July 8, 2020

Volume X, Number 190

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Drones and Sports? Pro Leagues and NCAA Weigh In

Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) accepted comments on the future of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”), those aircraft under 55 pounds that we commonly refer to as “drones.” The FAA has authorized UAS operations for several years, but many industries have been dissatisfied with the level of allowable use and have pressed the agency to further clarify the circumstances under which operations are allowed. Sports leagues have joined this group.

More than 2,700 comments were filed from across industry, government, and the general public. Of these, one comment was filed jointly by major outdoor sports leagues and associations.  The NFL, MLB, NASCAR, and NCAA (the “Leagues”) expressed concern with the FAA’s policies towards UAS and requested greater expansion of UAS pilot responsibilities. FAA’s rules require that UAS be operated by licensed pilots, though the requirements to obtain that licensure are less rigorous than for pilots operating manned aircraft.

One of two FAA proceedings is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), proposing new rules to facilitate additional UAS operations sought by various industries. The second, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) on the Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, considers how the FAA should develop rules in response to public safety and national security concerns related to UAS.  

The NPRM’s proposal includes:

  • Allowing operations over people, based on the “category” of the UAS being used; and

  • Expanding to a broader range of law enforcement officers and federal authorities the requirement that pilots make available their credentials, while replacing some required pilot testing with training.

In response, the Leagues ask that the FAA specifically note that operations of UAS at night must comply with rules generally applicable to aircraft, which the Leagues assert is axiomatic in logic but not explicitly stated. Second, they ask the FAA to consider expanding the proposed requirement that pilots make their credentials available to law enforcement to include private security officials working with law enforcement to enforce flight restrictions. This would allow security at sports areas, which generally is performed by private entities, to more easily manage possibly FAA UAS violations.

The ANPRM is viewed as an additional step towards the integration of UAS into the national airspace, while providing law enforcement with tools to discern whether a UAS may pose a threat. The ANPRM asks questions related to future FAA rules, including (1) the imposition of “standoff distances” between UAS and particular facilities or locations; (2) the future of UAS Traffic Management (“UTM”); and (3) security risks that come with payloads carried by UAS.

A concern of the Leagues focuses on the safety of crowds in a world with ubiquitous drones overhead and urge the FAA to work more aggressively to combat unauthorized UAS operations. Their prime concern is that the rate of UAS-related incidents at outdoor sports arenas is increasing despite FAA’s restrictions on flights over people and ongoing efforts to keep UAS flights away. For example, more than 50 UAS operations were observed around the 2019 Super Bowl, with 38 UAS seized for violating flight restrictions.

The Leagues urge the FAA to move quickly to institute remote identification requirements for all types and sizes of UAS, a goal that the agency has been working towards for several years. Congress, law enforcement, and industry all have recently increased pressure on the agency to roll out a Remote ID program as quickly as possible, with many unhappy about the delay.

The Leagues also ask the FAA to speed up its implementation of statutory requirements that call for the agency to create a process for the designation of sensitive facilities as no-fly zones for UAS. Although they do not state specifically, the Leagues would have an interest in stadiums and similar sports arenas and facilities being included in the definition of “sensitive facilities.” The Leagues note that the FAA’s deadline to act has already passed (it was in March), and urge it to act quickly.

The comment of the Leagues note the importance of information sharing as part of any UTM system, including Remote ID information, advocating that it be made available to local law enforcement. The Leagues also recommend that the FAA impose standoff distances in locations with large crowds or buildings where large crowds are gathered, though they do not specify how these categories should be defined or how to implement the prohibition. Finally, they support proposed prohibitions on the dropping of any materials from a UAS – including that which may not be inherently hazardous, but would cause a danger if dropped into a crowd.

Safety at sporting events remains a preeminent concern across sports leagues and associations. However, much work remains on the development of new and revised UAS policies aimed at addressing these safety-related issues raised by the Leagues, including working out the details of a number of the proposals. The Leagues’ filings can be considered a good first start in what likely will be a multi-year advocacy process to get the FAA to adopt new rules and systems that will allow expanded UAS operations while providing vital security measures.  Understanding the development and implementation of new rules will be essential for sports organizations in the future.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 127


About this Author

Laura Stefani, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Washington DC, Technology Law Attorney
Of Counsel

Laura focuses her practice on the telecommunications and technology industries. She provides strategic, legal and policy advice to manufacturers, communications network operators and other clients on spectrum allocation and licensing matters, with a focus on bringing new technologies to market. Laura has experience with unlicensed and licensed wireless technologies, unmanned aircraft, the satellite industry, and the Internet of Things.

Before joining Mintz Levin, Laura was a partner at a DC-area firm that serves technology, telecommunications,...

Jonathan R. Markman Associate Technology, Communications & Media FCC Regulation Cable & Telecom Transactions

Jonathan's TechComm practice focuses on wireless, cable, and emerging technologies, with a particular emphasis on UAS (commonly known as drones) and wireless spectrum. He has experience with FCC and FAA procedures and rulemakings, formal and informal complaints, and FCC investigations, as well as filing and prosecuting applications with the FCC and FAA. Jonathan advises clients on compliance with FCC and FAA rules, as well as assisting in developing proposals for rule changes and analyzing the impact of proposed changes on clients.  He also assists clients with foreign government advocacy efforts, particularly in the wireless spectrum arena.  Jonathan also has extensive experience in legislative advisory work, assisting clients in understanding legislation and preparing advocacy materials for use in discussions with Congressional staff.

In addition to taking a professional interest in FAA matters, Jonathan is a student pilot.

Prior to joining Mintz, Jonathan worked as an associate at a prominent communications firm in the DC area. There he prepared FCC pleadings, applications, and various other related paperwork for clients, and advised broadcast, wireless, Internet, and trade group clients on FCC, federal, and state laws.

Jonathan is active in Mintz’s pro bono practice, particularly with immigration-related cases. He speaks and reads Spanish and has experience communicating with clients exclusively in Spanish.

Jonathan is active in Mintz’s pro bono practice, particularly with immigration-related cases. He speaks and reads Spanish and has experience communicating with clients exclusively in Spanish.

During his time at the University of Michigan Law School, Jonathan was an associate editor for the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review.