The focus of this blog has been legal and policy issues regarding the civilian operation of drones. However, it is easy to forget that just a few short years ago, if you asked the person on the street the first thing to come mind if they heard the word “drone”, the vast majority would have responded “military”or some variant thereof.

Military usage of drones has increased (and will continue to), but due to the fact that civilian application of drone technology has increased greatly, more and more people envision civilian applications of drones when the term is mentioned.

Military use of drone technology raises unique issues.  The moral and ethical concerns of utilizing autonomous systems for military purposes was recently the subject of an article in NATO Review Magazine.

The term “autonomous” is often used rather loosely and is routinely used to describe what is more accurately described as “remotely operated” or “remotely piloted”.  Truly autonomous drones are “advanced drones programmed with algorithms for countless human-defined courses of action to meet emerging challenges”. In other words, artificial intelligence.

As the authors note, while the general rules of the Law of Armed Conflict will apply, autonomous drones may potentially be operating their weapon systems during an attack without any human involvement.  As the article notes, the law requires a reasonable commander acting in good faith to make certain discretionary decisions in the heat of the moment.

Among the concerns noted is whether we as a society are prepared to delegate life-and-death decisions to a nonhuman system. However, while magnified when used for military applications, many of the moral and ethical concerns apply to civilian usage as well. For example, what collision avoidance systems will be employed in autonomous vehicles and how will the system decide between various alternative course of action, each of which may cause injury or death to humans?

Moral and ethical concerns surrounding the implementation of artificial intelligence are not limited to the military, but will become more and more of an issue for society as artificial intelligence technology continues to develop. The legal and ethical issues raised by technology, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence, will intensify as we move forward as a society.

Air Traffic Control RadarThe FAA has recently partnered with various digital platforms to create the “Low-Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability” (LAANC) in an effort to streamline waiver authorization in controlled airspace. Normally, the process to obtain a waiver to fly in controlled airspace can take 90 days or even longer.

But for some commercial operators who may need to get in the air quickly, that process makes little sense. For example, when there is breaking news, a journalist cannot sit back and wait for the waiver process to be able to capture what is happening at that moment.

That is why LAANC seeks to provide instant waivers by allowing commercial pilots to apply digitally using the same applications they already use for flight planning. The LAANC partners, many of whom are already working with the FAA to digitally map the airspace, will provide for areas of controlled airspace that are already preapproved under certain conditions (i.e. altitude, weather, etc.).  If a commercial drone operator is seeking to fly in that airspace, under those conditions, they may receive instant authorization to fly.

While the current program is limited to only 50 airports, the goal is to expand this program nationwide. This appears to coincide well with the FAA’s other initiatives to develop an air traffic management system for drones and is yet another example of the FAA’s efforts to expand commercial operation.


Jonathan Ash is a partner in the firm’s Labor & Employment Department, resident in its Princeton office.

We have previously noted that people often view new technology with skepticism, and even trepidation bordering on fear. That perception changes as both costs decrease (resulting in more people using and adapting to the new technology) and the recognition of the tangible benefits produced by the new technology. In the early 20th Century, both automobiles and planes were new technology, and were initially met with resistance and skepticism.

A recent NASA study analyzed human reaction to audio recordings of noise created by automobiles, drones, as well as computer generated sounds (auralizations). In short, the study found that the human subjects rated noise created by drones as significantly more annoying than traffic noise.

It is important to note (and the study itself notes) that this is a single study and it “was not conceived to be a comprehensive examination of noise from either sUAS or road vehicles. Rather, it was meant, primarily, to demonstrate the extensibility of tools and facilities that NASA already possesses to the realm of sUAS noise. Therefore, it is unwise to attempt to generalize the results of this study beyond those stated in the discussion, and beyond the limited set of vehicles and conditions tested.”

The study also notes that the sound made by a drone does not qualitatively resemble the sound made by manned aircraft. As noted in the study: “This difference in sound quality introduces an unknown factor into the prediction of the resultant annoyance.”

Although this is a single study and is limited in scope, the initial analysis of the results of the study suggests that at least for the near future, the noise created by drones is another hurdle to overcome in accomplishing widespread public acceptance of having drones operating in near proximity to humans.

Another takeaway from the study is that human reaction to the noise from drones may compel some local governments to enact regulations governing where drones can operate due to the fact that people appear to find drone noise more objectionable than other routine background noise. Such would be unfortunate, assuming that the drone noise in question is no louder than other background noise.

 

The challenge presented by having federal, state and local authorities all attempting to regulate drones is a topic we have addressed on this blog and in other publications (see links below). Unfortunately, a solution to that challenge remains elusive.

State and local authorities continue to assert that they possess the authority to regulate drones. That position, coupled with the current state of the federal regulatory process , has now been further complicated by the introduction of the Drone Federalism Act of 2017 (“Drone Federalism Act” or “Act”) also known as S. 1272, which was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Feinstein.

If enacted, the Drone Federalism Act will amend Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act and will provide states broad rights to regulate drone operations. It requires the FAA Administrator to not only define the preemptive effect of federal regulations regarding unmanned aircraft operations, but it also requires the Administrator to: “preserve, to the greatest extent practicable, legitimate interests of State, local, and tribal governments, including— (A) protecting public safety; (B) protecting personal privacy; (C) protecting property rights; (D) managing land use; and (E) restricting nuisances and noise pollution.”

The Drone Federalism Act also requires the Administrator, when enacting regulations or standards regarding drones, to “ensure that the authority of a State, local, or tribal government to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and place of operation of a civil unmanned aircraft system that is operated below 200 feet above ground level or within 200 feet of a structure is not preempted.”

The Act specifically states that “reasonable restrictions” include:

  • Limitations on speed
  • Prohibitions or limitations on operations in the vicinity of schools, parks, roadways, bridges, or other public or private property;
  • Restrictions on operations at certain times of the day or week or on specific occasions such as during parades or sporting events;

  • Prohibitions on operations while the operator is under the influence of drugs or alcohol;

  • Prohibitions on careless or reckless operations; and

  • Other prohibitions that protect public safety, personal privacy, or property rights, or that manage land use or restrict noise pollution.

58499289 – no drone, multicopter prohibited symbol. not fly zone. sign indicating the prohibition or rule. warning and forbidden. flat design. vector illustration. easy to use and edit.

If enacted, the Act will only lead to a further patchwork of state and local laws, making compliance for drone operators exceedingly difficult. We have addressed some of those concerns in other writings.

While a solution to the patchwork of laws is necessary, the Drone Federalism Act does not solve that problem. Rather, it only exacerbates the problem.

Recently, several members of my Firm and I had the opportunity to speak on a panel at the New York City Drone Film Festival (“NYCDFF”) regarding legal issues and drones. Thanks to the excellent moderation of Randy Slavin, the founder of the NYCDFF, we had the opportunity to discuss several legal issues. While the presentation was directed to attendees of the NYCDFF, the discussion encompassed a fairly wide breadth of legal issues.  Among the issues discussed are the current state of drone regulations, first amendment issues, liability issues, intellectual property, drone cinematography, releases, and insurance issues. I recommend anyone who is interested to watch the video of the panel presentation. Also, if you are not familiar with the NYCDFF, I highly recommend checking it out.

 

Recently I had the opportunity to speak to a college class regarding public perception and policy regarding drones and other autonomous vehicles. In preparing for my presentation, I realized several things that I already knew, but had not really thought about it.

In considering how best to provide an overview of how quickly technology is adapted once people understand its capabilities, it dawned on me that today’s college students have only known a world with smart phones. The first iPhone was introduced in June of 2007, when most college students were in elementary school.

In contrasting the public’s quick adoption of smartphones with the public’s far slower openness to drone technology, I asked the students to ponder how successful the iPhone would have been if only a handful of apps were available for the first few years after the iPhone’s introduction. In essence, even if smart phones were capable of supporting millions of varied applications, if the apps themselves were unavailable, the success of smart phones would have been in peril.

Okay, you say, I get that this is public perception, but how does it relate to policy? Until the public recognizes a tangible benefit from technology, it tends to be apprehensive of the technology.

In the early 20th century, cities passed laws that matched the speed limit to the pace of horse-drawn wagons, or no more than 5 miles per hour. In England, some small towns required the driver to notify the constable, who would then walk in front of the car waving two red warning flags.

In 1900, there were 8,000 automobiles in the United States. By 1920, that number had grown to 8,000,000. A large part of the increase is due to lowered production costs as a result of Henry Ford’s assembly line, but another factor was the public’s increasing understanding of the fact that automobiles could have a positive impact on their lives.

 

5756268 - illustration of a ford model t.

In other words, both decreased cost as well as the recognition of a tangible benefit resulted in the public embracing new technology. The public’s newfound perception of automobiles as positive, rather than negative, then helped to shape policy, such as increasing the 5 mph speed limit, enacting gasoline taxes to fund roads, creating parking lots, etc.

As noted above, once the public embraces new technology, it is adopted quickly and the technology itself evolves rapidly.  Orville Wright piloted the first powered airplane in 1903. That first flight lasted 12 seconds and the aircraft flew a mere 120 feet.  Orville lived to see Chuck Yeager break the sound barrier in 1947. Likewise, Charles Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic in 1927 and he was present at Cape Canaveral when Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins climbed into the rocket that would take them to the moon.

If the public had not embraced automobiles and airplanes, those industries would not have enjoyed the success they have, at least not in the timeframe in which it occurred. Without roads and other infrastructure, the public’s eagerness to embrace automobiles would have been stymied. Without airports and regulations to ensure safe flights, as well as the ability to fly long distances, airlines would have struggled to succeed.

Until the FAA permits beyond visual line of sight (“BVLOS”) operation of drones, the public has no idea of the capabilities of drones and the myriad of ways in which their lives will be positively impacted by drones. However, when BVLOS is permitted, I predict the public will quickly comprehend the significant positive impact of drones and embrace the technology.

When will I be able to fly beyond visual line of sight? When will I be able to operate a drone over people?

In the world of drone law (and in the world of drones in general), hardly a week, or even a day, passes without one or both of those questions being asked.

The drone industry welcomed the long-awaited drone regulations of Part 107, which became effective in August of 2016. However, that only whetted our appetite for more.

The current presidential administration’s public pronouncements regarding scaling back government regulations creates a concern within the commercial drone industry. Contrary to most industries, in the commercial drone industry more regulations are necessary for the drone industry to advance. Targeted regulations that permit and define the parameters of beyond visual line of sight operations, flights over people, and nighttime operations will enable the drone industry to reach its potential.

62815354 - drone regulations banner in wood type

Recently the Small UAV Coalition sent a letter to the new Director of the Office of Management and Budget requesting a limited waiver from the moratorium on new regulations. The Small UAV Coalition has a diverse membership that have all have a keen interest in the commercial use of drones, inclduing AirMap, Amazon Prime Air, Google[x], Intel, Kespry, PrecisionHawk, Verizon Ventures, Aerware, AGI, Flirtey, Fresh Air Educators, T-Mobile, and WalMart.

In that letter, the Small UAV Coalition noted that there are currently three pending rulemaking actions regarding drone operations:

  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Operation of Small Unmanned aircraft Over People
  • Final Rule, Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People
  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Expanded Operations

Part 107 includes a provision for the FAA to grant waivers that would permit drone operations over people and beyond visual line of sight. However, since Part 107 became effective in August of 2016, the FAA has only granted one waiver to permit operations over people and only four waivers to operate beyond visual line of sight.

As is the case with most technology, regulations pace far behind what is needed for the technology to evolve and thrive. The technology exists, but without regulations permitting its use, it cannot be utilized.

As the Small UAV Coalition noted in its letter, without regulations that permit beyond visual line of sight, operations over people, and nighttime operations, the commercial UAS industry in the United States risks stalling and falling behind other countries, such as those in the European Union, China, and Australia.

 small drone

Some of the legal issues discussed in this blog merit a more in-depth analysis and discussion. That level of analysis and discussion, however, is not well-suited for a blog, due to length and other issues.

For that reason, we also publish in other forums which are better suited to a more in-depth analysis and discussion. An example of an issue meriting more in-depth analysis and discussion is the tension between federal versus state regulation of drones.

State and local laws regulating drones often conflict in some way with both the FAA’s assertion of exclusive authority over the national airspace and its resolve to establish a single national policy for drones.

To address these contemporary and dynamic issues, Fox Rothschild attorneys Mark Connot and Jason Zummo, members of the firm’s UAS/Drones practice group, recently authored Everybody Wants To Rule the World: Federal vs. State Power To Regulate Drones, to be published in the widely recognized journal, The Air & Space Lawyer, Volume 29, Number 3, 2016.

In the article, Connot and Zummo analyze the ways in which federal preemption currently applies in the aviation context and the potentially fraught relationship between the interests of federal, state, and local governments in regulating drones. In addition to highlighting a recently introduced federal legislative measure that could provide a path to reconciling those regulatory interests, the authors conclude that state and local authorities should regulate drone uses with restraint, recognizing both the breadth of federal regulatory authority over aviation and the need to encourage, not suffocate, this burgeoning industry.

Click here to view the full article.

Published in The Air & Space Lawyer, Volume 29, Number 3, 2016. © 2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet.” – Aristotle

Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” – The Dude

It has been a long time coming.

Indeed, it was over 4 years ago that Congress approved the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) requiring the FAA to integrate drones into the National Airspace System. To that end, the FMRA directed the FAA to issue rules to regulate commercial drones and have the rules finalized by September 30, 2015.

In accordance with this congressional mandate, in February 2015, the FAA published a Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)—or Part 107. But the September 30, 2015, deadline came and went without any word from the FAA.

Finally, on June 21, 2016, the FAA released its Part 107 rules regulating the commercial operation of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These rules do not apply to hobby or recreational drones.

The Part 107 rules go into effect today, August 29, 2016.

 new regulations

Before the issuance of these new rules, a person seeking to fly a drone for commercial purposes was required to petition the FAA for authorization.

In particular, there were 3 ways to lawfully conduct drone operations: (1) as public aircraft operations pursuant to the requirements of the public aircraft statute and under a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the FAA; (2) as limited commercial operations by type certificated drone, provided the operator obtains a COA from the FAA; or (3) pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (FMRA) grant of exemption provided the operator obtains a COA from the FAA.

In the upcoming months, the FAA plans to continue to enhance flexibility for those operating drones commercially by issuing more rules and regulations. In fact, by this December it is likely that the FAA will propose a rule for safely and securely flying over persons not associated with a drone operation. See 14 C.F.R. § 107.39. Also, a few months after that, many expect that the FAA will propose rules enhancing flexibility for those operating drones commercially under Part 107—such as operating drones at night. See 14 C.F.R. § 107.29.

But until the FAA issues additional rules and regulations, remote pilots must traverse the usual legal channels—if not allowed under Part 107 or the Part 107 certificate of waiver. This includes registering their aircraft under 14 C.F.R. Part 47, or pursuing a certificate of waiver or authorization, a certificate of aircraft worthiness, or a Section 333 Exemption. Hopefully these upcoming regulations will further streamline the legal and administrative processes as drone technology continues to evolve.

Drones have a long history of being used to capture and share data. Beginning in the 1800s enterprising photographers used balloons and kites to lift cameras hundreds of feet into the sky to capture stunning images of American cities. Similarly, in Europe, not only were kites and balloons used to capture aerial shots, photographers’ also affixed cameras to pigeons for wartime surveillance. These early—and archaic—uses of drones show some of the unique benefits drones offer those seeking to capture and share information today.

In 2012, Congress approved the FAA Modernization and Reform Act requiring the FAA to establish comprehensive regulations for flying small drones and integrating them into the National Airspace System (NAS). To that end, in June 2016—over 4 years later—the FAA released its Part 107 rules to regulate commercial drones weighing less than 55 pounds. But those rules may be infringing on First Amendment rights, including freedom of the press and the right of individuals to gather information. Many argue that various aspects of Part 107 are unconstitutional because they are not sufficiently narrowly drawn and adequately tailored to respond to the government interest for which they were created to address.

The Part 107 rules that many argue are unconstitutional include the following: 1) the ban on drone flights over populated areas (14 C.F.R. §§ 107.39, 43, 45, 47); 2) the specific airspace restrictions (14 C.F.R. §§ 107.41, 51); 3) the licensing regime for drone operators (14 C.F.R. §§ 107.12, 13); 4) the prohibition on nighttime operations (14 C.F.R. § 107.29(a)); 5) the visual line-of-sight requirements (14 C.F.R. § 107.31); 6) the ban on operating a small drones from a moving vehicle (14 C.F.R. § 107.25); and 7) the ban on simultaneous operation of multiple drones (14 C.F.R. § 107.35).

Flag

The First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in pertinent part, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This language restricts the government’s ability to constrain citizens’ speech; but it is not absolute. Under certain circumstances, the government can restrict speech.

At first glance, the First Amendment appears to bar only laws that abridge speech. But the First Amendment does not just protect the spoken or written word. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that conduct may be sufficiently infused with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First Amendment.

Generally speaking, to qualify for First Amendment protection, a person must show that he or she has a message to be communicated and an audience for that message, notwithstanding the medium through which that message is communicated. In short, conduct designed to convey a message to an audience, such as the use of drones for photography and videography as part of the newsgathering and reporting process, qualifies for First Amendment protections.

The extent to which the Government may restrict speech depends on three things: 1) whether the property or forum is public or nonpublic, 2) the content of the speech, or 3) the manner in which it is regulated.

For purposes of a First Amendment analysis, public property fits into one of three main categories: 1) a public forum, 2) a designated public forum, or (3) a nonpublic forum. Any public property that is neither a public nor a designated public forum is considered a nonpublic forum. Public fora are places “that have traditionally been devoted to expressive activity,” such as public parks, beaches, and sidewalks.

For content-based restrictions of speech in public fora, the U.S. Supreme Court applies a level of review known as “strict scrutiny.” This means that the Court will uphold a content-based restriction only if it is necessary to promote a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means—i.e., narrowly tailored—to further the articulated interest. Strict scrutiny is a difficult standard to meet. Because the government is not constitutionally allowed to favor one type of content or idea by suppressing or otherwise burdening another type of content or idea, a demanding analysis is required.

Non-content based restrictions on speech are less likely than content-based restrictions to violate the First Amendment because the Supreme Court applies an intermediate scrutiny framework—a standard of review less onerous than strict scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny, a restriction on speech must advance a “significant,” “substantial,” or “important,” (but not necessarily “compelling”) government interest. And the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Yet it does not, as with content-based restrictions, have to be the least restrictive means to advance the governmental interest.

There are two categories of non-content-based restrictions on speech: (1) incidental restrictions, which are restrictions aimed at conduct other than speech, but which incidentally restrict speech; and (2) time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. To be clear, the courts analyze incidental and time, place, and manner speech restrictions under intermediate scrutiny.

Designated public fora are nonpublic fora that the government affirmatively opens to expressive activity. As with public fora, content-based restrictions on designated public fora must pass strict scrutiny.

Areas not traditionally or explicitly opened to expressive activity are deemed nonpublic fora, which are subject to a more lenient standard of scrutiny. Restrictions on nonpublic fora do not violate the First Amendment as long as the restriction is 1) reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and 2) viewpoint neutral. Examples of nonpublic fora include airport terminals, highway overpass fences, and interstate rest stop areas (including perimeter walkways).

14796121_s

Is U.S. Airspace a Public or Nonpublic Forum?

Relying on a Ninth Circuit case, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City & County of Honolulu, the FAA argues that U.S. airspace is a nonpublic forum. In examining the history and purpose of U.S. airspace, the Ninth Circuit concluded that U.S. airspace does not fit the public forum category because it is not among those places that “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”[1] Moreover, the Court noted that “one would be hard pressed to find another forum that has had its access as historically restricted as U.S. airspace.”

A traditional public forum is property that has as “a principal purpose…the free exchange of ideas.” The Ninth Circuit held that in light of the numerous restrictions placed on the use of U.S. airspace, its principal purpose can hardly be characterized as “promoting the free exchange of ideas.” In examining the physical characteristics of the airspace, the Court found that airspace is not an extension of the fora below because airspace is physically separate, requires special equipment and authorization for access, and has never typically been a locus of expressive activity.

For all that, many believe that airspace is a public forum, arguing that the holding in Center for Bio-ethical Reform should be limited to the facts of that case. They contend that Center for Bio-ethical Reform involved manned aircraft flying above 500 feet in altitude; not drones flying below 400 feet. Also, they argue that Center for Bio-ethical Reform does not answer the key question of whether a drone operating just above a public forum—e.g., 50 feet above a public park—should be considered as operating within the public forum.

Whether certain provisions of Part 107 infringe on the First Amendment is a developing topic. In the next post, with the principles discussed above in mind, we will explore and analyze the FAA’s argument that Part 107 is consistent with the First Amendment irrespective of what standard of review applied.

[1] The Ninth Circuit ruled out the possibility of airspace being classified as a designated public forum because the regulated airspace is the antithesis of an “intentional [ ] opening [of] a nontraditional forum for public discourse.”