Research on Multi‑department Collaborative Supervision Mechanism for Low‑Altitude Economy and Division of Authority and Responsibility Boundaries among Military, Civil Aviation and Local Authorities

Research on Multi‑department Collaborative Supervision Mechanism for Low‑Altitude Economy and Division of Authority and Responsibility Boundaries among Military, Civil Aviation and Local Authorities

Authors: Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute, Buckhouse Global Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Network, Buckhouse China Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Network, Buckhouse International Low‑Altitude Economic Cooperation Network, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Manufacturing Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Flight Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Support Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Infrastructure Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Industry Supporting Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Cross‑border Integration Platform

Abstract

As a vital component of new‑quality productive forces, the low‑altitude economy covers diverse business forms including manned aircraft, UAV applications, low‑altitude logistics, urban air mobility, low‑altitude cultural tourism and emergency operations. It spans multiple governance dimensions such as national defense security, aviation industry administration, local territorial governance, industrial manufacturing and public security as well as infrastructure construction. China’s current low‑altitude governance system is under the overall coordination of the Central Air Traffic Management Commission. Military aviation, civil aviation and local governments serve as core entities, with multiple functional ministries including the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Emergency Management and the State Administration for Market Regulation participating to form a composite regulatory structure with multi‑stakeholder involvement.

With the rapid scaling‑up of low‑altitude business forms and continuous growth in flight activity density, cross‑regional flights and mixed manned‑unmanned operations have become commonplace. The existing regulatory system faces practical challenges including ambiguous authority‑responsibility boundaries, inefficient inter‑departmental coordination chains, prominent data silos, inconsistent implementation rules between central and local authorities, and imperfect joint response mechanisms among military, civil aviation and local authorities. These issues to some extent restrict the safe and orderly expansion of the low‑altitude economy.

Based on China’s domestic low‑altitude economy pilot practices and the framework of existing laws, regulations and policies, this report systematically sorts out the statutory authority and responsibilities of military aviation, civil aviation, local governments and horizontal functional departments. It analyzes institutional bottlenecks, overlapping authority‑responsibility areas and regulatory gaps in current multi‑department collaborative supervision. Boundaries of authority and responsibility are distinguished across seven dimensions: airspace control, airworthiness access, operational supervision, infrastructure construction, law‑enforcement disposal, emergency rescue and industrial development. This report constructs a multi‑department collaborative supervision framework suited to China’s national conditions, and puts forward systematic solutions including pathways for clarifying authority‑responsibility allocation among military, civil aviation and local authorities, regular collaborative working mechanisms, data‑sharing systems, cross‑regional coordination models, risk‑based hierarchical control and accountability traceability systems. It provides theoretical reference and practical insights for institutional improvement, pilot implementation and high‑quality industrial development of the low‑altitude economy.

Keywords: Low‑Altitude Economy; Multi‑Department Collaborative Supervision; Military‑Civil Aviation‑Local Authorities; Authority‑Responsibility Boundaries; Low‑Altitude Airspace; Collaborative Governance

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Research Background

The low‑altitude economy has become a key emerging industrial track prioritized for cultivation in China. Multiple national ministries and commissions have issued guiding documents for its development, and many local regions have launched innovation pilots. Application scenarios such as UAV agricultural plant protection, surveying and mapping inspection, urban logistics, air sightseeing, eVTOL manned test flights and emergency rescue keep rolling out, with fast‑growing numbers of industrial entities. According to public industry statistics, by the first half of 2026, more than 127,000 market entities were engaged in low‑altitude‑economy‑related businesses across China. UAV ownership keeps rising, urban air mobility has entered the demonstration‑verification phase, and the projected medium‑to‑long‑term market size of the industry reaches trillions of RMB.

Different from traditional single industrial sectors, low‑altitude flight activities take place in low‑altitude airspace, which constitutes a critical part of national air‑defense system as well as the physical carrier for commercial civil activities. Meanwhile, it is deeply coupled with urban ground space, urban planning, public security and infrastructure. It inherently features four attributes: national‑defense attribute, aviation‑industry attribute, urban territorial attribute and industrial‑economic attribute. Such multi‑attribute overlap determines that low‑altitude economy cannot be fully regulated by a single department. Joint governance by military aviation, civil aviation, local governments and multiple horizontal functional departments is indispensable.

The Interim Regulations on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Administration came into force on January 1, 2024. As an administrative regulation, it establishes the principles of UAV categorized administration and collaborative supervision. It defines the basic institutional framework under the unified leadership of the national air‑traffic management agency with division of responsibilities among civil aviation, public security, industry‑information technology, market regulation authorities and local governments, filling the gap of high‑level legislation in low‑altitude domains. Ten national ministries jointly released the Guidelines for the Construction of Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System, proposing to formulate more than 300 low‑altitude‑economy‑related standards by 2030 to accelerate industrial standardization. Pilot provinces and municipalities have successively rolled out local low‑altitude‑economy policy documents and carried out practical explorations including demarcation of navigable airspace, construction of low‑altitude flight service platforms and layout of take‑off‑and‑landing sites.

Nevertheless, practical implementation still faces real‑world challenges. China’s airspace administration follows the long‑standing system of “unified control and separate command”. Military aviation undertakes air‑defense security and airspace control, civil aviation is responsible for civil aviation industry administration, and local governments have been assigned territorial management responsibilities in recent years. While the top‑level institutional framework is in place, authority‑responsibility boundaries remain ambiguous under segmented scenarios. Inter‑department information exchange is insufficient, regular consultation‑coordination mechanisms are not fully mature, cross‑provincial flight coordination remains difficult. Phenomena of “multiple overlapping administrations” and “regulatory vacuum” coexist. Responsibility evasion occurs in certain scenarios. Illegal unapproved flights are hard to curb, and risk prevention‑control for high‑density urban low‑altitude operations faces mounting pressure. How to clarify authority‑responsibility boundaries among military, civil aviation and local stakeholders and build efficient and stable multi‑department collaborative supervision mechanisms to balance national‑defense security, public security and industrial development has become a critical issue for large‑scale low‑altitude‑economy development.

1.2 Research Significance

Theoretical Significance: Existing domestic researches on low‑altitude economy mostly focus on industrial models, technical routes and market forecasting. Systematic studies targeting authority‑responsibility boundaries among military, civil aviation and local authorities are relatively limited. This report systematically disassembles the full‑life‑cycle regulatory chain of low‑altitude economy, divides seven modules covering airspace resources, access administration, operational control, infrastructure, administrative law‑enforcement, emergency disposal and industrial development, clarifies the scope of authority and responsibility for different entities, enriches the theoretical system of low‑altitude collaborative governance, and provides academic references for subsequent low‑altitude legislative improvement.

Practical Significance: Combining domestic low‑altitude pilot cases, this report identifies practical regulatory bottlenecks and proposes implementable collaborative supervision mechanisms. It specifies matters falling under military aviation, civil aviation and local governments respectively, as well as items requiring multi‑department joint performance of duties, and sets handling rules for overlapping authority‑responsibility areas. It mitigates inter‑department frictions, reduces compliance costs for market entities, helps achieve the goal of “firmly safeguarding security bottom lines while enabling industrial development”, and supports pilot construction and institutional iteration of low‑altitude economy nationwide.

1.3 Research Scope and Methodology

The research object of this report is the regulatory system corresponding to various low‑altitude flight activities within 0‑1000‑meter low‑altitude airspace in China, covering unmanned aerial vehicles, manned low‑altitude general‑aviation aircraft, eVTOL and other new‑type low‑altitude carriers. Stakeholders include military air‑traffic management authorities, civil aviation administration system, local people’s governments at all levels, and collaborative departments such as the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Emergency Management and State Administration for Market Regulation. The research focuses on constructing multi‑department collaborative supervision mechanisms and dividing authority‑responsibility boundaries among military, civil aviation and local authorities, without in‑depth discussion of detailed R&D technologies for aircraft.

Research methodologies are as follows:
First, literature‑policy analysis: sorting out national administrative regulations, departmental rules and policy planning documents to interpret statutory duties of various authorities under current legal systems.
Second, case analysis: selecting typical domestic pilots including Sichuan‑Chongqing low‑altitude coordination pilot and Yangtze River Delta low‑altitude explorations to summarize practical experience and existing problems.
Third, systematic decomposition: breaking down the full process of low‑altitude‑economy supervision into multiple links and differentiating authority‑responsibility attribution item by item.
Fourth, comparative induction: summarizing disparities among pilots in different regions of China and concluding common contradictions to form mechanism‑design solutions.

1.4 Report Structure

Chapter One is the introduction, elaborating research background, significance and methodologies. Chapter Two sorts out the status quo of China’s low‑altitude‑economy regulatory system and basic functions of participating entities. Chapter Three analyzes prominent contradictions in current multi‑department collaborative supervision including ambiguous authority‑responsibility allocation and poor coordination as well as data silos. Chapter Four systematically divides authority‑responsibility boundaries among military, civil aviation and local authorities across seven business modules. Chapter Five establishes the overall framework for multi‑department collaborative supervision mechanisms for low‑altitude economy. Chapter Six puts forward implementation pathways for improving collaborative supervision and clarifying authority‑responsibility boundaries. Chapter Seven covers risk prediction and safeguard suggestions. Chapter Eight presents research conclusions. Data‑source notes and disclaimer are attached at the end of the report.

Chapter 2 Status Quo of China’s Low‑Altitude‑Economy Regulatory System and Basic Functions of Participating Entities

China’s low‑altitude‑economy governance structure follows the general pattern: “top‑level coordinating agency exercises leadership; military aviation defends national‑defense security bottom‑line; civil aviation conducts industry‑standard‑oriented regulatory administration; local governments implement territorial governance; multiple horizontal departments participate in governance by segments”.

2.1 Top‑level Coordinating Agency: Central Air Traffic Management Commission

As the supreme national leadership body for air‑traffic management, the Central Air Traffic Management Commission undertakes top‑level coordination functions. It oversees the overall allocation of national airspace resources, takes the lead in advancing low‑altitude airspace reform, coordinates major divergences among military aviation, civil aviation and local governments, reviews major policies and systems for airspace administration, coordinates major cross‑regional airspace matters, exercises unified leadership over national low‑altitude‑economy supervision, and resolves major cross‑departmental contradictions in low‑altitude domains. Regional air‑traffic‑management coordination bodies are established in respective regions to implement top‑level deployments and conduct day‑to‑day military‑civil aviation coordination within regions.

2.2 Core Functions of Military Aviation (Military Air‑Traffic Management Authorities)

Military aviation serves as one of the core entities for airspace security control, with its primary duty to safeguard national air‑defense security. Its core authority and responsibilities include: demarcation and administration of military‑use airspace; national‑defense‑security review for low‑altitude airspace opening; air‑defense‑security approval for various low‑altitude flight activities; control over no‑flight and restricted‑flight zones around sensitive areas and military facilities; temporary airspace take‑over and scheduling under wartime or emergency conditions; prevention of threats to military facilities caused by low‑altitude flight activities; air‑defense‑oriented monitoring of flight activities entering relevant airspace, and disposal of flight behaviors endangering national‑defense security; participation in categorized demarcation of low‑altitude airspace and conducting national‑defense‑risk assessment for navigable‑airspace proposals to safeguard the bottom‑line of national territorial air‑defense security. Military aviation focuses on national security and military‑facility protection, ensuring flight activities do not interfere with military missions.

2.3 Core Functions of Civil Aviation Administration System

The Civil Aviation Administration of China together with its regional administrations and air‑traffic‑management system performs regulatory functions for civil low‑altitude industries, acting as the competent authority for civil aviation industry standards and market access. Its major responsibilities cover: aircraft airworthiness certification including model‑based airworthiness administration for UAVs, general‑aviation aircraft, eVTOL and other novel carriers; operational qualification certification for civil operating entities; administration of flight‑crew and pilot licenses; real‑name registration of civil aircraft; formulation of operational rules and safety standards for civil low‑altitude flights; guidance on the construction of civil flight‑service guarantee systems; investigation of civil flight accidents; acceptance of civil flight‑plan‑related businesses; guidance on formulation of industrial standards for general‑purpose airports and low‑altitude take‑off‑and‑landing sites; early‑warning for civil low‑altitude safety risks; implementation of national airspace policies and standardizing civil flight operations within designated airspace. Civil aviation prioritizes aviation operational safety, market‑access compliance and unification of civil flight operational standards.

2.4 Territorial Functions of Local People’s Governments (Provincial‑Prefectural‑County Levels)

Pursuant to the Interim Regulations on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Administration, people’s governments at or above county level bear territorial‑management responsibilities for low‑altitude activities within their respective administrative regions. This marks a vital institutional reform in recent years, whereby a large number of governance authority over ground‑urban scenarios are delegated to local authorities. Local governments formulate overall low‑altitude‑economy development plans for their jurisdictions; organize application and implementation of local navigable airspace; coordinate planning and construction of low‑altitude infrastructure (take‑off‑and‑landing sites, UAV nests, low‑altitude sensing facilities) within jurisdictions; organize territorial law‑enforcement by local departments including public security, emergency management and transport; preliminary disposal of illegal flights within jurisdictions; territorial emergency response for low‑altitude‑related emergencies; construction and operation of local low‑altitude flight‑service platforms; investment promotion and policy support for local low‑altitude industries; safety‑education outreach for low‑altitude security within jurisdictions; handling urban public‑security and social‑order incidents triggered by low‑altitude flights; local‑level liaison and coordination between military and civil aviation authorities. Local governments are concerned with urban public security, urban operational order and local industrial‑development benefits.

2.5 Basic Functions of Horizontal Collaborative Departments

1. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology: Guiding industrial planning for low‑altitude equipment manufacturing; administration of radio‑frequency spectrum resources to guarantee spectrum supply for low‑altitude communication and navigation; formulation of technical standards for low‑altitude communication and surveillance; administration of UAV production links and normative guidance for manufacturers of civil unmanned aerial vehicles.

2. Ministry of Public Security: Addressing social‑security risks brought by low‑altitude flights; preliminary disposal and administrative law‑enforcement against illegal unapproved flights; preventing criminal misuse of UAVs; anti‑UAV defense for key urban sites; case investigation for social‑security or criminal incidents arising from low‑altitude activities.

3. Ministry of Transport: Integrating low‑altitude economy into national comprehensive transport system; advancing integration between low‑altitude transport and ground transport; formulating supporting rules for low‑altitude logistics and urban air mobility.

4. Ministry of Emergency Management: Coordinating low‑altitude‑enabled emergency rescue, disaster prevention‑mitigation‑relief work; participating in emergency rescue for low‑altitude incidents; jointly formulating contingency plans for low‑altitude accidents.

5. State Administration for Market Regulation: Administration of market‑entity registration for low‑altitude‑related businesses; product‑quality supervision for aircraft; investigation and punishment of illegal market operations; administration of special‑equipment and relevant national product standards.

2.6 Overview of Domestic Pilot Practices

Multiple provinces and municipalities in China have been approved as low‑altitude‑economy pilots. Representative practice lies in the Sichuan‑Chongqing cross‑provincial low‑altitude coordination mechanism, which establishes cross‑provincial collaborative administration for low‑altitude flights, builds an integrated low‑altitude operation‑service platform, explores one‑stop processing for airspace applications, and adopts the model of “guidance by military‑civil aviation authorities, leadership by local governments and market‑entity‑oriented implementation”. It has opened partial channels for cross‑provincial flight coordination yet still suffers inconsistent law‑enforcement standards and insufficient depth of data sharing. Pilot regions including the Yangtze River Delta, Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area and Hunan have successively demarcated contiguous navigable airspace and built local low‑altitude‑service platforms with partial filing authority delegated. Nevertheless, implementation rules vary drastically across regions, and a nationwide unified collaborative system is yet to be fully established.

Chapter 3 Prominent Problems in Current Multi‑Department Collaborative Supervision and Authority‑Responsibility Allocation

While the top‑level institutional framework for low‑altitude‑economy supervision has taken shape, contradictions such as overlapping authority‑responsibility and inadequate collaborative mechanisms emerge in practical implementation, mainly reflected in the following dimensions.

3.1 Ambiguous Authority‑Responsibility Boundaries in Partial Fields: Coexistence of Overlapping Administration and Regulatory Vacuum

Existing laws and regulations stipulate macro‑level duties yet most provisions for segmented‑scenario authority‑responsibility division remain principled without executable detailed checklists. First, in airspace demarcation: local governments submit airspace‑demand proposals, military aviation conducts security reviews and civil aviation provides professional opinions on operational performance. However, interface rules for parameter adjustment and dynamic modification of airspace among the three parties remain vague, and accountability rules for airspace conflicts are unclear. Second, for infrastructure: civil aviation sets industry technical standards for low‑altitude take‑off‑and‑landing sites and vertiports while local governments are responsible for planning, site selection and construction approval. Yet connection rules for land‑use planning, construction acceptance and operational supervision across multiple departments are ambiguous, resulting in ill‑defined approval workflows for certain take‑off‑and‑landing‑site projects. Third, ambiguity over authority‑responsibility for new‑business scenarios: low‑altitude cultural‑tourism performances and demonstration operations of urban air mobility involve cultural‑tourism, public security, civil aviation and local governments simultaneously. When safety incidents occur, it is difficult to rapidly define accountability for pre‑approval and operational supervision. Some matters fall under the jurisdiction of multiple departments without full‑scale oversight by any single party, giving rise to potential responsibility evasion upon risk occurrence. Regulatory gaps emerge in emerging scenarios due to lagging regulatory provisions.

3.2 Prominent Cross‑Entity Data Silos and Lagging Construction of Information‑Sharing Mechanisms

Information exchange serves as the foundation of collaborative supervision. At present, airspace‑control data from military aviation, airworthiness‑and‑flight‑plan data from civil aviation, and territorial monitoring‑sensing data from local governments belong to separate systems. Full‑scale data interconnection faces major obstacles stemming from security‑confidentiality requirements and administrative‑system constraints. Military aviation holds real‑time airspace‑control information and dynamic no‑flight/restricted‑flight‑zone data; civil aviation archives aircraft airworthiness credentials, operator qualifications, pilot licenses and civil flight‑filing data; local platforms store trajectory data collected by low‑altitude sensing devices and local enterprise ledgers. These three datasets are isolated from one another. When public security authorities handle illegal‑flight cases, complete flight‑plan and aircraft real‑name‑registration information cannot be quickly retrieved. Civil aviation cannot obtain real‑time low‑altitude‑monitoring alerts from local authorities, and local platforms lack full access to dynamic airspace‑restriction information from military aviation. Information asymmetry raises regulatory costs, reduces detection‑disposal efficiency for irregular activities and hinders the implementation of one‑stop administrative services.

3.3 Inadequate Regular Collaborative Working Mechanisms with Reliance on Ad‑hoc Case‑by‑case Consultation

Current coordination among military, civil aviation and local authorities largely depends on ad‑hoc case‑specific deliberations, lacking sound fixed regular collaborative mechanisms. Although regional air‑traffic‑management coordination bodies exist, meeting frequency and topic coverage cannot meet the demand for massive regular commercial low‑altitude flights. When enterprises carry out cross‑prefectural or cross‑provincial flights, they need to liaise with multiple local military, civil aviation and governmental competent authorities, resulting in lengthy coordination chains and unstable processing cycles. Standardized systems for joint meetings, issue transfer and joint analysis‑judgment are absent. When risk incidents break out, standardized scripts for military‑civil‑aviation‑local emergency‑linkage workflows are insufficient, with ambiguous response sequences and disposal division of labor among stakeholders and compromised emergency‑response efficiency.

3.4 Uneven Implementation of Central‑Local Authority‑Responsibility and Divergent Enforcement Standards across Regions

Upper‑level laws and regulations have been issued at national level, yet supporting detailed implementation rules vary in progress among provinces and municipalities. Substantial disparities exist in criteria for filing scope, simplified‑approval thresholds and navigable‑airspace interpretation. Identical flight activities may qualify for simplified filing in one city while subject to multi‑layer approval in another, increasing compliance costs for cross‑regional business operations. Some local authorities misinterpret territorial management responsibilities: certain regions excessively rely on military and civil aviation authorities and transfer all regulatory obligations upward; a few local governments over‑expand territorial authority and promulgate local policies conflicting with top‑level national provisions, giving rise to rule conflicts. Mechanisms for policy transmission and deviation correction between central and local authorities need improvement.

3.5 Fragmented Administrative Law‑Enforcement System and Insufficient Capacity for Joint Law‑Enforcement

Illegal low‑altitude flights include unapproved flights, intrusion into no‑flight zones and unauthorized aircraft modification. Law‑enforcement powers are dispersed: civil aviation exercises administrative penalty authority for industry violations; public security holds law‑enforcement power over public‑order violations; local departments possess territorial law‑enforcement competence. Low‑altitude flight activities are transient and trajectories cross administrative boundaries, creating difficulties in evidence collection and territorial‑jurisdiction identification. No single department can complete end‑to‑end disposal. Triggering conditions, workflows, evidence transfer channels and penalty‑discretion standards for joint law‑enforcement have not been unified nationwide. Joint‑law‑enforcement efforts remain formalistic in some regions with limited deterrence against complex irregular activities.

3.6 Under‑specified Authority‑Responsibility Mechanism for Peacetime‑Wartime Transition

The low‑altitude economy adheres to the principle of integrating peacetime and wartime requirements: airspace resources are maximally released for industrial development in peacetime while rapid airspace control shall be enforced under wartime or major‑security‑incident scenarios. Existing institutions predominantly focus on peacetime administration. Detailed institutional arrangements are lacking regarding triggering conditions for peacetime‑wartime status transition, authority‑responsibility shift workflows for military‑civil‑aviation‑local authorities amid transition, requisition procedures and compensation rules for civil low‑altitude platforms and infrastructure under wartime conditions.

Chapter 4 Systematic Division of Authority‑Responsibility Boundaries among Military, Civil Aviation and Local Authorities

This chapter disassembles the full regulatory workflow for low‑altitude economy into seven core modules: airspace‑resource control, market‑entity‑and‑equipment access administration, flight‑operation supervision, construction‑and‑operation‑maintenance of low‑altitude infrastructure, administrative law‑enforcement and irregular‑activity disposal, emergency response for unexpected incidents, industrial development and public services. Authority‑responsibility boundaries for military aviation, civil aviation, local governments and horizontal collaborative departments are itemized, distinguishing exclusive authority‑responsibility, joint authority‑responsibility and supportive authority‑responsibility, and setting handling principles for overlapping authority‑responsibility zones.

4.1 Airspace‑Resource Control Module

Airspace constitutes the core resource for low‑altitude economy. Airspace control adheres to the principle of “prioritizing national‑defense security while accommodating civil‑industry development”.

1. Exclusive Authority‑Responsibility of Military Aviation: Demarcation and dynamic adjustment of military‑use airspace; national‑defense‑security risk review for proposed low‑altitude airspace opening; defining no‑flight and restricted‑flight requirements around military facilities; airspace take‑over under wartime or major‑security‑incident scenarios; air‑defense‑security monitoring of flight activities; vetoing airspace‑utilization proposals that threaten national‑defense security. Any proposal for low‑altitude airspace opening must pass military‑conducted national‑defense‑security review prior to implementation.

2. Exclusive Authority‑Responsibility of Civil Aviation: Putting forward professional civil‑operation opinions on airspace‑demarcation proposals from the perspective of civil‑aviation operational safety pursuant to national airspace regimes; formulating operational rules for civil‑use airspace; processing civil flight‑plan businesses; conducting operational‑level analysis‑judgment for civil‑aviation conflicts.

3. Exclusive Authority‑Responsibility of Local Governments: Identifying local industrial demands for airspace based on urban planning and industrial‑development needs, compiling navigable‑airspace demand proposals for respective regions and submitting airspace‑opening applications to air‑traffic‑management coordination bodies; implementing and publicizing approved navigable airspace locally; collecting and feeding back airspace‑utilization appeals from market entities. Local governments have no authority to independently decide low‑altitude airspace opening. Final airspace opening requires military‑conducted security review and approval by superior air‑traffic‑management authorities.

4. Joint Authority‑Responsibility: Military aviation, civil aviation and local governments jointly participate in argumentation for categorized demarcation of regional low‑altitude airspace; jointly analyze and judge airspace‑utilization conflicts; jointly engage in consultation for dynamic airspace adjustment.

5. Key Notes on Boundaries: Military aviation holds final national‑defense‑security decision‑making power for airspace opening; civil aviation sets operational standards governing civil flight after airspace opening; local governments submit demand proposals and deliver supporting industrial implementation. Military‑conducted security review shall be completed in advance for all airspace‑adjustment procedures.

4.2 Market‑Entity‑and‑Equipment Access Administration Module

This module covers three categories of access objects: aircraft equipment, business entities and practitioners.

1. Authority‑Responsibility of Military Aviation (Supportive): Military aviation is not responsible for civil aircraft airworthiness review or civil‑enterprise qualification approval; it only conducts corresponding review for military‑use and dual‑use military‑civil equipment, and exercises no approval power over purely civil‑market access.

2. Exclusive Authority‑Responsibility of Civil Aviation: Airworthiness certification for civil aircraft (UAVs, general‑aviation aircraft, eVTOL); operational‑qualification certification for civil operating entities; administration of flight‑crew licenses; implementation of civil‑aircraft real‑name‑registration system; administration of civil‑aviation‑operation licensing. Industry access for all commercial civil low‑altitude‑flight entities, carriers and personnel falls under civil‑aviation administration.

3. Authority‑Responsibility of Ministry of Industry and Information Technology: Standardizing aircraft manufacturing links; spectrum‑resource allocation and administration; supervision over production‑enterprise manufacturing processes.

4. Authority‑Responsibility of State Administration for Market Regulation: Market‑entity industrial‑and‑commercial registration; product‑quality supervision; administration of business practices.

5. Authority‑Responsibility of Local Governments (Territorial Supportive): Carrying out inventory checks of territorial enterprises; urging local enterprises to comply with civil‑aviation access requirements; transferring clues of unqualified operations within jurisdictions to civil‑aviation and market‑regulation authorities. Local governments shall not replace civil‑aviation authorities in exercising approval power over airworthiness and operational qualifications.

4.3 Flight‑Operation Supervision Module

This module targets in‑process supervision over flight activities, covering flight‑plan administration, daily‑operation monitoring and risk early‑warning.

1. Authority‑Responsibility of Military Aviation: Conducting air‑defense‑security monitoring for all flight activities; exercising intervention‑and‑disposal power when flight activities threaten military security; receiving air‑defense‑security‑related declaration information embedded in flight plans.

2. Authority‑Responsibility of Civil Aviation: Formulating civil‑flight operational specifications; accepting civil flight plans and conducting civil‑aviation operational‑conflict verification; monitoring civil‑flight operational safety; investigating civil‑aviation flight accidents.

3. Authority‑Responsibility of Local Governments: Constructing local low‑altitude‑operation‑service platforms; conducting territorial‑level monitoring of low‑altitude activities within municipal jurisdictions; receiving flight‑service appeals from local enterprises; collecting and reporting clues of irregular flights within urban zones; implementing local notification for navigable‑airspace provisions. Simplified filing for micro‑ and light‑weight UAVs within navigable airspace may be undertaken by local platforms subject to national authorization.

4. Key Boundary Notes: Military aviation governs “potential threats to national defense”; civil aviation governs “compliance of civil flights with aviation‑operational rules”; local governments govern “clue collection, simplified‑filing implementation and urban‑public‑security risks within municipal jurisdictions”. Flight‑plan approval for cross‑regional flights follows unified national regimes, and no single local authority may unilaterally override national rules.

4.4 Construction‑and‑Operation‑Maintenance Module for Low‑Altitude Infrastructure

Low‑altitude infrastructure includes general‑purpose airports, vertiports, take‑off‑and‑landing sites, UAV nests, low‑altitude monitoring‑surveillance networks and low‑altitude communication‑navigation facilities.

1. Authority‑Responsibility of Military Aviation: Military aviation is not engaged in investment‑and‑construction of civil low‑altitude infrastructure; it conducts safety‑distance review when civil‑facility construction is adjacent to military installations.

2. Authority‑Responsibility of Civil Aviation: Formulating industry technical standards for general‑purpose airports and low‑altitude take‑off‑and‑landing sites; administering industry licensing for general‑purpose airports.

3. Exclusive Authority‑Responsibility of Local Governments: Incorporating low‑altitude infrastructure into territorial spatial planning; undertaking site selection, land‑use coordination and investment‑and‑construction for take‑off‑and‑landing sites and low‑altitude‑monitoring networks; territorial‑safety supervision for infrastructure operation within jurisdictions; administering numerous simple urban take‑off‑and‑landing sites that do not qualify as general‑purpose airports.

4. Horizontal Departments: Departments of transport, housing‑urban‑rural‑development and natural‑resources cooperate to complete land‑use and engineering‑construction approval workflows; the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology governs spectrum resources and equipment standards for low‑altitude communication‑navigation.

4.5 Administrative Law‑Enforcement and Disposal of Irregular‑Activity Module

Low‑altitude violations include unqualified flights, intrusion into no‑flight zones, illegal unapproved flights, unauthorized aircraft modification and disruption of public order.

1. Authority‑Responsibility of Military Aviation: Disposing flight activities endangering national‑defense security; transferring acts jeopardizing military security to military‑civil law‑enforcement agencies; generally refraining from administrative‑penalty procedures for ordinary civil commercial‑flight violations.

2. Authority‑Responsibility of Civil Aviation: Imposing industry administrative penalties for violations of civil‑aviation laws and regulations; investigating aviation‑related illegal cases such as absence of operational qualifications and airworthiness irregularities.

3. Authority‑Responsibility of Ministry of Public Security: Disposing low‑altitude acts breaching public‑security‑administration provisions or constituting criminal offenses; preliminary suppression of irregular flights threatening public safety; conducting case investigation.

4. Authority‑Responsibility of Local Governments: Organizing joint law‑enforcement by territorial departments; conducting preliminary verification of irregular clues identified locally and transferring cases to civil‑aviation or public‑security authorities according to violation nature; organizing low‑altitude‑safety publicity and education within jurisdictions.

4.6 Emergency‑Disposal Module for Unexpected Incidents

Low‑altitude emergencies cover aircraft crashes, mid‑air collisions, casualties and secondary urban disasters.

1. Authority‑Responsibility of Military Aviation: Participating in disposal when incidents involve military security; implementing airspace control when temporary airspace restriction is required; providing airspace conditions to support rescue operations conducted by local and civil‑aviation authorities.

2. Authority‑Responsibility of Civil Aviation: Technical investigation into civil‑aviation flight accidents; providing professional technical support for aviation rescue.

3. Primary Territorial Responsibility of Local Governments: Local governments serve as overall lead for territorial emergency response to low‑altitude unexpected incidents; conducting on‑site rescue, medical treatment for casualties and hazard elimination; coordinating on‑site disposal by public‑security, emergency‑management and fire‑fighting authorities; maintaining social order at accident scenes.

4. Authority‑Responsibility of Ministry of Emergency Management: Providing support from emergency‑rescue systems and coordinating resource allocation for major‑extraordinary incidents.

4.7 Industrial‑Development‑and‑Public‑Service Module

Industrial support, planning and enterprise cultivation are not categorized as regulatory‑supervision activities yet constitute an indispensable component of the complete governance system.

1. Military Aviation: Assumes no industrial‑support functions.

2. Civil Aviation: Conducting industry‑level industrial guidance, optimizing business environments by improving industry rules.

3. Exclusive Authority‑Responsibility of Local Governments: Formulating local low‑altitude‑economy industrial plans; implementing industrial‑policy support and investment promotion; guaranteeing supporting conditions for take‑off‑and‑landing sites; building local public‑service platforms; fostering local industrial ecosystems.

4. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology: Guiding industrial planning for low‑altitude equipment manufacturing.

Chapter 5 Overall Framework for Multi‑Department Collaborative Supervision Mechanisms for Low‑Altitude Economy

Based on the above authority‑responsibility division, this report constructs an overall multi‑department collaborative‑supervision framework for military‑civil‑aviation‑local authorities featuring “one coordinating hub, three‑tier implementation system and five core collaborative operational mechanisms”.

5.1 One Coordinating Hub

Air‑traffic‑management commissions at all levels (regional air‑traffic‑management coordination bodies) act as collaborative‑coordination hubs, undertaking overall dispute‑resolution functions for conflicts across military‑civil‑aviation‑local stakeholders. Major airspace controversies, authority‑responsibility divergences and cross‑departmental conflicts within regions shall be submitted to regional air‑traffic‑management coordination bodies for organized analysis‑judgment, avoiding inefficient repeated point‑to‑point inter‑department negotiation.

5.2 Three‑Tier Implementation System

1. National‑Defense‑Security Tier (Military Aviation): Safeguarding national air‑defense‑security bottom‑line, conducting airspace‑security review, air‑defense‑oriented monitoring and airspace control under special‑status scenarios.

2. Industry‑Supervision Tier (Civil Aviation, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, State Administration for Market Regulation and others): Responsible for industry standards, equipment access, personnel qualification and civil‑flight operational rules.

3. Territorial‑Governance Tier (Local Governments together with local public‑security, emergency‑management and other departments): Responsible for urban‑scenario implementation, infrastructure, territorial monitoring, joint law‑enforcement, on‑site emergency response and industrial development.

The three tiers perform respective duties: the national‑defense‑security tier holds veto power over security matters; the industry‑supervision tier safeguards unification of national rules; the territorial‑governance tier undertakes implementation and execution for urban scenarios.

5.3 Five Core Collaborative Operational Mechanisms

5.3.1 Hierarchical Regular Joint‑Meeting Mechanism

A two‑tier joint‑meeting system shall be established. At provincial level, regional air‑traffic‑management coordination bodies take the lead, with military aviation, civil‑aviation regional administrations and relevant provincial‑government departments as permanent member institutions. Quarterly joint meetings on low‑altitude‑economy collaborative supervision shall be convened; ad‑hoc temporary meetings are held for major‑pilot‑related matters or major‑safety incidents. Prefecture‑municipal‑level regular consultation sessions for military‑civil‑aviation‑local stakeholders shall be organized to focus on local navigable‑airspace adjustment, review of irregular‑flight cases, infrastructure construction and risk‑hazard analysis‑judgment. Meeting minutes shall be generated to clarify responsible entities and completion deadlines for all assigned tasks, preventing mere formal consultation.

5.3.2 Hierarchical‑Classified Information‑Sharing and Secure‑Exchange Mechanism

Acknowledging that partial military‑aviation airspace data is confidential, unrestricted full‑scale raw‑data opening is not pursued. A hierarchical desensitized‑data‑exchange mechanism shall be established, categorizing data into confidential data, desensitized public data and business‑exchange data.
‑ Confidential military‑aviation airspace‑control information shall not be exported in raw format; desensitized electronic‑fence rules for no‑flight/restricted‑flight zones are output via interfaces to local low‑altitude platforms.
‑ Civil aviation exports desensitized enterprise‑qualification and aircraft‑registration information for authorized verification access by public‑security and local regulatory departments.
‑ Local platforms report territorial monitoring‑alert information and major‑risk clues to military‑aviation and civil‑aviation authorities.

A securely isolated intermediate service layer for data exchange shall be built instead of direct interconnection of core internal databases of respective parties. This balances national‑security‑confidentiality requirements and data demands for collaborative supervision, with data‑access permission management and operation‑trace‑audit systems in place to guarantee data security.

5.3.3 Cross‑Regional Flight Collaborative‑Linkage Mechanism

Targeting pain points of cross‑provincial and cross‑prefectural flights, lessons shall be drawn from Sichuan‑Chongqing pilot experience to promote the establishment of regional low‑altitude‑coordination working task forces. Stakeholders within the same urban agglomeration shall unify baseline rules for navigable airspace, mutually recognize filing results and jointly build regional collaborative low‑altitude‑service portals. For cross‑regional flights, applications shall be accepted by originating‑location authorities, with risk‑verification procedures forwarded to military‑civil‑aviation‑local authorities of transit regions to spare enterprises from redundant multi‑site application submission. A cross‑regional risk‑clue‑transfer system shall be established: when an irregular aircraft detected in Region A flies into Region B, relevant clues shall be transferred in real time to regulatory authorities of the destination jurisdiction.

5.3.4 Closed‑loop Mechanism for Joint Law‑Enforcement and Clue Transfer

Standardized transfer checklists for low‑altitude‑violation clues shall be formulated, specifying receiving agencies, processing time limits and feedback mechanisms for different violation types. After initial screening of alert clues identified by local monitoring platforms: clues implying national‑defense‑security risks are transferred to military‑aviation authorities; clues for civil‑aviation‑rule violations are transferred to civil‑aviation authorities; clues for public‑security‑related offenses are transferred to public‑security authorities; general hidden‑danger clues prompt local enterprises to rectify issues. Triggering conditions for joint‑law‑enforcement operations among military‑civil‑aviation‑local authorities shall be defined. Major special‑rectification campaigns shall be deployed uniformly via joint meetings, with multi‑department on‑site disposal conducted and unified penalty‑discretion reference standards applied to realize full‑cycle closed‑loop management covering clue reception‑verification‑disposal‑feedback.

5.3.5 Peacetime‑Wartime Transition and Emergency‑Linkage Collaborative Mechanism

Template contingency plans for joint low‑altitude‑incident response among military‑civil‑aviation‑local authorities shall be formulated, clarifying response sequences and authority‑responsibility checklists for respective parties upon accident occurrence. Daily authority‑responsibility regimes are applied under peacetime conditions. When wartime or major public‑emergency scenarios trigger control status, military‑aviation authorities activate airspace‑control authority, with civil‑aviation and local governments complying with control directives. Requisition workflows and compensation mechanisms for civil low‑altitude platforms and low‑altitude infrastructure shall be defined. Regular joint‑emergency drills shall be conducted to enhance practical capabilities for multi‑party emergency collaboration.

Chapter 6 Implementation Pathways for Improving Authority‑Responsibility Division and Collaborative Supervision among Military, Civil Aviation and Local Authorities

6.1 Promulgating Authority‑Responsibility Checklists for Military‑Civil‑Aviation‑Local Authorities to Clarify Overlapping Zones

National authorities are advised to promote the compilation of Guiding Checklist for Authority‑Responsibility Division of Military‑Civil‑Aviation‑Local Authorities for Low‑Altitude Economy. Items across seven modules including airspace, access, operation, infrastructure, law‑enforcement, emergency response and industrial development shall be enumerated item‑by‑item, distinguishing authority‑responsibility of military aviation, civil aviation and local authorities as well as joint‑performance‑of‑duty matters. Provisions shall specify items requiring mandatory joint consultation, acts prohibited for over‑reaching by local authorities, and obligations that cannot be entirely shifted upward from territorial jurisdictions. Targeted authority‑responsibility guidelines for emerging scenarios including low‑altitude cultural‑tourism performances, urban‑air‑mobility demonstration operations and low‑altitude logistics shall be formulated to eliminate ambiguous zones. Authority‑responsibility checklists shall be disclosed to the public to enable market entities to clearly understand regulatory division and reduce uncertainty over compliance expectations.

6.2 Optimizing Airspace‑Approval Collaborative Workflows and Formalizing Pre‑positive Military‑Conducted Security Review

The workflow of “pre‑positive national‑defense‑security review by military aviation” shall be formalized throughout airspace‑demand procedures. After local governments submit airspace‑demand proposals, military‑aviation authorities conduct national‑defense‑security risk assessment and issue security‑review opinions in the first phase. Upon passing security review, civil‑aviation authorities then carry out civil‑operation‑safety assessment. Proposals are finally submitted to air‑traffic‑management coordination bodies for comprehensive deliberation and approval. The inverted workflow of finalizing airspace proposals before supplementary national‑defense review shall be avoided to mitigate repeated scheme revisions. Meanwhile, dynamic airspace‑adjustment mechanisms shall be standardized: when military missions require temporary airspace modification, military‑aviation authorities shall output desensitized restricted‑flight information to civil‑aviation and local platforms in a timely manner to ensure notification for market‑entity flight operators.

6.3 Constructing Hierarchical‑Desensitized Data‑Exchange System to Break Information Barriers

Full‑scale interconnection of confidential raw data shall not be mandatorily required. Pragmatic approaches featuring “desensitized‑rule output, authorized verification‑access and clue transfer” shall be adopted. Military‑aviation authorities output desensitized electronic‑fence data; civil‑aviation authorities provide authorized‑verification interfaces for qualification information; local governments feed back monitoring‑alert clues. Securely isolated intermediate‑exchange platforms shall be built with permission‑management and operation‑audit measures to balance confidentiality‑security requirements and collaborative‑supervision needs. Priority shall be given to efficient transfer of alert clues, violation clues and major‑risk information.

6.4 Unifying Core National Rules and Narrowing Divergent Implementation Standards across Regions

Following the promulgation of top‑level laws and regulations, supporting detailed implementation rules shall be accelerated, defining national baseline criteria for filing and simplified‑approval procedures for micro‑, light‑weight and small‑size UAVs. Local low‑altitude policies shall not conflict with upper‑level national provisions, and a reporting mechanism shall be established for local low‑altitude policies submitted to superior authorities. National air‑traffic‑management and civil‑aviation authorities shall regularly conduct policy‑implementation evaluation for pilot regions, rectifying over‑reaching conduct or dereliction of duty by local authorities and lowering compliance costs for cross‑regional business operations of enterprises.

6.5 Improving Supporting Systems for Joint Law‑Enforcement and Sounding Accountability‑Traceability Systems

Guidelines for joint‑law‑enforcement practices in low‑altitude domains shall be promulgated, clarifying disposal entities, evidence‑collection standards and case‑transfer workflows for different violation types. Accountability‑division logic upon safety‑accident occurrence shall be clarified: liabilities stemming from equipment‑airworthiness defects shall be traced back to civil‑aviation airworthiness‑supervision chains; operational violations by enterprises shall implicate operating enterprises and relevant operational‑supervision links; infrastructure‑related incidents shall hold construction‑operation‑maintenance entities accountable; dereliction of territorial‑duty shall impose liabilities on local governments; national‑defense‑security‑related incidents shall trace responsibilities to air‑defense‑review links. A traceable accountability chain shall be constructed to eliminate authority‑responsibility confusion post‑incident.

6.6 Strengthening Pilot‑Demonstration Summarization and Elevating Mature Pilot Experience into Institutional Norms

Pilot‑region innovations for military‑civil‑aviation‑local collaboration shall be continuously encouraged, with priority given to pilots for cross‑regional coordination, desensitized data exchange, joint law‑enforcement and peacetime‑wartime emergency‑linkage mechanisms. Successful pilot practices shall be periodically sorted out, and empirically validated models such as the Sichuan‑Chongqing cross‑provincial‑coordination mechanism shall be refined into nationally promotable institutional norms to realize institutional evolution from local‑pilot exploration to nationwide deployment.

Chapter 7 Risk Prediction and Safeguard Suggestions

7.1 Balancing Security Risks

In the course of constructing collaborative mechanisms, the holistic national‑security outlook must be consistently upheld. National‑defense security and public security constitute unshakable bottom‑lines. Optimizing collaborative mechanisms is not equivalent to simple “airspace deregulation”, and delegating authority shall not mean loosening security responsibilities. When local governments obtain expanded territorial‑administration authority, corresponding territorial‑security obligations must be simultaneously enforced to prevent authority delegation accompanied by unaccountable responsibility vacuum.

7.2 Guarding against Data‑Security Risks

Data‑exchange activities among military‑civil‑aviation‑local stakeholders carry risks of data leakage. Hierarchical authorization, access‑audit and desensitization mechanisms must be established. Unconstrained circulation of confidential data shall be strictly prohibited. Geospatial data collected by low‑altitude‑flight activities counts as critical sensitive data. Compliance‑administration for data security of low‑altitude platforms shall be simultaneously strengthened.

7.3 Building Compliance Capacity for Market Entities

Parallel to optimizing regulatory‑collaboration regimes, policy outreach toward low‑altitude enterprises shall be promoted to help market entities understand regulatory division among military‑civil‑aviation‑local authorities, guide enterprises to proactively adapt to regulatory systems, and consolidate enterprises’ primary safety‑production responsibilities. Regulatory‑collaboration constitutes optimization of external institutions; enterprises’ primary responsibilities cannot be substituted by regulatory authorities.

7.4 Talent‑Capacity Safeguards

Low‑altitude‑supervision falls into interdisciplinary domains. Personnel from military‑aviation, civil‑aviation and local authorities possess divergent knowledge backgrounds. Regular inter‑agency professional‑exchange‑training programs among military‑civil‑aviation‑local practitioners are recommended to enhance understanding of full‑chain low‑altitude‑economy knowledge and mitigate collaborative obstacles stemming from cognitive disparities.

Chapter 8 Research Conclusions

The essence of multi‑department supervision for low‑altitude economy lies in balancing multiple objectives: national‑defense security, aviation‑operational safety, urban public security and industrial development. Military aviation, civil aviation, local governments and horizontal functional departments each hold irreplaceable positioning: military aviation safeguards national air‑defense‑security bottom‑line; civil aviation undertakes standard‑setting and access‑supervision for civil‑aviation industries; local governments perform duties for territorial governance, infrastructure, on‑site disposal and industrial development; ministries including Industry‑Information Technology, Public Security, Emergency‑Management and State‑Market‑Regulation conduct segmented collaborative governance.

China’s low‑altitude‑economy regime is not deficient in top‑level institutions. Bottlenecks reside in insufficiently detailed authority‑responsibility provisions for segmented scenarios, under‑developed regular collaborative operational mechanisms, data‑information silos, poor cross‑regional coordination and inadequate law‑enforcement linkage, which undermine governance efficiency. To address these challenges, simple power reallocation is not the solution. On the basis of preserving the existing general governance framework, clear authority‑responsibility checklists shall be compiled, pre‑positive military‑conducted security‑review workflows shall be formalized, hierarchical desensitized secure‑data‑exchange systems shall be established, and five core collaborative mechanisms (joint meetings, joint law‑enforcement, cross‑regional coordination and peacetime‑wartime emergency‑linkage) shall be implemented. Authority‑responsibility attribution shall be clarified across seven business modules, distinguishing exclusive authority‑responsibility, joint authority‑responsibility and supportive authority‑responsibility, and setting handling rules for overlapping zones among military‑civil‑aviation‑local stakeholders.

Through institutional refinement, national‑security and public‑security bottom‑lines can be firmly safeguarded on the one hand, while institutional transaction costs for market entities are reduced on the other hand. Phenomena of overlapping administration and responsibility evasion shall be mitigated to realize the goal of “effective governance alongside reasonable deregulation”, providing institutional guarantees for high‑quality and sustainable development of China’s low‑altitude economy. As low‑altitude‑economy new‑business forms keep iterating, driven by large‑scale eVTOL manned operations and high‑density urban low‑altitude operations, authority‑responsibility boundaries among military‑civil‑aviation‑local authorities shall be dynamically optimized in alignment with technological evolution.

Data‑Source Statement

Research materials and data sources adopted in this report fall into the following categories:

1. Official national policy‑and‑law documents: Interim Regulations on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Administration, publicly released policy documents issued by the National Air‑Traffic‑Management Commission, Civil Aviation Administration of China, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other ministries, guidelines for low‑altitude‑economy standard systems, departmental rules and publicly released industry statistical materials.

2. First‑hand research materials from Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute: field‑investigation records of domestic low‑altitude pilot cities from 2024 to 2026, including collated public‑practice cases of Sichuan‑Chongqing, Yangtze River Delta and Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area low‑altitude pilots, and interview records with low‑altitude‑industry enterprises.

3. Public industry‑research resources: publicly released white papers and industry‑analysis reports from domestic low‑altitude‑industry research institutions; academic papers on low‑altitude governance published in aviation‑oriented academic journals.

4. Public industry‑statistical data: publicly released statistical data on industrial scale and market‑entity volume from the National Bureau of Statistics and industry associations. Partial industrial‑forecast data reflect public‑industry‑research judgments and serve for research reference only.

5. Public policy documents and pilot‑implementation plans issued by provincial‑municipal low‑altitude‑economy pilot authorities.

Disclaimer

This report is jointly completed by Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute and associated platform institutions. The report serves exclusively for academic research and industry‑analysis purposes. All viewpoints, analyses and suggestions within represent academic judgments of the research team, and do not stand for positions of any governmental regulatory authority. It does not constitute policy recommendations, legal advice or investment suggestions.

While publicly authoritative sources are prioritized for cited data, absolute accuracy of all raw data is not guaranteed. Subject to research‑condition constraints, partial cases and scenarios are theoretical deductions. Practical implementation shall comply with latest national laws‑regulations and local policy‑enforcement practices. Any market‑entity business activities conducted based on this report shall take currently effective national laws, administrative regulations and official documents from competent authorities as sole enforcement basis. Copyright of this report belongs to issuing institutions. Unauthorized tampering for commercial‑promotion purposes is prohibited without written permission.