July 9, 2020

Volume X, Number 191

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Drones One Step Closer to Integration in National Airspace

On April 19, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act (S.B. 2658) by a vote of 95-3. The Senate bill is a stopgap measure that greenlights $33 billion for FAA programs through fiscal year 2017 and brings the U.S. one step closer to integrating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the nation’s airspace.

The bill received bipartisan support in the Senate, but may face difficulties in the House because it does not require the privatization of air traffic control. The House has a competing bill, the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization Act (H.R. 4441). The House could approve the Senate bill or the two legislative chambers could come to a compromise on their different bills before sending to the President to be signed into law.

Current UAS, or drone, regulations and rules exist at various levels of local, state, and federal government. The majority of state laws fall into three broad categories:

  1. privacy protections;

  2. law enforcement restrictions; and

  3. hunting restrictions

Specifically, the National Conference of State Legislatures shows 41 states with active UAS legislation in 2016, and 23 states (Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) that have passed legislation. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) Advocacy group offers an interactive map of state UAS laws.

The Senate bill would preempt some state and local regulations. For example, Section 2142 of the bill provides that no state or political subdivision of a state “may enact or enforce any law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to the design, manufacture, testing, licensing, registration, certification, operation, or maintenance of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements, purpose of operations, and pilot, operator, and observer qualifications, training, and certification.” Generally, this should make it easier for commercial UAS operators to fly while in compliance with one set of rules, rather than three (e.g., federal, state, and local rules).

But not all state and local authority would be preempted. The bill leaves intact state and local authority to enforce laws relating to “nuisance, voyeurism, harassment, reckless endangerment, wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, or other illegal acts.”

The bill also includes provisions that would address privacy and security concerns sometimes associated with drone use. In regards to privacy, the bill requires commercial operators to have a written privacy policy and defines a violation of that written privacy policy as an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

In regards to security, the bill requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to collaborate with the FAA and other agencies to determine certain risk-based standards within a year of the passage of the bill. The FAA’s Advisory Rulemaking Committee on micro-UAS (mUAS) has started this risk-based work and proposed various categories of UAS operation, compliance, and regulation based on the risk-based approach.

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLPNational Law Review, Volume VI, Number 113


About this Author

Connie Lahn, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Minneapolis, Corporate and Litigation Law Attorney

Connie A. Lahn is the managing partner of the Minneapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg. She is a member of the Finance, Insolvency and Restructuring Department and co-chairs the Asset Revitalization Practice Group. Ms. Lahn is also the co-chair of the firm’s Special Servicer Team. She also serves on the firm's diversity and inclusion committee. Ms. Lahn focuses her practice on bankruptcy law, workouts, equipment leasing issues, foreclosures, real estate remedies, commercial mortgage-backed securities defaults, and related commercial litigation. Additionally, she...

Clifford G. Maine, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Grand Rapids, Corporate Law Attorney

Clifford G. Maine is chairman of the firm’s Aviation Law Group. Mr. Maine's practice encompasses a wide variety of aviation law practice areas. He serves as general counsel to numerous aviation organizations, including the Southwest Michigan Regional Airport Authority.

Mr. Maine’s aviation clients include some of the largest corporate flight departments in the world. He has structured numerous aviation transactions, including domestic and foreign-based aircraft purchase and sale transactions, like-kind exchanges, timeshare agreements, interchange agreements, joint and fractional ownership agreements, personal and executive use policies, FAA registrations, Capetown International Registry, and aircraft leasing transactions. Mr. Maine also provides legal counsel on tax-related aviation issues including federal excise tax planning, state sales and use tax planning, and depreciation planning.

In addition to his transactional practice, Mr. Maine regularly represents clients in complex aviation lawsuits and frequently advises on aviation insurance coverage matters, warranty matters, ongoing service requirements, and regulatory requirements.

He is a founding member and Chair of the Tax Committee of the National Business Aircraft Association and serves on the Board of Directors of the Michigan Business Aircraft Association. Mr. Maine also serves on the State Bar of Michigan Aviation Section (a section of the bar in which he acted as a founding member and past chairperson).