While drones have been used to capture breathtaking and heartbreaking images of Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath,  the FAA has issued a warning to drone operators.

The FAA has issued reminders that unless drone operators have specific authorization from the FAA, they are not permitted to operate where Temporary Flight Restrictions (“TFR”) are in place.  The primary reason is that operating an unauthorized drone in these areas could interfere with local, state, and federal rescue missions.

The FAA notes that if a drone operator interferes with emergency response operations, they could be subject to significant fines. In addition, even in areas where TFRs are not in effect, operating a drone without authorization in or near a disaster area  may violate federal, state, or local law.

Even in the absence of a natural disaster, operating a drone over people is prohibited by Part 107, unless a specific exemption has been granted by the FAA. Moreover, reckless operation of a drone is also prohibited.

While drones have incredible abilities to assist first responders and others, whether through providing real-time images and data that would be difficult or impossible to obtain through other means, unauthorized drone operations also have the potential to interfere with the efforts of first responders.

As tempting as it may be to fly a drone in or near a disaster area to capture footage, for the safety of all, please refrain from doing so unless you have specific authorization from the FAA.

There is no doubt that drones are going to drastically improve our lives. Drones are already being used to deliver medical supplies in third-world countries, survey land, film live events, assist police in investigations and surveillance, inspect tall buildings and other large structures, among other things. But, these advances in technology will come with a price when it comes to safety and preventing terrorism in the United States.

Drones, UAVs and terrorismDrones have reportedly already been used by drug cartels to smuggle drugs into the United States and to infiltrate prisons to deliver drugs, money and cell phones. It has also been reported that ISIS is using both weaponized and surveillance drones. Suicide drones are becoming an increasing problem in Syria given the ease of access to equipment for a small amount of money.

While drones will be able to improve our lives, they also have dark potential. The question seems to be not if but when a drone will be used in the United States to carry out a terrorist attack. The question that we need to answer is this: How do lawmakers stop terrorists from using drone technology to carry out attacks here in the United States?

From a policy perspective, what can U.S. lawmakers do, if anything, to prevent such an attack? While lawmakers here have been relatively silent on the issue, China has enacted a number of rules limiting where drones can legally fly. However, this is only a piece of the puzzle as legislators have no meaningful way to enforce these laws. For now at least, we will have to rely on drone manufacturers to incorporate safety features to prevent use by terrorists.

One of the largest drone manufacturers, DJI, is currently developing a Geospatial Environment Online system (“GEO”). This system will provide flyers with up-to-date guidance regarding areas where flight may be limited by regulation or raise safety concerns. More importantly, the GEO will be able to limit drones, by default, from taking off or flying into areas that may raise safety or security concerns such as major stadium events, prisons, or nuclear power plants. The ability to control where drones can be flown, and detect how they are being used, will be vital to ensuring our national security.

Someday relatively soon drones will be used in the United States to deliver packages, groceries, emergency medical supplies, and conduct police surveillance, among many other things. But protecting us from terrorists that will try to use them to carry out terrorist attacks, for good or for bad, may largely fall on the shoulders of drone manufacturers—not U.S. lawmakers.


Tressie E. McKeon is an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department and head of its Aviation practice, resident in its Dallas 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.

 

On March 18, Fox attorneys Mark Connot, Brian Rothery, Christopher Beall and Imraan Farukhi participated in a panel discussion entitled “Up in the Air: 2017 Drone Law Update” as part of the Third Annual New York City Drone Film Festival. The festival is “the world’s first event exclusively dedicated to celebrating the art of drone cinematography,” and offers an international platform for filmmakers from around the world to exhibit their work for the drone community and the film industry.

The discussion covered current laws, First Amendment issues, rights clearances for filmmakers licenses their footage and more. We invite you to watch the full 45-minute discussion, available on YouTube and below, and to find out more about this annual event.

Lynnel Reyes writes:

While many people are anxiously awaiting the day for companies such as Amazon, Walmart, and Google to provide packaged delivery services by way of drones, other companies are taking drone transportation one step further.

EHang, Inc. debuted a passenger-carrying drone at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this year. The drone is self-automated and can transport up to one person at a time to their desired destination with a flight time of up to approximately 25 minutes. Earlier this month, EHang announced it expects to begin testing the passenger-carrying drone in Nevada later this year.

However, as we discussed in an earlier article regarding drone deliveries, do not expect to see drone package deliveries, let alone passenger-carrying drones, any time soon. Not only are there technological challenges to overcome before passenger carrying drones become a reality, but there are also legal issues that must be overcome.

The FAA recently released its Part 107 regulations regarding the commercial use of drones. Although the Part 107 regulations provide clarity to drone commercial use, the regulations only pertain to drones weighing 55 pounds or less. In contrast, the passenger-carrying drones far surpass a weight of 55 pounds. Moreover, 55 pounds and heavier drone operations cannot be waived via a certificate of waiver under Part 107 regulations. § 107.205. So, until the FAA provides additional regulations for heavier drones, those companies must traverse the usual legal channels such as registering their aircraft under 14 C.F.R. Part 47 or proving aircraft worthiness.

Also, Part 107 established a flight restriction of no more than 400 feet above ground or 400 feet above the uppermost point of any structure.  Passenger-carrying drones have not yet been tested, therefore, the altitude requirements necessary for flight at optimal conditions for these drones is unknown.

Flying taxi

Part 107 also addresses licensing for drone operators, which are now called “remote pilots.” Currently, it is unnecessary for a person “manipulating the flight controls” of a drone to have authorization to operate one, so long as the remote pilot in command (RPC) is directly supervising that person and the RPC has the ability to immediately take direct control of the flight of the drone. § 107.12. But if the drone is self-automated, then who needs the authorization as the “remote pilot” to operate the drone?  Would the passenger in the drone need to obtain a remote pilot authorization? If so, how would the FAA implement this type of authorization program?

Additionally, the FAA will need to reconsider 49 U.S.C. §  41713(b) of The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which preempts states from enacting and enforcing laws regarding “price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation…” Under the current law, the federal government would have to regulate air transportation in each locality where passenger-carrying drones would fly. This would create a massive task for the federal government to mandate transportation in every locality with the clearance to operate these types of drones. This creates a scenario in which state law might be better suited to handle the intricacies of local transportation regulations for transportation that occurs entirely within that state. The federal government will be forced to address the issue of preemption concerning local flight rules if passenger-carrying drones become a reality.

Notwithstanding Part 107 regulation questions or The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, there are still privacy issues and looming safety concerns regarding drones in general. Thus, while the idea of passenger-carrying drones sounds enticing, we will have to wait for the outcome of testing results, technological advances, legislation, and even possible litigation before passenger-carrying drones are cleared for take-off.


Lynnel Reyes is a summer associate in the firm’s Las Vegas office.

 

Fox

On May 24, 2016, we published an article discussing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) issuance of Best Practices for privacy and other issues surrounding drone use. Attached as an Appendix to those Best Practices is a list of guidelines for neighborly drone use intended to be a quick and easy reference guide for recreational drone operators. It goes without saying that for recreational users it is worth reviewing, and is reproduced in its entirety below:

Drones are useful. New, fairly cheap drones are easy to use. But just because they are cheap and simple to fly doesn’t mean the pictures and video they take can’t harm other people. The FAA and partner organizations have put safety guidance online at http://knowbeforeyoufly.org. But even safe flight might not respect other people’s privacy. These are voluntary guidelines. No one is forcing you to obey them. Privacy is hard to define, but it is important. There is a balance between your rights as a drone user and other people’s rights to privacy. That balance isn’t easy to find. You should follow the detailed “UAS Privacy Best Practices”, on which these guidelines are based, especially if you fly drones often, or use them commercially. The overarching principle should be peaceful issue resolution.
  1. If you can, tell other people you’ll be taking pictures or video of them before you do.
  2. If you think someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, don’t violate that privacy by taking pictures, video, or otherwise gathering sensitive data, unless you’ve got a very good reason.
  3. Don’t fly over other people’s private property without permission if you can easily avoid doing so.
  4. Don’t gather personal data for no reason, and don’t keep it for longer than you think you have to.
  5. If you keep sensitive data about other people, secure it against loss or theft.
  6. If someone asks you to delete personal data about him or her that you’ve gathered, do so, unless you’ve got a good reason not to.
  7. If anyone raises privacy, security, or safety concerns with you, try and listen to what they have to say, as long as they’re polite and reasonable about it.
  8. Don’t harass people with your drone.

Drones are a uniquely transformative technology in the commercial and private sectors. Indeed, greater operational flexibility, lower capital requirements, and lower operating costs allow drones to enrich people’s daily lives by providing innovative services, safer infrastructure, recreational uses, and greater economic activity. The assimilation of this technology into everyday life, however, raises concerns for privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

In recent years drone popularity has soared. According to the FAA there are about 5,600 drones registered for commercial purposes and roughly 450,000 hobbyists who have registered at least one drone. This popularity has put pressure on the drone industry and privacy advocates to reach agreement on guidelines governing drone use.

Seeking to promote the responsible use of drone technology in a way that does not diminish rights and freedoms, President Obama, on February 15, 2015, issued the Presidential Memorandum, “Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.”

That memo directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) to establish a multi-stakeholder engagement process—including stakeholders from the private sector—to develop and communicate Best Practices for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial and private drone use in the National Airspace System. And so, on May 18, 2016, the stakeholders came to consensus and issued a document on Best Practices for privacy and other issues surrounding drone use.[1]

Best Practices

The purpose of that document was to outline and describe voluntary Best Practices that drone operators could take to advance drone privacy, transparency, and accountability for the private and commercial use of drones. These Best Practices may be implemented by drone operators in a variety of ways depending on their circumstances and technology uses, and evolving privacy expectations. Yet these Best Practices do not—and are not meant to—create a legal standard of care by which the activities of any particular drone operator should be judged. Nor are the Best Practices intended to serve as a template for future statutory or regulatory obligations—doing so would make these standards mandatory (not voluntary) and could therefore raise First Amendment concerns.

At its core, the Best Practices call for drone users to notify other individuals of drone use and data collecting activities; practice caution when it comes to collecting and storing the data of specific individuals; restrict use and sharing of that data; implement measures to ensure security of covered data[2]; and comply with laws on the use of drones.

These Best Practices focus on data collected via drones, which includes both commercial and non-commercial drones; they do not apply to news gatherers and news reporting organizations or to safety and rescue missions and other emergency response efforts.

In any event, here are the Best Practices in their entirety:

  1. Inform Others of Your Use of Drones
  • (a) Where practicable, drone operators should make a reasonable effort—what qualifies as a practicable and reasonable effort to provide prior notice will depend on operators’ circumstances and the context of the drone operation—to provide prior notice to individuals of the general timeframe and area that they may anticipate a drone intentionally collecting covered data.
  • (b) When a drone operator anticipates that drone use may result in collection of covered data, the operator should provide a privacy policy for such data appropriate to the size and complexity of the operator, or incorporate such a policy into an existing privacy policy. The privacy policy should be in place no later than the time of collection and made publicly available. The policy should include, as practicable:
    • (1) the purposes for which the drone will collect covered data;
    • (2) the kinds of covered data the drone will collect;
    • (3) information regarding any data retention and de-identification practices;
    • (4) examples of the types of any entities with whom covered data will be shared;
    • (5) information on how to submit privacy and security complaints or concerns; and
    • (6) information describing practices in responding to law enforcement requests.
  1. Show Care When Operating Drones or Collecting and Storing Covered Data
  • (a) In the absence of a compelling need to do otherwise, or consent of the data subjects,[3] drone operators should avoid using a drone for the specific purpose of intentionally collecting covered data where the operator knows the data subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • (b) In the absence of a compelling need to do otherwise, or consent of the data subjects, drone operators should avoid using a drone for the specific purpose of persistent and continuous collection of covered data about individuals.
  • (c) Where it will not impede the purpose for which the drone is used or conflict with FAA guidelines, drone operators should make a reasonable effort to minimize drone operations over or within private property without consent of the property owner or without appropriate legal authority.
  • (d) Drone operators should make a reasonable effort to avoid knowingly retaining covered data longer than reasonably necessary to fulfill a purpose as outlined in § 1(b). With the consent of the data subject, or in exceptional circumstances (such as legal disputes or safety incidents), such data may be held for a longer period.
  • (e) Drone operators should establish a process, appropriate to the size and complexity of the operator, for receiving privacy or security concerns, including requests to delete, de-identify, or obfuscate the data subject’s covered data. Commercial operators should make this process easily accessible to the public, such as by placing points of contact on a company website.

  1. Limit the Use and Sharing of Covered Data
  • (a) Drone operators should not use covered data for the following purposes without consent: employment eligibility, promotion, or retention; credit eligibility; or health care treatment eligibility other than when expressly permitted by and subject to the requirements of a sector-specific regulatory framework.
  • (b) Drone operators should make a reasonable effort to avoid using or sharing covered data for any purpose that is not included in the privacy policy covering drone data.
  • (c) If publicly disclosing covered data is not necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the drone is used, drone operators should avoid knowingly publicly disclosing data collected via drone until the operator has undertaken a reasonable effort to obfuscate or de-identify covered data —unless the data subjects provide consent to the disclosure.
  • (d) Drone operators should make a reasonable effort to avoid using or sharing covered data for marketing purposes unless the data subject provides consent to the use or disclosure. There is no restriction on the use or sharing of aggregated covered data as an input (e.g., statistical information) for broader marketing campaigns.
  1. Secure Covered Data
  • (a) Drone operators should take measures to manage security risks of covered data by implementing a program that contains reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards appropriate to the operator’s size and complexity, the nature and scope of its activities, and the sensitivity of the covered data.
  • (b) Examples of appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards include those described in guidance from the Federal Trade Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework, and the International Organization for Standardization’s 27001 standard for information security management.
  • (c) For example, drone operators engaging in commercial activity should consider taking the following actions to secure covered data:
    • Having a written security policy with respect to the collection, use, storage, and dissemination of covered data appropriate to the size and complexity of the operator and the sensitivity of the data collected and retained.
    • Making a reasonable effort to regularly monitor systems for breach and data security risks.
    • Making a reasonable effort to provide security training to employees with access to covered data.
    • Making a reasonable effort to permit only authorized individuals to access covered data.
  1. Monitor and Comply with Evolving Federal, State, and Local Drone Laws
  • Drone operators should ensure compliance with evolving applicable laws and regulations and drone operators’ own privacy and security policies through appropriate internal processes.

These Best Practices are at present voluntary, however, they may end up as rules that commercial and non-commercial drone operators will have to follow in the future. Indeed, the U.S. Senate has asked the NTIA for a set of privacy guidelines that could serve as the basis for further federal legislation. See FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016, Sec. 2101. With all the news stories about irresponsible individuals using drones for illegal activities or violating people’s privacy, the existence of these Best Practices could be legal fodder for anyone who wants to prosecute you or your company for drone activities. Do yourself or your company a favor, take the initiative and start applying these guidelines today.

Endnotes:

[1] The stakeholders that support this Best Practices document include: Amazon, AUVSI, Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumer Technology Association, CTIA, Future of Privacy Forum, New America’s Open Technology Institute, PrecisionHawk, X (Formerly Google [x]), Small UAV Coalition, Online Trust Association, News Media Coalition, Newspaper Association of America, National Association of Broadcasters, Radio Television Digital News Association, Digital Content Next, Software & Information Industry Association, NetChoice.

[2] “Covered data” means information collected by a drone that identifies a particular person. If data collected by a drone likely will not be linked to an individual’s name or other personally identifiable information, or if the data is altered so that a specific person is not recognizable, it is not covered data.

[3] The term “data subjects” refers to the individuals about whom covered data is collected.

Today, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta (“Huerta”) announced plans to make it easier for students to fly drones as part of their coursework. Huerta first recognized the uncertainty surrounding when a drone is a model aircraft operated for “hobby or recreation.” That uncertainty, Huerta noted, left a number of questions on the use of model aircraft by students and faculty in connection with participation in coursework at educational institutions.

As part of Huerta’s announcement, the FAA released an Interpretation Memorandum (“Memo”) that specifically addressed two key issues: (1) the use of drones for “hobby or recreational purposes” at educational institutions and community-sponsored events (e.g., demonstrations at schools, boy or girl scout meetings, science clubs, etc.) and (2) student and faculty use of drones in furtherance of receiving and providing instruction at educational institutions. Essentially, the FAA sought to clarify the applicability of Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) in the educational context.

Drone teacher

Hobbyist Use of Drones to Conduct Demonstrations

As a matter of background, Section 336(a) of the FMRA provides special rules for model aircraft. Those rules require, among other things, that the aircraft be: (1) flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) limited to not more than 55 pounds and; (3) operated in accordance with a community-based standards of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization. Importantly, for an operation to qualify as a “model aircraft” operation and be subject to Section 336 above, depends on whether the drone operation is for “hobby or recreational” purposes.

Accordingly, the FAA clarified that a person may operate a drone for “hobby or recreation” in accordance with Section 336 at educational institutions and community-sponsored events provided that the person is (1) not compensated, or (2) any compensation received is neither directly nor incidentally related to that person’s operation of the aircraft at such events.

In substance, the FAA interpreted “hobby or recreational” use to include operation of drones to conduct demonstrations at accredited educational institutions or at other community-sponsored events subject to the above requirements being met. This is important because now a model aircraft hobbyist or enthusiast lawfully may fly drones at such institutions or events to promote the use of drones and encourage student interest in aviation as a hobby or for recreational purposes.

Student Operation of Model Aircraft for Educational Purposes

Next, the FAA considered whether a student’s course work of learning how to operate and use a drone constitutes a hobby or recreational activity within the meaning of Section 336’s definition of model aircraft. The FAA found that “the use of [drones] by students at accredited educational institutions as a component of science, technology and aviation-related educational curricula or other coursework such as television and film production or the arts more closely reflects and embodies the purposes of “hobby or recreational” use of model aircraft and is consistent with the intent of Section 336.”

Therefore, the FAA concluded that student use of drones at such institutions as a component of their educational curricula, or other coursework, is “hobby or recreational use” within the meaning of the FMRA. Note that the student still must comply with all other elements required for lawful model aircraft operations pursuant to Section 336, that is, not receiving any form of compensation directly or incidentally to his or her operation of the model aircraft.

Faculty Use of Model Aircraft

Respecting faculty, the FAA found that because a faculty member engaging in the operation of a drone is being compensated for his or her teaching or research activity, they would not be engaging in a “hobby or recreational activity.” Accordingly, the faculty member may not rely on Section 336’s concept of “hobby or recreational use” to either operate a drone or direct student drone operations in connection with such research.

Nevertheless, the FAA found that a faculty member teaching a course that uses drones as a component of that course may provide limited assistance (e.g., the faculty member steps-in to regain control in the event the student begins to lose control, to terminate the flight, etc.) to students operating drones as part of that course without changing the character of the student’s operation as a hobby or recreational activity or requiring FAA authorization for the faculty member to operate.

This “de minimis” limited instructor participation would apply to courses at educational institutions where the operation of the drone is secondary to the design and construction of the aircraft, such that the primary purpose of the course is not operating a drone. The FAA illustrates this limited circumstance with two examples.

The first example involves an instructor teaching an engineering course in which construction and operation of drones are one part of the curriculum. In this scenario, the instructor would be able to conduct limited drone operations as described above. Students would fly drones to test the validity of design or construction methods to show mastery of the principles of the course. But the faculty member’s drone operation would be secondary to the purpose of instructing engineering courses.

43948741_s

Conversely, this limited circumstance would not apply to a course related to drone flight instruction. In this scenario, the student’s primary purpose for taking the course is to learn to fly a drone. Flight would be expected to be demonstrated on a regular basis. Indeed, the faculty member’s drone operation is closely tied to his or her purpose of instructing how to fly a drone. Similar to student operations, these faculty operations must also abide by the provisions of Section 336.

Students and faculty members who wish to operate drones outside of these parameters above must seek FAA authorization. Currently, there are three ways to lawfully conduct drone operations in the U.S.: (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 a Section 333 of the FMRA grant of exemption provided the operator obtains a COA from the FAA.

Schools and students will no longer need a Section 333 exemption or any other authorization to fly provided they follow the rules for model aircraft and operate within the parameters described above. Further, faculty will be able to use drones in connection with helping their students with certain types of courses as set forth above. Schools and universities are incubators for tomorrow’s great ideas. The FAA’s interpretation is going to be a significant shot in the arm for innovation.

This past month, a FAA committee tasked with providing recommendations on a regulatory framework for the classification and operation of micro unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS” or “drones”), submitted its official report to the FAA.

The Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”) was directed to develop “recommendations for a performance-based standard that would allow for micro UAS to be operated over people who are not directly participating in the operation of the UAS.” On April 6, the FAA accepted those recommendations. Moreover, the FAA has already started the process of developing a notice of proposed rulemaking based on the ARC’s recommendations.

Drone cartoon over people

While trying to balance the twin goals of ensuring safety and encouraging innovation, the ARC identified four small UAS categories defined primarily by level of risk of injury posed by operations over people. For each category, the ARC recommended a risk threshold that is based on either weight or an impact energy equivalent.

Category 1 includes small drones weighing .55 lbs (250 grams) or less, including accessories and payload (e.g., cameras). The ARC considers the level of risk of injury posed by this category of UAS to be very low. Consequently, the ARC recommended that no performance standards and no operational restrictions beyond those imposed by the proposed part 107 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“part 107”) are necessary.

Based on the risk that a UAS could strike a person on the ground causing serious injury, the standards and restrictions in categories 2, 3, and 4 are “scaled up” to mitigate the increased risks.

Category 2 includes drones that weigh more than .55 lbs (250 grams) but still present a 1% or less chance of serious injury to a person in the event of impact. Depending on its design characteristics and operating instructions, a 4 to 5 pound drone would qualify. On the other hand, category 3 and 4 drones would have a 30% or lower chance of causing a serious injury upon impact with a person.

The ARC recommended that category 2 drones must, among other things, be operated at a minimum distance of 20 feet above people’s heads, or 10 feet laterally away from people. Even with these minimum distance requirements, the small UAS must always maintain a safe distance from people so as not to create an “undue hazard” to those people.

striking a person

laying on ground

 

 

 

 

 

Under the ARC’s recommendations, category 3 operational restrictions “do not allow flight over crowds or dense gatherings of people.” But category 4 differs because it allows sustained flight over crowds or dense gatherings of people beyond what is permitted in category 3. Since an increased number of people on the ground may be subjected to overhead flight of longer duration, category 4 prescribes additional standards and restrictions for drone operations over people that present the same level of risk of serious injury as category 3 (i.e. 30% or less).

Accordingly, the ARC recommends that category 4 drones (1) require the drone operator to have a risk mitigation plan in place for conducting sustained operations over people and (2) take into account materials and components of the drones to determine if the materials pose additional potential risk of collateral serious injury to people on the ground, in addition to injury caused by initial impact.

In each case, extensive testing would be required to determine that the drone meets the weight or impact energy threshold for its category. Additionally, to demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for categories 2, 3, or 4 operations over people, the manufacturer of the drone must: (1) declare that the small drone meets industry consensus standards applicable to the category; (2) submit that declaration to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA; (3) label the product or product retail packaging in accordance with industry consensus standards;[1] and (4) provide an operating manual to the operator that includes operator instructions for flight over people. Lastly, drone operators would be responsible for knowing what category of operations his or her drone qualifies for, and what operational limitations he or she must follow.

The ARC’s recommendations illustrate an effort by drone manufacturers to put drones on the path to everyday commercial and recreational use in populated areas by lessening the operational restrictions and requirements set forth by the FAA in the proposed rules in part 107 announced in February, 2015. But hurdles remain, including creating tests to determine which drones meet the various thresholds of the performance standards. As noted above, the FAA will use the information in the ARC’s report to develop a flexible, performance-based proposed rule and the public will have the opportunity to comment.

flight in beach

It is difficult to predict how long it will take for the FAA to work out the details or how long before companies manufacture drones which meet the standards enumerated above. But what is clear is that this is progress and the application of the ARC’s recommendations would allow businesses to use drones for many commercial applications. Indeed, the FAA’s ban on flying drones over crowds or in towns and cities could soon be modified further.

[1] For category 1 operations over people, the ARC recommended that the manufacturer of the drone be required to: (1) label the retail product packaging of the small UAS with either the actual weight of the small unmanned aircraft or a general statement that the small UAS weighs .55 lbs (250 grams) or less; or (2) declare that the small unmanned aircraft weighs .55 lbs (250 grams) or less and submit that declaration to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA.

Federal versus State

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”

– Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

The quote above aptly describes the present legal landscape surrounding drones. Drone technology and popularity continues to skyrocket. But as numerous state and local laws regulating drones conflict with both the FAA’s contention that it controls the airspace and the FAA’s desire to establish a single national policy for drones, the legal and regulatory framework in the U.S. remains murky.

The FAA’s authority to regulate airspace, noise control, and safety is not questioned. Indeed, any attempt by states to regulate those aviation subfields will be deemed preempted. Despite this, many argue that “the FAA’s authority over safety still leaves a lot of room for states to act, and they have.” Furthermore, whether that authority extends to issues like privacy is questionable.

This is a world of action, and not for moping and droning in.”

– Charles Dickens

State and local governments have enacted hundreds of statutes and ordinances that seek to regulate drones. Those statutes and ordinances have created a patchwork of varying laws and regulations affecting drone operations.

 “I only ask to be free. The butterflies are free.”

– Charles Dickens, Bleak House

In an effort to clarify the responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments with respect to the regulation of drones, Senator John Thune recently introduced “Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016” (the “FRA”) in the U.S. Senate.

Section 2142(a) of the FRA would establish a federal preemption for state and local laws relating to the design, manufacture, testing, licensing, registration, certification, operation, or maintenance of a drone, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements, purpose of operations, and pilot, operator, and observer qualifications, training, and certification.

However, under Section 2142(b), state or local laws (including common law causes of action) relating to nuisance, voyeurism, harassment, reckless endangerment, wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, or other illegal acts arising from the use of drones would not be preempted if they are not specifically related to the use of a drone.

Express preemption occurs when Congress has explicitly stated that state law will be preempted by the enactment of federal law or regulation. The FRA is a bold and important proposal because only two other instances of express preemption exist regarding aviation: (1) Congress has expressly asserted “exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States,” and has placed “exclusive authority for regulating the airspace above the United States with the [FAA]” and (2) Under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, Congress prohibited states from enacting laws “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation.”

Charles Dickens 1

“‘Do you spell it with a ‘V’ or a ‘W,’ inquired the judge? That depends upon the taste and fancy of the speller, my Lord.”

– Charles Dickens, The Pickwick Papers

The FRA is Congress’ attempt to establish a single national policy for drones by explicitly granting the FAA supremacy over all laws seeking to regulate drone operations. But many argue that it “would also block local governments from adopting measures prohibiting encroachment on private property.”

The patchwork of laws whereby federal, state, and local governments all seek to regulate drone operations creates a Byzantine scheme that only inhibits the growth of the drone industry. It is unnecessary for state or local governments to enact drone specific legislation, as existing state or local laws already cover the areas delineated in Section 2142(b) of the FRA.