do with a forthcoming BVLOS rule.
Operations Over People
After nearly 1,000 public comments to the NPRM, the long-anticipated OOP Rule sets out the requirements for routine operations of sUAS over people and authorizes nighttime operations—both without the need for a part 107 waiver. Under part 107, absent a waiver, operations over people were very limited and generally could be conducted only over people who were participating in the operation or shielded by a vehicle or structure. The OOP Rule covers four main areas: operations over people, operations over moving vehicles, nighttime operations, and other part 107 amendments.
The OOP Rule adds a new subpart D to part 107, which outlines four categories of operations over people and associated requirements. The first three categories and associated requirements in the OOP Rule were carried over from the NPRM and are based on the risk of injury to people on the ground posed by the operation, while a new fourth category is based on the sUAS having an airworthiness certificate. Where operations over people are permitted, they must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Remote ID Rule.
The risk-based Categories 1–3 impose increasing requirements as the level of risk increases, with Category 1 being the least risky.
Category 1
Category 1 operations cover sUAS that weigh 0.55 pounds or less (inclusive of payload) and that do not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate skin on contact. Under the rule, the remote pilot in command (RPIC) is responsible for making the determinations. The rule prohibits sustained operations over open-air assemblies unless the operation complies with remote ID requirements.
Category 2
Category 2 operations apply to sUAS that weigh more than 0.55 pounds but that do not have airworthiness certificates. Category 2 requirements are performance-based and must meet the following three criteria. First, the sUAS must not cause injury to a human over the specified severity. Second, as with Category 1 operations, the sUAS must not contain exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations. And, third, the sUAS must be free from safety defects. In addition, the sUAS must be appropriately labeled, include remote pilot operating instructions, and be subject to a product support process.
In addition to the operating requirements for Category 2, the OOP Rule contains additional requirements for remote pilots conducting the operations, namely, that they must only use aircraft that are eligible for the operation, listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance for Category 2 operations, and labeled accordingly.
The OOP Rule contains several new requirements for applicants such as recreational, commercial, or other sUAS operators to affirmatively declare and demonstrate the safety of their operations. The OOP Rule puts the burden on applicants to certify their compliance with the requirements on injury severity, exposed rotating parts, the lack of safety defects, and the product support and notification process. Notably, the applicant must demonstrate, using an FAA-accepted means of compliance (AMOC), that the sUAS satisfy these requirements; and the FAA must accept the AMOC before the applicant can rely on the AMOC to declare its compliance.
Category 3
Category 3 operations are similar to Category 2 operations (e.g., limits on injury levels, no exposed parts that can lacerate skin, and no safety defects) but carry with them a higher injury severity limit than Category 2. Similar restrictions on remote pilots also apply. As with Category 2, applicants must declare compliance with both the injury severity limits and the prohibition on exposed rotating parts as well as the safety defect and product support requirements. The same AMOC and record-retention requirements also apply, as do the requirements relating to transfer and having a process in place to notify the public and the FAA of safety defects that cause the aircraft to no longer meet applicable requirements.
The primary differences between Category 2 and Category 3 are the additional operating requirements necessary to mitigate increased risk of injury stemming from the higher permitted injury limits for sUAS in Category 3 operations. Specifically, Category 3 operations can only be conducted over open-air assemblies such as a concert or sporting event if they are restricted and all participants have received notice that the sUAS may be operating over them. In addition, the sUAS may not maintain sustained flight over any persons not directly participating in the operation or not in a covered structure or stationary vehicle that can provide protection. Importantly, the restricted access site must sufficiently ensure that access is limited to participants meeting the requirements.
Category 4
In response to comments to the OOP NPRM, the FAA added a new Category 4 relating to sUAS that receive airworthiness certificates. In establishing the new Category 4, the FAA recognized that the “demonstrable reliability of [sUAS] is an alternative path for operations over people.” Under the OOP Rule, sUAS that have been issued an airworthiness certificate under 14 C.F.R. part 21 (part 21) are eligible to operate over people under the rule as long as such operations are not prohibited by the approved flight manual or administrator under the applicable part 21 certificate.
Categories 1, 2, and 4 operations that involve sustained flight over open-air assemblies must have standard remote ID or be equipped with a remote ID broadcast module, meaning that these operations must comply with applicable remote ID requirements even before the end of the 30-month implementation period in the Remote ID Rule for unmanned aircraft operators.
In addition, Category 4 operations have maintenance requirements for the use of the prescribed methods in the manufacturer’s maintenance manual or the FAA’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (or other methods as accepted by the FAA). The owner (or operator under an agreement with the owner) is required to maintain all relevant records (e.g., maintenance, life-limited parts, compliance with airworthiness directives, inspection compliance).
Operations Over Moving Vehicles
The FAA determined that operations of sUAS over people who are inside moving vehicles can be conducted safely, under limited circumstances. The OOP Rule requires that the sUAS meet the requirements for Categories 1–4. For categories 1, 2, and 3, the sUAS can transit over moving vehicles as long as either they do not maintain sustained flight over the vehicles or the vehicles are on a closed/restricted site where people are on notice that sUAS may fly over.
Operations at Night
Like the NPRM, the OOP Rule requires that remote pilots operating at night equip their sUAS with an anticollision light visible for three statute miles. The OOP Rule also adds the requirement for the anticollision lights to flash at a rate sufficient to avoid a collision.
Importantly for stakeholders, the OOP Rule also builds on the “performance-based regulatory philosophy” in part 107, with the goal of enabling the regulatory framework to evolve with UAS technologies. The FAA developed the design and operational requirements of the OOP Rule to “balance the risk associated with the incremental integration of small UAS” and to provide “flexibility and scalability . . . that will support future industry innovation.” While there is a risk that the framework for the OOP Rule—and the Remote ID Rule—will not be sufficiently flexible to allow for greater innovation and integration of UAS, both rules have adopted the performance-based philosophy of part 107 with the aim of meeting these goals.
Conclusion
Both the Remote ID and OOP Rules are significant steps toward the integration of sUAS into the NAS. By essentially implementing digital license plates for unmanned aircraft, the FAA has addressed safety and security concerns around UAS to allow for scaled and streamlined operations, rather than continuing to rely on individual waivers or authorizations.
While the performance-based elements of both rules allow greater flexibility and clarity for stakeholders, technology continues to outpace the regulatory framework. For example, some large commercial operators and industry associations believe that the Remote ID Rule’s adoption of only broadcast remote ID could hinder the scalable approach to UTM and presents significant privacy and security concerns around access to broadcasted UAS operational data. Standards organizations, such as ASTM International, had focused on developing standards for network remote ID due to its emphasis in the Remote ID NPRM. The FAA and industry stakeholders will now be relying on these organizations to develop consensus standards around the final Remote ID Rule’s broadcast remote ID approach, including with regard to available spectrum, as well as other performance-based requirements. It therefore remains to be seen whether the Remote ID Rule can be an effective starting point to building out a nationwide—and global—UTM system.
While more progress must be made, the Remote ID and OOP Rules address most of the regulation needed for UAS to operate within visual line of sight and now enable the FAA to turn its focus to BVLOS operations as its next major regulatory action. UAS applications that rely on BVLOS flights and represent the greatest demand include public safety, industrial inspections, and small-package delivery. The FAA is currently working with key stakeholders in these areas to develop a framework for the long-anticipated BVLOS proposed rule. Through the FAA’s BEYOND program, the successor to the UAS Integration Pilot Program, the FAA is working with companies that want to conduct BVLOS operations to understand what BVLOS policy should look like and what operational data indicates for optimal performance standards. The FAA is also evaluating BVLOS operations and other UAS concepts and technologies through its UAS Test Site Program.
Ideally, given the increasing demand for UAS services demonstrated by the pandemic, use of UAS in sustainability initiatives, and rapid strides being made in UAS technologies, the FAA’s rulemaking process will accelerate. By taking advantage of the momentum created by the Remote ID and OOP Rules and the new administration’s focus on technology and smart and sustainable infrastructure, the FAA has an opportunity to promote its global leadership in aviation innovation while also facilitating much-needed UAS integration.
