13 equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white. There is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, 5-pointed stars arranged in 9 offset horizontal rows of 6 stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of 5 stars. The 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies. Blue stands for loyalty, devotion, truth, justice, and friendship, red symbolizes courage, zeal, and fervency, while white denotes purity and rectitude of conduct. Commonly referred to by its nickname of Old Glory.

Flag courtesy of the CIA World Factbook

Map courtesy of the CIA World Factbook

Google Earth

Stalactites and stalagmites, made of travertine, can be seen on the Frozen Niagara tour of Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. Travertine, or traveling stone, is made of limestone that has crystalized out of dripping water.

Photo Courtesy of CIA World Factbook

Government

According to Britannica, the Constitution of the United States, written to redress the deficiencies of the country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation (1781-89), defines a federal system of government in which certain powers are delegated to the national government and others are reserved to the states. The national government consists of executive, legislative, and judicial branches that are designed to ensure, through separation of powers and through checks and balances, that no one branch of government is able to subordinate the other two branches. All three branches are interrelated, each with overlapping yet quite distinct authority.

The US Constitution, the world’s oldest written national constitution still in effect, was officially ratified on June 21, 1788 (when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document), and formally entered into force on March 4, 1789, when George Washington was sworn in as the country’s first president. Although the Constitution contains several specific provisions (such as age and residency requirements for holders of federal offices and powers granted to Congress), it is vague in many areas and could not have comprehensively addressed the complex myriad of issues (e.g., historical, technological, etc.) that have arisen in the centuries since its ratification. Thus, the Constitution is considered a living document, its meaning changing over time as a result of new interpretations of its provisions. In addition, the framers allowed for changes to the document, outlining in Article V the procedures required to amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution requires a proposal by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress or by a national convention called for at the request of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in as many states.

In the more than two centuries since the Constitution’s ratification, there have been 27 amendments. All successful amendments have been proposed by Congress, and all but one, the Twenty-First Amendment (1933), which repealed Prohibition, have been ratified by state legislatures. The first 10 amendments, proposed by Congress in September 1789 and adopted in 1791, are known collectively as the Bill of Rights, which places limits on the federal government’s power to curtail individual freedoms.

Between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the American Civil War (1861–65), only two amendments were passed, and both were technical in nature. The Eleventh Amendment (1795) forbade suits against the states in federal courts, and the Twelfth Amendment (1804) corrected a constitutional error that came to light in the presidential election of 1800, when Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each won 73 electors because electors were unable to cast separate ballots for president and vice president. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Thirteenth (1865) abolished slavery, while the Fifteenth (1870) forbade denial of the right to vote to formerly enslaved men. The Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship rights to formerly enslaved people and guaranteed to every citizen due process and equal protection of the laws, was regarded for a while by the courts as limiting itself to the protection of formerly enslaved people, but it has since been used to extend protections to all citizens. Initially, the Bill of Rights applied solely to the federal government and not to the states. In the 20th century, however, many (though not all) of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were extended by the Supreme Court through the Fourteenth Amendment to protect individuals from encroachments by the states.

Notable amendments since the Civil War include the Sixteenth (1913), which enabled the imposition of a federal income tax; the Seventeenth (1913), which provided for the direct election of US senators; the Nineteenth (1920), which established woman suffrage; the Twenty-fifth (1967), which established succession to the presidency and vice presidency; and the Twenty-sixth (1971), which extended voting rights to all citizens 18 years of age or older.

The executive branch is headed by the president, who must be a natural-born citizen of the US, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the country for at least 14 years. A president is elected indirectly by the people through the Electoral College system to a four-year term and is limited to two elected terms of office by the Twenty-second Amendment (1951). The president’s official residence and office is the White House, located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. in Washington, D.C. The formal constitutional responsibilities vested in the presidency of the US include serving as commander in chief of the armed forces; negotiating treaties; appointing federal judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officials; and acting as head of state. In practice, presidential powers have expanded to include drafting legislation, formulating foreign policy, conducting personal diplomacy, and leading the president’s political party.

The members of the president’s cabinet, the attorney general and the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Education, Energy, and Veterans Affairs, are appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate; although they are described in the Twenty-fifth Amendment as “the principal officers of the executive departments,” significant power has flowed to non-cabinet-level presidential aides, such as those serving in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council (NSC), and the office of the White House Chief of Staff; cabinet-level rank may be conferred to the heads of such institutions at the discretion of the president. Members of the cabinet and presidential aides serve at the pleasure of the president and may be dismissed by him at any time.

The executive branch also includes independent regulatory agencies such as the Federal Reserve System and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Governed by commissions appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate (commissioners may not be removed by the president), these agencies protect the public interest by enforcing rules and resolving disputes over federal regulations. Also part of the executive branch are government corporations (e.g., the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak], and the US Postal Service), which supply services to consumers that could be provided by private corporations, and independent executive agencies (e.g., the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), which comprise the remainder of the federal government.

The US Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government, consists of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Powers granted to Congress under the Constitution include the power to levy taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, impeach and convict the president, declare war, discipline its own membership, and determine its rules of procedure.

With the exception of revenue bills, which must originate in the House of Representatives, legislative bills may be introduced in and amended by either house, and a bill, with its amendments, must pass both houses in identical form and be signed by the president before it becomes law. The president may veto a bill, but a veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The House of Representatives may impeach a president or another public official by a majority vote; trials of impeached officials are conducted by the Senate, and a two-thirds majority is necessary to convict and remove the individual from office. Congress is assisted in its duties by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which examines all federal receipts and expenditures by auditing federal programs and assessing the fiscal impact of proposed legislation, and by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a legislative counterpart to the OMB, which assesses budget data, analyzes the fiscal impact of alternative policies, and makes economic forecasts.

The House of Representatives is chosen by the direct vote of the electorate in single-member districts in each state. The number of representatives allotted to each state is based on its population as determined by a decennial census; states sometimes gain or lose seats, depending on population shifts. The overall membership of the House has been 435 since the 1910s, though it was temporarily expanded to 437 after Hawaii and Alaska were admitted as states in 1959. Members must be at least 25 years old, residents of the states from which they are elected, and previously citizens of the United States for at least seven years. It has become a practical imperative, though not a constitutional requirement, that a member be an inhabitant of the district that elects him. Members serve two-year terms, and there is no limit on the number of terms they may serve. The speaker of the House, who is chosen by the majority party, presides over debate, appoints members of select and conference committees, and performs other important duties; he is second in the line of presidential succession (following the vice president). The parliamentary leaders of the two main parties are the majority floor leader and the minority floor leader. The floor leaders are assisted by party whips, who are responsible for maintaining contact between the leadership and the members of the House. Bills introduced by members in the House of Representatives are received by standing committees, which can amend, expedite, delay, or kill legislation. Each committee is chaired by a member of the majority party, who traditionally attained this position on the basis of seniority, though the importance of seniority has eroded somewhat since the 1970s. Among the most important committees are those on Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Rules. The Rules Committee, for example, has significant power to determine which bills will be brought to the floor of the House for consideration and whether amendments will be allowed on a bill when it is debated by the entire House.

Each state elects two senators at large. Senators must be at least 30 years old, residents of the state from which they are elected, and previously citizens of the United States for at least nine years. They serve six-year terms, which are arranged so that one-third of the Senate is elected every two years. Senators also are not subject to term limits. The vice president serves as president of the Senate, casting a vote only in the case of a tie, and in his absence the Senate is chaired by a president pro tempore, who is elected by the Senate and is third in the line of succession to the presidency. Among the Senate’s most prominent standing committees are those on Foreign Relations, Finance, Appropriations, and Governmental Affairs. Debate is almost unlimited and may be used to delay a vote on a bill indefinitely. Such a delay, known as a filibuster, can be ended by three-fifths of the Senate through a procedure called cloture. Treaties negotiated by the president with other governments must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The Senate also has the power to confirm or reject presidentially appointed federal judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officials.

The judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which interprets the Constitution and federal legislation. The Supreme Court consists of nine justices (including a chief justice) appointed to life terms by the president with the consent of the Senate. It has appellate jurisdiction over the lower federal courts and over state courts if a federal question is involved. It also has original jurisdiction (i.e., it serves as a trial court) in cases involving foreign ambassadors, ministers, and consuls and in cases to which a US state is a party.

Most cases reach the Supreme Court through its appellate jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1925 provided the justices with the sole discretion to determine their caseload. In order to issue a writ of certiorari, which grants a court hearing to a case, at least four justices must agree (the “Rule of Four”). Three types of cases commonly reach the Supreme Court: cases involving litigants of different states, cases involving the interpretation of federal law, and cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The court can take official action with as few as six judges joining in deliberation, and a majority vote of the entire court is decisive; a tie vote sustains a lower-court decision. The official decision of the court is often supplemented by concurring opinions from justices who support the majority decision and dissenting opinions from justices who oppose it.

Because the Constitution is vague and ambiguous in many places, it is often possible for critics to fault the Supreme Court for misinterpreting it. In the 1930s, for example, the Republican-dominated court was criticized for overturning much of the New Deal legislation of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the area of civil rights, the court has received criticism from various groups at different times. Its 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which declared school segregation unconstitutional, was harshly attacked by Southern political leaders, who were later joined by Northern conservatives. A number of decisions involving the pretrial rights of prisoners, including the granting of Miranda rights and the adoption of the exclusionary rule, also came under attack on the ground that the court had made it difficult to convict criminals. On divisive issues such as abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, and flag burning, the court’s decisions have aroused considerable opposition and controversy, with opponents sometimes seeking constitutional amendments to overturn the court’s decisions.

At the lowest level of the federal court system are district courts. Each state has at least one federal district court and at least one federal judge. District judges are appointed to life terms by the president with the consent of the Senate. Appeals from district-court decisions are carried to the US courts of appeals. Losing parties at this level may appeal for a hearing from the Supreme Court. Special courts handle property and contract damage suits against the United States (United States Court of Federal Claims), review customs rulings (United States Court of International Trade), hear complaints by individual taxpayers (United States Tax Court) or veterans (United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims), and apply the Uniform Code of Military Justice (United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces).

Because the US Constitution establishes a federal system, the state governments enjoy extensive authority. The Constitution outlines the specific powers granted to the national government and reserves the remainder to the states. However, because of ambiguity in the Constitution and disparate historical interpretations by the federal courts, the powers actually exercised by the states have waxed and waned over time. Beginning in the last decades of the 20th century, for example, decisions by conservative-leaning federal courts, along with a general trend favoring the decentralization of government, increased the power of the states relative to the federal government. In some areas, the authority of the federal and state governments overlap; for example, the state and federal governments both have the power to tax, establish courts, and make and enforce laws. In other areas, such as the regulation of commerce within a state, the establishment of local governments, and action on public health, safety, and morals, the state governments have considerable discretion. The Constitution also denies to the states certain powers; for example, the Constitution forbids states to enter into treaties, to tax imports or exports, or to coin money. States also may not adopt laws that contradict the US Constitution.

The governments of the 50 states have structures closely paralleling those of the federal government. Each state has a governor, a legislature, and a judiciary. Each state also has its own constitution.

Mirroring the US Congress, all state legislatures are bicameral except Nebraska’s, which is unicameral. Most state judicial systems are based upon elected justices of the peace (although in many states this term is not used), above whom are major trial courts, often called district courts, and appellate courts. Each state has its own supreme court. In addition, there are probate courts concerned with wills, estates, and guardianships. Most state judges are elected, though some states use an appointment process similar to the federal courts and some use a nonpartisan selection process known as the Missouri Plan.

State governors are directly elected and serve varying terms (generally ranging from two to four years); in some states, the number of terms a governor may serve is limited. The powers of governors also vary, with some state constitutions ceding substantial authority to the chief executive (such as appointment and budgetary powers and the authority to veto legislation). In a few states, however, governors have highly circumscribed authority, with the constitution denying them the power to veto legislative bills.

Most states have a lieutenant governor, who is often elected independently of the governor and is sometimes not a member of the governor’s party. Lieutenant governors generally serve as the presiding officer of the state Senate. Other elected officials commonly include a secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction.

State governments have a wide array of functions, encompassing conservation, highway and motor vehicle supervision, public safety and corrections, professional licensing, regulation of agriculture and of intrastate business and industry, and certain aspects of education, public health, and welfare. The administrative departments that oversee these activities are headed by the governor.

Each state may establish local governments to assist it in carrying out its constitutional powers. Local governments exercise only those powers that are granted to them by the states, and a state may redefine the role and authority of local government as it deems appropriate. The country has a long tradition of local democracy (e.g., the town meeting), and even some of the smallest areas have their own governments. There are some 85,000 local government units in the United States. The largest local government unit is the county (called a parish in Louisiana or a borough in Alaska). Counties range in population from as few as 100 people to millions (e.g., Los Angeles county). They often provide local services in rural areas and are responsible for law enforcement and keeping vital records. Smaller units include townships, villages, school districts, and special districts (e.g., housing authorities, conservation districts, and water authorities).

Municipal, or city, governments are responsible for delivering most local services, particularly in urban areas. At the beginning of the 21st century there were some 20,000 municipal governments in the United States. They are more diverse in structure than state governments. There are three basic types: mayor-council, commission, and council-manager governments. The mayor-council form, which is used in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and thousands of smaller cities, consists of an elected mayor and council. The power of mayors and councils vary from city to city; in most cities the mayor has limited powers and serves largely as a ceremonial leader, but in some cities (particularly large urban areas) the council is nominally responsible for formulating city ordinances, which the mayor enforces, but the mayor often controls the actions of the council. In the commission type, used less frequently now than it was in the early 20th century, voters elect a number of commissioners, each of whom serves as head of a city department; the presiding commissioner is generally the mayor. In the council-manager type, used in large cities such as Charlotte (North Carolina), Dallas (Texas), Phoenix (Arizona), and San Diego (California), an elected council hires a city manager to administer the city departments. The mayor, elected by the council, simply chairs the council and officiates at important functions.

As society has become increasingly urban, politics and government have become more complex. Many problems of the cities, including transportation, housing, education, health, and welfare, can no longer be handled entirely on the local level. Because even the states do not have the necessary resources, cities have often turned to the federal government for assistance, though proponents of local control have urged that the federal government provide block-grant aid to state and local governments without federal restrictions.

The framers of the US Constitution focused their efforts primarily on the role, power, and function of the state and national governments, only briefly addressing the political and electoral process. Indeed, three of the Constitution’s four references to the election of public officials left the details to be determined by Congress or the states. The fourth reference, in Article II, Section 1, prescribed the role of the Electoral College in choosing the president, but this section was soon amended (in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment) to remedy the technical defects that had arisen in 1800, when all Democratic-Republican Party electors cast their votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, thereby creating a tie because electors were unable to differentiate between their presidential and vice presidential choices. (The election of 1800 was finally settled by Congress, which selected Jefferson president following 36 ballots.)

In establishing the Electoral College, the framers stipulated that “Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” In 1845 Congress established that presidential electors would be appointed on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November; the electors cast their ballots on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. Article I, establishing Congress, merely provides (Section 2) that representatives are to be “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and that voting qualifications are to be the same for Congress as for the “most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Initially, senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (Section 3), though this was changed to popular election by the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Section 4 leaves to the states the prescription of the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” but gives Congress the power “at any time by Law [to] make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In 1875 Congress designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even years as federal election day.

This table below summarizes the three branches of US Government

Civil / National Aviation Authority (CAA/NAA)

The CAA/NAA for the US is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

You may find a brief history of the FAA quite fascinating!

The FAA provides air traffic services for the NAS.

The FAA has a Dynamic Regulatory System which is a comprehensive knowledge center of regulatory and guidance material from the Office of Aviation Safety and other Services and Offices.

Airspace

ICAO countries publish an Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). This document is divided into three parts: General (GEN), En Route (ENR) and Aerodromes (AD). ENR 1.4 details the types of airspace classes they chose to adopt from classes A through G.

The airspace over the USA, per ENR 1.4, contains the following two categories of airspace or airspace areas:

(1) Regulatory (Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, restricted, and prohibited areas) and

(2) Non regulatory (military operations areas (MOAs), warning areas, alert areas, controlled firing areas (CFAs), and National Security Areas (NSAs).

Within these two categories there are four types:

(1) Controlled (A, B, C, D, E);

(2) Uncontrolled (G);

(3) Special Use; and

(4) Other airspace.

The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK), Chapter 15 explains in more detail.

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

FAA Restricted Airspace – Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)

The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area (DC SFRA) is roughly a circular area with a 30 nautical mile (about 33 statute miles) radius around Washington, D.C., and surrounds the Flight-Restricted Zone (FRZ). The Leesburg Executive Airport is located on the boundary of the SFRA. The Leesburg Maneuvering Area was developed to ease access into and out of Leesburg airport. The current Code of Federal Regulations detail proper procedures to access the area. Flight exercise operations at non-controlled tower airports within the SFRA (but not within the DC FRZ) must be conducted in accordance with 14 CFR section 93.339 (C).

There are a number of requirements for aircraft flying within the SFRA:

• Pilots must obtain an advanced clearance from FAA air traffic control to fly within, into, or out of the SFRA.
• Aircraft flying within the SFRA must have an altitude-encoding transponder and it must be operating.
• FAA air traffic control must assign a four-digit number that identifies the aircraft by call sign or registration number when it gives a pilot clearance to fly in the SFRA.
• While flying within the SFRA, the pilot must be in direct contact with air traffic control unless cleared to the local airport traffic advisory frequency.

The Flight-Restricted Zone (FRZ) extends approximately 15 nautical miles (about 17 statute miles) around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The airport is located in Arlington County, VA, four miles from downtown Washington, D.C.  The FRZ has been in effect since September 11, 2001.

The only non-governmental flights allowed within the FRZ without a waiver are scheduled commercial flights into and out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Airlines operating charter flights that support the U.S. government may land at Joint Base Andrews Air Force Base or Ronald Reagan Washington National Airports without a waiver and under certain conditions per FDC NOTAM 8/3032.

Certain general aviation flights may be authorized to fly within the FRZ.

Waiver applications and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) authorizations

Pilots who have been vetted by the TSA are allowed to fly in and out of the three Maryland general aviation airports. Other commercial air carrier flights can be vectored into the FRZ by air traffic controllers. Some approved news and traffic-reporting aircraft are allowed to operate under certain conditions within the FRZ. Contact TSA Maryland Three Program mdthree@tsa.dhs.gov for any questions.

Prohibited Area 56 (P-56) – P-56A & B – are prohibited areas surrounding the White House, the National Mall, and the vice president’s residence in Washington, D.C. The only aircraft that are allowed to fly within these prohibited areas are specially authorized flights that are in direct support of the U.S. Secret Service, the Office of the President, or one of several government agencies with missions that require air support within P-56. These prohibited areas have been in effect for about 50 years.

P-56A covers approximately the area west of the Lincoln Memorial (Rock Creek Park) to east of the Capitol (Stanton Square) and between Independence Avenue and K Street up to 18,000 feet.

P-56B covers a small circle with a radius of about one nautical mile (about 1.2 statute miles) surrounding the Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Avenue up to 18,000 feet.

Visual Warning System for the SFRA – In some situations, NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command) uses a warning signal to communicate with pilots who fly into the SFRA or FRZ without authorization. The signal uses highly focused red and green lights in an alternating red/ red/green signal pattern. This signal is directed at specific aircraft suspected of making unauthorized entry into the SFRA/FRZ that are on a heading or flight path that may be interpreted as a threat, or that operate contrary to the operating rules for the SFRA/FRZ.

The beam will not injure the eyes of pilots, aircrews or passengers, regardless of altitude or distance from the source.

If pilots are in communication with air traffic control and this signal is directed at their aircraft, they are advised to immediately tell air traffic control that they are being illuminated by a visual-warning signal. If this signal is directed at a pilot who is not communicating with air traffic control, that pilot should turn to a heading away from the center of the FRZ/SFRA as soon as possible and immediately contact air traffic control on an appropriate frequency. If a pilot is unsure of the frequency, he or she should contact air traffic control on VHF guard frequency 121.5 or UHF guard 243.0.

Failure to follow these procedures may result in interception by military aircraft and/or the use of force. This applies to all aircraft operating within the SFRA, including Department of Defense, law enforcement, and aeromedical operations.

FAASTeam Course ALC-405 – Free course

Drones and Space Launches

It is worth noting that the Armed Forces follow Title 10 of the US Code, and military UAS integration occurs with other government departments.

History of UAS Laws

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (FMRA) of 2012, PL 112-95. Section 333 of PL 112-95 directed the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount of public risk and no threat to national security could safely be operated in the NAS and, if so, to establish requirements for the safe operation of these systems in the NAS.

In 2016, Congress enacted the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act (FESSA) which amended the definition of an SUAS and provided for numerous security, R&D, and usage provisions. It also introduced the concept of remotely identifying operators of UA, as well as gave birth to what we now know as the Special Governmental Interest (SGI) process for expediting approvals for emergency response operations.

As part of its ongoing efforts to integrate UAS operations in the NAS and in accordance with Section 333, in June 2016, the FAA issued a final rule adding part 107, integrating civil small UAS into the NAS. Part 107 allows small UAS operations for many different purposes without requiring airworthiness certification, exemption, or a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA).

As of August 2023, Section 2209 of FESSA has not yet been implemented. It is quoted directly below:

SEC. 2209. APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION.

(a) Applications for Designation.

–Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish a process to allow applicants to petition the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit or restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close proximity to a fixed site facility.

(b) Review Process.

— (1) Application procedures.

(A) In general.

–The Administrator shall establish the procedures for the application for designation under subsection (a).

(B) Requirements.

–The procedures shall allow operators or proprietors of fixed site facilities to apply for designation individually or collectively.

(C) Considerations.

–Only the following may be considered fixed site facilities:

(i) Critical infrastructure, such as energy production, transmission, and distribution facilities and equipment.

(ii) Oil refineries and chemical facilities.

(iii) Amusement parks.

(iv) Other locations that warrant such restrictions.

(2) Determination.

(A) In general.

–The Secretary shall provide for a determination under the review process established under subsection (a) not later than 90 days after the date of application, unless the applicant is provided with written notice describing the reason for the delay.

(B) Affirmative designations.–An affirmative designation shall outline–

(i) the boundaries for unmanned aircraft operation near the fixed site facility; and

(ii) such other limitations that the Administrator determines may be appropriate.

(C) Considerations.

–In making a determination whether to grant or deny an application for a designation, the Administrator may consider

(i) aviation safety;

(ii) protection of persons and property on the ground;

(iii) national security; or

(iv) homeland security.

(D) Opportunity for resubmission.

–If an application is denied, and the applicant can reasonably address the reason for the denial, the Administrator may allow the applicant to reapply for designation.

(c) Public Information.

–Designations under subsection (a) shall be published by the Federal Aviation Administration on a publicly accessible website.

(d) Savings Clause.

–Nothing in this section may be construed as prohibiting the Administrator from authorizing operation of an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft system, over, under, or within a specified distance from that fixed site facility designated under subsection (b).

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 repealed the Special Rule for Model Aircraft of FMRA 2012 and replaced it with the Exception for limited recreational operations; and also repealed Section 333 of FMRA 2012 and replaced it with a risk-based approach under Section 44807.

However, those rules under Part 107 did not permit SUA operations at night or over people without a waiver. On February 13, 2019, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) titled Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People, which proposed to modify these regulations to permit routine operations of SUA over people and at night under certain conditions. The FAA received over 900 comments to the NPRM by the closing of the comment period on April 15, 2019. The Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People final rule was the next incremental step towards further integration of UA in the NAS. The final rule allows routine operations over people and routine operations at night under certain circumstances. The rule will eliminate the need for typical operations to receive individual part 107 certificate of waivers from the FAA. The rule was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021. Corrections to the final rule were published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2021, delaying the effective date from March 16, 2021, to April 21, 2021.

Safety and security are top priorities for the FAA and remote identification (remote ID) of drones is crucial to this integration effort. Remote ID is the ability in flight to provide identification and location information that can be received by other parties. Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly. Remote ID also lays the foundation of the safety and security groundwork needed for more complex drone operations. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021, with an original effective date of March 16, 2021. Corrections made to the rule and published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2021, delayed the effective date to April 21, 2021. Almost all the final rule on remote ID became effective April 21, 2021. The subpart covering the process for FRIA applications from community-based organizations and educational institutions became effective September 16, 2022. Drone manufacturers must comply with the final rule’s requirements by September 16, 2022. By September 16, 2023, all drone pilots must meet the operating requirements of 14 CFR Part 89, For most operators, this means flying a Standard Remote ID Drone, equipping with a broadcast module, or flying at a FRIA.

Section 2209 of FESSA was again mentioned in this FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 as shown below:

SEC. 369. APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION.

Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (Public Law 114–190; 130 Stat. 615) is amended

(1) in subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), by striking ‘‘and distribution facilities and equipment’’ and inserting ‘‘distribution facilities and equipment, and railroad facilities’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(e) DEADLINES.— ‘‘(1) Not later than March 31, 2019, the Administrator shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to carry out the requirements of this section. ‘‘(2) Not later than 12 months after publishing the notice of proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue a final rule.’’.

As of August 2023, no such rule has been issued.

Drone Regulations

The FAADroneZone is the FAA’s official website for managing your drones whether you fly for recreation, education, government, or business. You use this to register, apply for waivers and airspace authorizations, get recognized as a community-based organization, submit an accident report, among other things.

Regulations may be found on the FAA UAS Web Pages.

Penalties, under Administrative Law, for violating these regulations may be found in FAA Order 2150.3 FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program

With respect to drone operator documents, drone operators flying in the NAS are required to show certain documents to law enforcement, the NTSB, the TSA, and the FAA upon request. The rules governing the particular flight and the official making the request determine what documents a drone pilot must present. A recreational flyer operating in accordance with 49 USC § 44809 is required to show their drone registration and proof of TRUST completion to law enforcement upon request. These requirements are listed in 49 USC § 44809 paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8). They are not required to show photo identification or airspace authorization to law enforcement. A remote pilot operating in accordance with 14 CFR part 107 must provide their remote pilot certificate, drone registration, and photo identification upon request from law enforcement. These requirements are listed in 14 CFR §107.7.

The FAA recognizes 4 kinds of drone flyer

Learn how the FAA processes UAS requests with JO 7200.23C – Processing of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Requests. This order provides guidance for Headquarters, Service Centers, and Air Traffic Managers on air traffic policies and prescribes procedures for the planning, coordination, and services involving the processing of applications for the operation of UAS in the NAS. Unless otherwise indicated in this order, all applications are processed at the Service Centers. However, in the case of certain high priority applications, the Headquarters may choose to process the application. This order establishes air traffic policy for the processing of authorization and waiver requests for UAS operations in the NAS. An unmanned aircraft system that is operated underground for mining purposes must not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the FAA under title 49, United States Code, Section 355.

Register your Drone

How to Register Your Drone: Register your drone at FAA DroneZone either under part 107 or the Exception for Recreational Flyers. If you are not sure what kind of a drone flyer you are, check out our User Identification Tool or visit our Getting Started webpage to learn more.

September 2023 – FAA Extends Remote ID Enforcement Date Six Months

Drone pilots who are unable to comply with the broadcast requirement of the Remote ID Rule will now have until March 16, 2024, to equip their aircraft. After that date, operators could face fines and suspension or revocation of pilot certificates. In making this decision, the FAA recognizes the unanticipated issues that some operators are experiencing finding some remote identification broadcast modules.

Federal Register – Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft; Delay

Duty to See and Avoid Other Aircraft

The FAA has issued AC 90-48E to assist pilots with their regulatory obligation to see and avoid other aircraft. Specifically, this AC looks to alert pilots to human contributors to midair collisions and near midair collisions (NMAC), and recommend improvements to pilot education, operating practices, procedures, and improved scanning techniques to reduce midair conflicts. This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. Specifics to UAS pilots are as follows:

Section 11.1.5 Avoiding Collisions With Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Pilots should remain vigilant of UAS at or below 400 feet in uncontrolled airspace and at all times in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). All pilots should remain vigilant of all aircraft if they are able to see them, and take measures to avoid them.

InFO 18001 – Reflective Vests

Type Certification of Certain UAS

On September 18, 2020, the FAA published Type Certification of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems, a policy for the type certification of certain unmanned aircraft systems as a special class of aircraft that went into effect the same day. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 332 of Public Law 112-95 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 44802) directed the FAA to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). As part of that plan, the FAA issued the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems final rule (81 FR 42064, June 28, 2016), which added 14 CFR part 107 to the FAA’s regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria and issues type certificates to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. Section 44704 requires the Administrator to find an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance is properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a) before issuing a type certificate for it.

14 CFR part 21 contains the FAA’s procedural requirements for airworthiness and type certification. When the FAA promulgated part 21 as part of its re-codification to combine and streamline the Civil Air Regulations, it originally required applicants for a type certificate to show that the product met existing airworthiness standards (29 FR 14562, October 24, 1964). Existing airworthiness standards for aircraft and other products, issued as a separate part of the FAA’s regulations, are: Normal category airplanes under 14 CFR part 23, transport category airplanes under 14 CFR part 25, normal category rotorcraft under 14 CFR part 27, transport category rotorcraft under 14 CFR part 29, manned free balloons under 14 CFR part 31, aircraft engines under 14 CFR part 33, and propellers under 14 CFR part 35. Part 107 sets forth rules for the operation of small UAS that do not require FAA airworthiness certification. Under part 107, operations may not occur over persons, at night, generally above an altitude of 400 feet above ground level, or beyond visual line-of-sight, without a waiver issued by the FAA. UAS weighing 55 pounds or more and small UAS operating outside the limitations imposed by part 107 must receive airworthiness certification, a waiver, or an exemption as appropriate.

The FAA subsequently amended part 21 to add procedural requirements for the issuance of type certificates for special classes of aircraft (52 FR 8040, March 13, 1987). In the final rule (amendment 21-60), the FAA explained that it intended the special class category to include, in part, those aircraft that would be eligible for a standard airworthiness certificate but for which certification standards do not exist due to their unique, novel, or unusual design features. The FAA further stated that the “decision to type certificate an aircraft in either the special class aircraft category or under… the FAR is entirely dependent upon the aircraft’s unique, novel, and/or unusual design features.” (52 FR 8041).

Specifically, the final rule (amendment 21-60) revised § 21.17(b) to include the certification procedure for special classes of aircraft. For special classes of aircraft, for which airworthiness standards have not been issued, the applicable airworthiness requirements will be the portions of those existing standards contained in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 found by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to a specific type design, or such airworthiness criteria as the FAA may find provide an equivalent level of safety to those parts.

An “unmanned aircraft” is an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. See 49 U.S.C. 44801(11); 14 CFR 1.1. Unmanned aircraft include all classes of airplanes, rotorcraft, and powered-lift aircraft. Many UAS elements, while essential for safe operation, are part of the UAS system but are not permanent features of the unmanned aircraft. For example, instead of traditional landing gear with wheels and brakes, many UAS have a launch and recovery system. Additionally, because the pilot is not situated within the aircraft, unique configurations and applications of airframes, powerplants, fuels, and materials are possible and can result in flight characteristics different from those of conventional aircraft. These features specific to UAS are the very unique, novel, and/or unusual features the special class category was designed to accommodate.

A notice of policy and request for comments regarding the type certification of certain UAS was published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905). The public comment period for the notice closed on March 4, 2020. The notice proposed that some UAS with no occupants onboard may be type certificated as a special class of aircraft under § 21.17(b). The notice also proposed that for airplane and rotorcraft designs, when appropriate, the FAA may still issue type certificates under § 21.17(a).

The FAA has determined that some UAS may be type certificated as a “special class” of aircraft under § 21.17(b). The FAA will issue type certificates for UAS with no occupants onboard under the process in § 21.17(b). However, the FAA may still issue type certificates under § 21.17(a) for airplane and rotorcraft UAS designs where the airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27 or 29, respectively, are appropriate for the certification basis. This policy applies only to the procedures for the type certification of UAS, and is not intended to establish policy impacting other FAA rules pertaining to unmanned aircraft, such as operations, pilot certification, or maintenance.

The FAA will seek public comment on the particularized airworthiness criteria for each applicant as certification standards for this new special class evolve. Once generally applicable standards are identified, the FAA may conduct rulemaking. The FAA’s part 107 rulemaking on small UAS was only the first step in the FAA’s plan to integrate UAS into the NAS. Many long-term activities are required for full integration of present and future UAS operations, which will include the delivery of packages and transportation of people. The UAS affected by this policy will include those used for package delivery. Future FAA activity, through either further policy or rulemaking, will address type certification for UAS carrying occupants. This policy does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Commercial Drone Rules

If you have a small drone that is less than 55 pounds, you can fly for work or business by following the Part 107 guidelines. To ensure you can fly under Part 107 rules, first use the FAA user identification tool. Some operations will require a waiver. You can become an FAA-Certified Drone Pilot by Passing the Knowledge Test. To be eligible to get your Remote Pilot Certificate, you must be:

• At least 16 years old
• Able to read, write, speak, and understand English
• Be in a physical and mental condition to safely fly a UAS

Review Knowledge Test Suggested Study Materials provided by the FAA. Create an Integrated Airman Certification and Rating Application (IACRA) profile prior to registering for the knowledge test. Take the Knowledge Test at an FAA-approved Knowledge Testing Center. Once you’ve passed your test, for a remote pilot certificate (FAA Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application) login the FAA Integrated Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application system (IACRA) to complete FAA form 8710-13. Review the full process to get your Remote Pilot Certificate.

One last thing. Register your Drone with the FAA. Registration costs $5 and is valid for 3 years. You will need a credit or debit card and the make and model of your drone handy in order to register. Create an account and register your drone at FAADroneZone. Select “Fly sUAS under Part 107.” Once you have registered, mark your drone with your registration number in case it gets lost or stolen. You can learn more about Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft, 14 CFR part 48.

You should become familiar with Title 14 – Aeronautics and Space

Chapter I – Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation

Subchapter F – Air Traffic and General Operating Rules

Part 107 Waivers Issued

BVLOS – Obstruction Shielding Waivers

Tactical BVLOS Waivers

SGI – Special Government interest Waivers

14 CFR Part 107 – Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

AC 107-2A

AC 107-2A

Abbreviations/Acronyms Used in This AC

AAAM – Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine

AC – Advisory Circular

ACR – Airman Certification Representative

ACS – Airman Certification Standards

ACTS – Airman Certificate Testing Service

AD – Airworthiness Directive

ADM – Aeronautical Decision-Making

AELP – Aviation English Language Proficiency

AGL – Above Ground Level

AIM – Aeronautical Information Manual

AIS – Abbreviated Injury Scale

AKTR – Airman Knowledge Test Report

ASI – Aviation Safety Inspector

AST – Aviation Safety Technician

ATC – Air Traffic Control

ATO – Air Traffic Organization

AWC – Aviation Weather Center

C2 – Command and Control

CFI – Certificated Flight Instructor

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CG – Center of Gravity

COA – Certificate of Waiver or Authorization

CoW – Certificate of Waiver

CRM – Crew Resource Management

CS – Control Station

DHS – Department of Homeland Security

DOC – Declaration of Compliance

DOT – Department of Transportation

DPE – Designated Pilot Examiner

EDL – Enhanced Driver’s License

EID – Enhanced Identification Card

EMS – Emergency Medical Service

ETC – Enhanced Tribal Card

FAA – Federal Aviation Administration

FAASTeam – FAA Safety Team

FAST – Free and Secure Trade

FCC – Federal Communications Commission

FRIA – FAA-Recognized Identification Area

FSDO – Flight Standards District Office

FTN – FAA Tracking Number

GCS – Ground Control Station

GPS – Global Positioning System

IACRA – Integrated Airman Certification and Rating Application

ICA – Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

ICAO – International Civil Aviation Organization

INS – Immigration and Naturalization Service

KTC – Knowledge Testing Center

LOC – Loss of Control

METAR – Aviation Routine Weather Report

MMC – Merchant Mariner Credential

MOC – Means of Compliance

mph – Miles per Hour

MSL – Mean Sea Level

NAS – National Airspace System

NOTAM – Notice to Air Missions

NTIA – National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NTSB – National Transportation Safety Board

NWS – National Weather Service

PIC – Pilot in Command

PL – Public Law

RF – Radio Frequency

ROC – Regional Operations Center

sm – Statute Mile

TAF – Terminal Aerodrome Forecast

TFR – Temporary Flight Restriction

TSA – Transportation Security Administration

TWIC – Transportation Worker Identification Credential

UAS – Unmanned Aircraft System

U.S.C. – United States Code

USCIS – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

VLOS – Visual Line of Sight

VO – Visual Observer

W&B – Weight and Balance

WINGS – Pilot Proficiency Program

6.4.1 Remote Pilot Applicants Without Part 61 Certificates.

An individual who does not hold a part 61 pilot certificate or a part 61 certificate holder who does not meet the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56 must use the following process. A part 61 pilot who meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56 may elect to use this process.

1. Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test administered at a KTC (see paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8).

2. Complete and submit the Remote Pilot Certificate and/or Rating Application for a Remote Pilot Certificate (FAA Form 8710-13).

• Option 1 (Online Form): This is the fastest and simplest method. The FAA Form 8710-13 application should be completed online using the electronic FAA Integrated Airmen Certificate and Rating Application (IACRA) system. An applicant seeking a Remote Pilot Certificate must have already passed an initial Remote Pilot aeronautical knowledge test. Once registered with IACRA, the applicant will log in with their username and password. Click on “Start New Application” and

(1) Application Type: “Pilot,”

(2) Certifications: “Initial Remote Pilot,”

(3) “Other Path Information,” and

(4) “Start Application.”

Continue through the application process and, when prompted, the applicant may select the knowledge test information provided or enter the 17-digit Knowledge Test Exam ID from the knowledge test in IACRA. Knowledge Test Reports upload immediately to the IACRA system. This allows processing the application for certification without any delay after passing the test. The KTC test proctor verifies the identity of the applicant. Once the applicant completes the online application in IACRA, the applicant signs the application electronically and submits it to the Airman Registry for processing. No FAA representative will be required to sign the application if the applicant was able to self-certify.

Note: When an applicant seeking a Remote Pilot Certificate uses this online option, the application transmits electronically from the applicant to the Airman Registry. The only electronic signature reflected on the IACRA application will be the applicant’s. The Registry confirms basic airman information with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) prior to generating a Temporary Airman Certificate. Once completed, the applicant receives a confirmation email allowing the applicant to log into the IACRA system and print a copy of the temporary certificate.

• Option 2 (Paper Application): An applicant seeking a Remote Pilot Certificate could also submit a paper application. If the applicant chooses the paper method, the original Remote Pilot initial aeronautical knowledge test report must be mailed with the application to the following address: DOT/FAA Airmen Certification Branch (AFB-720) P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125

Note: A Temporary Airman Certificate will not be provided to the remote pilot applicant if the applicant does not hold a part 61 certificate. For this reason, it would be in the applicant’s best interest to utilize Option 1 (IACRA system) instead of the paper method, in order to receive a Temporary Airman Certificate once the application has completed the TSA vetting process.

3. Receive permanent Remote Pilot Certificate once all other FAA internal processing is complete.

6.4.2 Applicants with Part 61 Certificates.

Instead of the process described above, an individual who holds a part 61 pilot certificate, other than a student pilot certificate, and meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56 may elect to apply using the following process:

1. Complete the online Part 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (small UAS) training located within the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) website (https://www.faasafety.gov) and receive a completion certificate.

2. Complete the Remote Pilot Certificate and/or Rating Application for a Remote Pilot Certificate (FAA Form 8710-13).

• Option 1 (Online Application): In almost all cases, the application should be completed online using the electronic FAA IACRA system. The applicant must include verification that the applicant completed the online training or passed an initial aeronautical knowledge test. The applicable official document(s) must be uploaded into IACRA either by the applicant or the certifying official.

• Option 2 (Paper): The application may be completed on paper. Using this method, the certificate of completion for the online training must be included with the application. A part 61 pilot, who also meets the requirements of § 61.56, may also take the knowledge test for initial certification. If a part 61 pilot decides to take the knowledge test, the pilot must also include the knowledge test report with their paper application. Please note that the processing time will be increased if a paper application is used.

3. Contact a certifying official such as the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), FAA Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE), an Airman Certification Representative (ACR), or a certificated flight instructor (CFI) to make an appointment to validate the applicant’s identification. The applicant must present the completed FAA Form 8710-13 along with the online training completion certificate or knowledge test report (as applicable) and proof of meeting the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56. The FAA Form 8710-13 application will be signed by the applicant after the certifying official examines the applicant’s photo identification and verifies the applicant’s identity. The FAA representative will then sign the application. The identification presented must include a photograph of the applicant, the applicant’s signature, and the applicant’s actual residential address (if different from the mailing address). This information may be presented in more than one form of identification. Acceptable methods of identification include, but are not limited to U.S. drivers’ licenses, government identification cards, passports, and military identification cards (see Appendix D, Remote Pilot Certification and Applicant Identity Verification). If using paper or IACRA method, an appropriate FSDO representative, a DPE, or an ACR will issue the applicant a Temporary Airman Certificate.

Note: A CFI is not authorized to issue a temporary certificate. The applicant can print their own Temporary Airman Certificate after receiving an email from the FAA notifying the applicant that it is available. The FSDO signs and mails the application to AFB-720 for the issuance of the permanent certificate. Flight instructors may refer to AC 61-141.

The [small unmanned aircraft make and model] is a high performance aerial imaging aircraft that the FAA has determined is eligible to operate over people. The system comes fully assembled and includes the aircraft, touch screen ground station and 3-axis gimbal camera capable of 16 megapixel still photos and full HD 60 FPS videos. Operating the [small unmanned aircraft make and model], will enable you to capture remarkable photographs and video footage for a wide variety of applications.

This small unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct operations over people in Category 2 and Category 3 provided the remote pilot complies with the modification instructions. Any modification to the small unmanned aircraft not provided for in the remote pilot operating instructions may affect eligibility for operations over people. Please take the time to read this entire instruction manual for more information on operating safety and according to the Federal Aviation Regulations.

NOTE: Before any person may conduct operations of the [small unmanned aircraft make and model], you should create an account online with [manufacturer’s name], at [manufacturer’s website]. This will enable you to receive important updates regarding the small unmanned aircraft and its eligibility to operate over people, as well as updates, bulletins, instructional videos and more.

Selection of the FLIGHT MODE

The [small unmanned aircraft make and model] is programmed with three (3) flight modes. The flight mode can be selected via the Flight Mode Control Selection Switch located just above the left-hand control stick.

IMPORTANT: Selection of the flight mode determines the category of operations that the [small unmanned aircraft make and model] may conduct over people. The following selection options are available:

Flight Mode G: Any operation not conducted over people.

Flight Mode 2: Any operation conducted in accordance with category 2 operations over people.

Flight Mode 3: Any operation conducted in accordance with category 3 operations over people.

Category 2 Required Components

1) The [small unmanned aircraft make and model] Airframe

2) Transmitter and Ground Station

3) USB to Micro USB Cable

4) USB Interface/Programmer

5) 3400mAh 9.1V LiPo Battery

6) 9.1V LiPo Balance Connector Charge Lead

7) AC to DC Adapter/Power Supply

8) 16GB microSD Card w/Adapter

9) CAT 2 Rotor Blades & Guards

Category 3 Required Components

1) The [small unmanned aircraft make and model] Airframe

2) Transmitter and Ground Station

3) USB to Micro USB Cable

4) USB Interface/Programmer

5) 5600mAh 11.1V LiPo Battery

6) 11.1V LiPo Balance Connector Charge Lead

7) AC to DC Adapter/Power Supply

8) 16GB microSD Card w/Adapter

9) CAT 3 Rotor Blades & Guards

The [small unmanned aircraft make and model] is already equipped with a high-definition camera. If you intend to conduct operations over people in accordance with Category 2 or Category 3, you may replace the camera only with a pre-approved camera listed in the remote pilot operating instructions, which may be found on the [manufacturer’s] website. Additionally, for operations over people in accordance with Category 2 or Category 3, you may not affix any other payload to the [small unmanned aircraft make and model] unless it is listed in the remote pilot operating instructions, which may be found on the [manufacturer’s] website. Any permissible payload you affix to the small unmanned aircraft must be securely attached throughout the duration of all operations that occur in accordance with Category 2 or Category 3. Failure to adhere to these requirements will result in the ineligibility of the [small unmanned aircraft make and model] to operate over people in accordance with Category 2 or Category 3.

The information in this appendix is a presentation of aeronautical decision-making (ADM), Crew Resource Management (CRM), and an example of a viable risk assessment process. This process is used to identify hazards and classify the potential risk that those hazards could present in an operation. It also provides examples of potential criteria for the severity of consequences and likelihood of occurrence that may be used by a small unmanned aircraft remote pilot in command (PIC).

The ADM process addresses all aspects of decision making in a solo or crew environment and identifies the steps involved in good decision making. These steps for good decision making are as follows:

Hazardous attitudes can affect unmanned operations if the remote PIC is not aware of the hazards, leading to such things as: getting behind the aircraft/situation, operating without adequate fuel/battery reserve, loss of positional or situational awareness, operating outside the envelope, and failure to complete all flight planning tasks, preflight inspections, and checklists. Operational pressure is a contributor to becoming subject to these pitfalls.

Continuing to utilize risk assessment procedures for the operation will assist in identifying risk associated with the operation. Conducting an attitude assessment will identify situations where a hazardous attitude may be present.

Stress is ever present in our lives and you may already be familiar with situations that create stress in aviation. However, small UAS operations may create stressors that differ from manned aviation. Such examples may include: working with an inexperienced crewmember, lack of standard crewmember training, interacting with the public and city officials, and understanding new regulatory requirements. Proper planning for the operation can reduce or eliminate stress, allowing you to focus more clearly on the operation.

As with any aviation operation, identifying associated hazards is the first step. Analyzing the likelihood and severity of the hazards occurring establishes the probability of risk. In most cases, steps can be taken to mitigate, even eliminate, those risks. Actions such as using visual observers (VO), completing a thorough preflight inspection, planning for weather, familiarity with the airspace and operational area, proper aircraft loading, and performance planning can mitigate identified risks. Figure A-1, Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Process Chart, is an example of a risk assessment tool. Others are also available for use.

A characteristic of CRM is creating an environment where open communication is encouraged and expected, and involves the entire crew to maximize team performance. Many of the same resources that are available to manned aircraft operations are available to unmanned aircraft operations. For example, remote PICs can take advantage of traditional CRM techniques by utilizing additional crew members, such as VOs and other ground crew. These crew members can provide information about traffic, airspace, weather, equipment, and aircraft loading and performance. If conducting operations over people or moving vehicles, crew members can also provide timely information regarding the presence of those not directly participating in the operation. Examples of good CRM include:

One way to accomplish this is for the VO to maintain visual contact with the small unmanned aircraft and maintain awareness of the surrounding airspace and operational area, and then communicate flight status and any hazards to the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls so that appropriate action can be taken. Then, as conditions change, the remote PIC should brief the crew on the changes and any needed adjustments to ensure a safe outcome of the operation.

The remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of communication, such as the use of a handheld radio or other effective means that would not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The remote PIC should evaluate which method is most appropriate for the operation and should make a determination prior to flight.

Tasks vary depending on the complexity of the operation. Depending upon the area of the operations, additional crew members may be needed to operate the small unmanned aircraft safely. The remote PIC should utilize sufficient crew members to ensure no one on the team becomes overloaded. Once a member of the team becomes overworked, a greater possibility of an incident/accident exists.

Take advantage of information from a weather briefing, air traffic control (ATC), the FAA, local pilots, and landowners. Technology can aid in decision making and improve situational awareness. Being able to collect the information from these resources and manage the information is key to situational awareness and could have a positive effect on your decision making.

Successful decision making is measured by a pilot’s consistent ability to keep themselves, any persons involved in the operation, and the aircraft in good condition regardless of the conditions of any given flight. As with manned operations, complacency and overconfidence can be risks. Several checklists and models exist to assist in the decision-making process. Use the IMSAFE checklist to ensure adequate mental and physical preparation for the flight. Use the DECIDE model to assist in continually evaluating each operation for hazards and analyzing risk. Paragraph A.4.8 and AC 60-22, Aeronautical Decision Making, can provide additional information on these models and others. 

Hazards related to the small unmanned aircraft and its operating environment must be identified and controlled. The analysis process used to define hazards needs to consider all components of the system, based on the equipment being used and the environment in which it is operated. The key question to ask during analysis of the small unmanned aircraft and its operation is, “what if?” Small unmanned aircraft remote PICs are expected to exercise due diligence in identifying significant and reasonably foreseeable hazards related to their operations. It is recommended that remote pilots document small unmanned aircraft and operating environment hazards in accordance with the hazard identification process described in Figure A-1.

Before flight, the following Safety Risk Assessment and Mitigation steps should be taken. Figure A-2 in this paragraph is an example of a risk assessment plan in table format to accomplish this task. This example should not be considered a required format. It is designed simply to show one way to document a risk assessment and mitigation plan.

Notes:

(1) Likelihood: Likelihood the risk will occur – Improbable, Remote, Occasional, Probable, or Frequent.

(2) Severity: Consequence if the hazard occurs – No safety effect, Minor, Major, Hazardous, or Catastrophic.

(3) Risk: Combination of Likelihood and Severity – Low, Medium, High, or Avoid (i.e., changes to operation are required for mitigation or the operation should not be conducted). These definitions are used to assign the level of risk prior to consideration of risk mitigation effects.

(4) Emergency or Contingency Procedures: This column is your plan of action if the event still occurs.

(a) In order to identify effectively all potential hazards and their associated risks, you should first begin with a thorough description of the operational environment. This should include (but is not limited to):

1. Current and forecasted weather conditions.

2. Condition of the equipment to be used and associated operational limitations.

3. Remote pilot, observer, and other participants’ fatigue and awareness levels.

4. Terrain and obstacles (such as proximity to power lines, buildings, etc.) in the planned and emergency/contingency flightpath.

5. Identify the hazard(s) associated with flying over people (hazard column above).

6. If the operation will occur at night, identify hazards of flying at night, to include those operations whose mission duration includes portions of day, twilight, and night. Such potential hazards include night vision adaptation when unlit towers and buildings are present in the area of operation. Other potential hazards include current and forecast weather conditions and terrain features that may affect the ability for other aircraft operating in the area to see the anti-collision light for at least 3 statute miles (sm).

7. Identify other hazard(s) present during all small unmanned aircraft flights, such as schedule pressure, health issues, lack of familiarity with equipment, etc. (hazard column above).

(b) Once you have identified the potential hazards, complete the following steps for each hazard.

(c) List the cause(s) of each hazard (cause column above).

(d) List the effect(s) of each hazard (effect column above).

(e) Perform a qualitative risk assessment by:

1. Estimating the likelihood of each hazard occurring (probability column (1) above).

2. Estimating the severity of each hazard, if it occurs (severity column (2) above).

3. Defining the risk of each hazard as a combination of the probability and severity (risk column (3) above).

(f) Describe the mitigation steps for each hazard (mitigation column above). Develop controls to mitigate all risks to an acceptable level. If such development is not possible, the operator should not operate the small unmanned aircraft until the operator can accomplish this.

(g) Describe any procedures to accomplish, including emergency and contingency procedures, should the hazard occur (emergency or contingency procedure column (4) above).

During the flight, the following safety risk assessment and mitigation steps should be taken:

1. Properly use the assessment and inspection checklists, including briefing of appropriate safety risk assessment and mitigation steps.

2. Maintain proper configuration of the small unmanned aircraft for the category of the operation.

3. Constantly re-assess risk.

4. Have and follow procedures for making changes to the flight profile, including crew member notification.

After the flight, the following steps should be taken:

1. Perform a thorough debriefing.

2. Capture lessons learned and recommendations.

The following list contains examples of factors to consider in assigning a risk rating to a specific identified hazard. This is not a comprehensive list, but an initial list of items to consider:

• Workload.

• Configuration (gross weight, center of gravity (CG), etc.).

• Environment (weather, ATC, particular airport conditions, turbulence, etc.).

• Specific small unmanned aircraft limitations as stated by the manufacturer.

• Consequence of failure in technique, system, or structure.

Mitigate all risks to an acceptable level. Mitigations are actions to minimize, understand, prepare, or respond to causes of the hazards. They are actions the remote pilot, crewmember(s), or other team member(s) have control over. Mitigations will address reducing either the probability of a cause, the severity of the effect, or both. Mitigations should be detailed and specific in nature. The following items should be considered when formulating mitigations. This is not a comprehensive list, but an initial list of items to consider:

• Set limits on flight conditions (e.g., minimum weather, altitude, minimum/maximum speed, etc.).

• Clearly define and brief criteria that could cause the discontinuation of the flight (e.g., items that affect safety of flight) and who will make and execute decisions.

• Review hazards and specify steps to reduce the associated risk(s).

• Review Weight and Balance (W&B) computations.

Describe any emergency and contingency procedures to accomplish if the hazard occurs, despite mitigation steps (emergency or contingency procedure column (4) in Figure A-2 above).

Other tools can also be used for flight or operational risk assessments and can be developed by the remote PICs themselves. The key consideration is ensuring all potential hazards and risks are identified and appropriate actions are taken to reduce the risk to persons and property not associated with the operations.

Risk analyses should concentrate not only on assigning levels of severity and likelihood, but on determining why these particular levels were selected. This is referred to as root cause analysis, and is the first step in developing effective controls to reduce risk to lower levels. In many cases, simple brainstorming sessions among crewmembers is the most effective and affordable method of finding ways to reduce risk. This also has the advantage of involving people who will ultimately be required to implement the controls developed.

That is not the purpose of a risk assessment. The focus should be upon those hazards which pose the greatest risks. As stated earlier, by documenting and compiling these processes, a remote PIC can build an arsenal of safety practices that will add to the safety and success of future operations.

A.4.8.1 Example. I am the remote PIC of a small unmanned aircraft in the proximity of an accident scene shooting aerial footage. Much like pilots in manned aircraft must adhere to preflight action (14 CFR part 91, § 91.103), I must adhere to preflight familiarization, inspection, and aircraft operations (14 CFR part 107, § 107.49). Let’s say there is an obvious takeoff and landing site that I intend to use. What if, while I am operating, a manned aircraft (emergency medical services (EMS) helicopter) requires use of the same area and I am not left with a suitable landing site? Furthermore, I am running low on power. If I consider this situation prior to flight, I can use the Basic Hazard Identification and Mitigation Process. Through this process, I might determine that an acceptable level of risk can be achieved by also having an alternate landing site and possibly additional sites at which I can sacrifice the small unmanned aircraft to avoid imposing risks to people on the ground or to manned aircraft

It is really a simple process: I must consider the hazards presented during this particular operation, determine the risk severity, and then develop a plan to lessen (or mitigate) the risk to an acceptable level. By documenting and compiling these processes, I can build a collection of safety practices that will add to the safety and success of future operations. The following are some proven methods that can help a new remote PIC along the way:

Using the Personal Minimums (PAVE) Checklist for Risk Management, I will set personal minimums based upon my specific flight experience, health habits, and tolerance for stress, just to name a few. After identifying hazards, I will then input them into the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Process Chart (see Figure A-1).

1. Personal: Am I healthy for flight and what are my personal minimums based upon my experience operating this small unmanned aircraft? During this step, I will often use the IMSAFE checklist in order to perform a more in-depth evaluation:

• Illness – Am I suffering from any illness or symptom of an illness which might affect me in flight?

• Medication – Am I currently taking any drugs (prescription or over-the-counter)?

• Stress – Am I experiencing any psychological or emotional factors that might affect my performance?

• Alcohol – Have I consumed alcohol within the last 8 to 24 hours?

• Fatigue – Have I received sufficient sleep and rest in the recent past?

• Eating – Am I sufficiently nourished?

2. Aircraft: Have I conducted a preflight check of my small UAS (aircraft, control station (CS), takeoff and landing equipment, anti-collision light for night operations, etc.)? Has it been determined to be in a condition for safe operation? Is the payload properly secured to the aircraft prior to flight?

3. Environment: What is the weather like? Am I comfortable and experienced enough to fly in the forecast weather conditions? Have I considered all of my options and left myself an “out?” Have I determined alternative landing spots in case of an emergency? Will I be flying at night and how may that change the way I operate? What are my associated risks when operating at night? Will I have the ability to see the anti-collision light for at least 3 sm? Will other aircraft that may be operating in the area have the ability to see the anti-collision light for at least 3 sm, considering weather and terrain (certain weather phenomena, such as fog, terrain features, and other phenomena, and obstacles such as hills, mountains, and manmade structures, may affect the ability for me and other aircraft to see the anti-collision light for at least 3 sm)? Is the flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision? Will I be operating over people, and if so, how will I ensure I do not create any hazards to persons not directly participating in the operation? Can my operational area be considered an open-air assembly of persons? Will I be operating over moving vehicles, and if so, how will I ensure I do not create any hazards to vehicles? Will my operations (landing spots) need to be relocated due to the people?

4. External Pressures: Am I stressed or anxious? Is this a flight that will cause me to be stressed or anxious? Is there pressure to complete the flight operation quickly? Am I dealing with an unhealthy safety culture? Am I being honest with myself and others about my personal operational abilities and limitations?

After hazards and risks are fully understood through the preceding steps, risk controls must be designed and implemented. These may be additional or changed procedures, additional or modified equipment, the addition of VOs, or any of a number of other changes.

Residual risk is the risk remaining after mitigation has been completed. Often, this is a multistep process, continuing until risk has been mitigated to an acceptable level necessary to begin or continue operation. After these controls are designed but before the operation begins or continues, an assessment must be made of whether the controls are likely to be effective and/or whether they introduce new hazards to the operation. The latter condition, introduction of new hazards, is referred to as substitute risk, a situation in which the resolution is worse than the original issue. The loop seen in Figure A-1 that returns back to the top of the diagram depicts the use of the preceding hazard identification, risk analysis, and risk assessment processes to determine whether the modified operation is acceptable.

Once a remote PIC develops and implements appropriate risk controls, the operation can begin.

The manufacturer may provide operational and performance information that contains the operational performance data for the aircraft such as data pertaining to takeoff, climb, range, endurance, descent, and landing. To be able to make practical use of the aircraft’s capabilities and limitations, it is essential to understand the significance of the operational data. The use of this data in flying operations is essential for safe and efficient operation. It should be emphasized that manufacturers’ information regarding performance data is not standardized. If manufacturer-published performance data is unavailable, it is advisable to seek out performance data that may have already been determined and published by other users of the same small UAS manufacturer model and use that data as a starting point. B.2 Small Unmanned Aircraft Loading and Its Effects on Performance.

Before any flight, the remote PIC should verify the aircraft is correctly loaded by determining the W&B condition of the aircraft. An aircraft’s W&B restrictions established by the manufacturer or the builder should be closely followed. Compliance with the manufacturer’s W&B limits is critical to flight safety. The remote PIC must consider the consequences of an overweight aircraft, as it may result in an unsafe condition.

B.2.1.1 Although a maximum gross takeoff weight may be specified, the aircraft may not always safely take off with this load under all conditions. Conditions that affect takeoff and climb performance, such as high elevations, high air temperatures, and high humidity (high density altitudes) may require a reduction in weight before flight is attempted. Other factors to consider prior to takeoff are runway/launch area length, surface, slope, surface wind, and the presence of obstacles. These factors may require a reduction in weight prior to flight.

B.2.1.2 Weight changes during flight also have a direct effect on aircraft performance. Fuel burn is the most common weight change that takes place during flight. As fuel is used, the aircraft becomes lighter and performance is improved, but this could have a negative effect on balance. In UAS operations, weight change during flight may occur when expendable items are used on board (e.g., a jettisonable load).

Adverse balance conditions (i.e., weight distribution) may affect flight characteristics in much the same manner as those mentioned for an excess weight condition. Limits for the location of the CG may be established by the manufacturer. The CG is not a fixed point marked on the aircraft; its location depends on the distribution of aircraft weight. As variable load items are shifted or expended, there may be a resultant shift in CG location. The remote PIC should determine how the CG will shift and the resultant effects on the aircraft. If the CG is not within the allowable limits after loading or does not remain within the allowable limits for safe flight, it will be necessary to relocate or shed some weight before flight is attempted.

Remote PICs are encouraged to obtain weather information prior to flight from Flight Service. Remote PICs can create a free account in order to use the briefing service. While Flight Service does offer a telephone-based service, it is intended for manned aircraft pilots only.

Remote PICs are also encouraged to visit the NWS’s Aviation Weather Center (AWC). This free, web-based service does not require registration and offers all of the weather products important to a remote PIC, such as Aviation Routine Weather Reports (METAR) and Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF).

While reviewing the weather for your intended operation, it is also critical that the remote PIC review any TFRs at the FAA’s TFR website.

Weather is an important factor that influences aircraft performance and flying safety. Atmospheric pressure and density, wind, and uneven surface heating are factors that affect small unmanned aircraft performance and must be considered prior to flight.

Wind speed and direction are important as they affect takeoff, landing, and cruise of flight operations. Geological features, trees, structures, and other anomalies can affect the wind direction and speed close to the ground. In particular, ground topography, trees, and buildings can break up the flow of the wind and create wind gusts that change rapidly in direction and speed. The remote PIC should be vigilant when operating small unmanned aircraft near large buildings or other man-made structures and natural obstructions, such as mountains, bluffs, or canyons. The intensity of the turbulence associated with ground obstructions depends on the size of the obstacle and the primary velocity of the wind. This same condition is even more noticeable when flying in mountainous regions. While the wind flows smoothly up the windward side of the mountain and the upward currents help to carry an aircraft over the peak of the mountain, the wind on the leeward side does not act in a similar manner. As the air flows down the leeward side of the mountain, the air follows the contour of the terrain and is increasingly turbulent. This tends to push an aircraft into the side of a mountain. The stronger the wind, the greater the downward pressure and turbulence become. Due to the effect terrain has on the wind in valleys or canyons, downdrafts can be severe.

Different surfaces radiate heat in varying amounts. Plowed ground, rocks, sand, and barren land give off a larger amount of heat, whereas water, trees, and other areas of vegetation tend to absorb and retain heat. The resulting uneven heating of the air creates small areas of local circulation called convective currents, which creates bumpy, turbulent air. Convective currents, with their rising and sinking air can adversely affect the controllability of the small unmanned aircraft.

Lithium-based batteries are highly flammable and capable of ignition. A battery fire could cause an in-flight emergency by causing a LOC of the small unmanned aircraft. Lithium battery fires can be caused when a battery short-circuits, is improperly charged, is heated to extreme temperatures, is damaged as a result of a crash, is mishandled, or is simply defective. The remote PIC should consider following the manufacturer’s recommendations, when available, to help ensure safe battery handling and usage.

A small UAS typically uses RFs for the communication link between the CS and the small unmanned aircraft.

B.6.1 Frequency Spectrum (RF) Basics. The 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz systems are the unlicensed band RFs that most small UAS use for the connection between the CS and the small unmanned aircraft. Note the frequencies are also used for computer wireless networks and the interference can cause problems when operating an unmanned aircraft in an area (e.g., dense housing and office buildings) that has many wireless signals. LOC and flyaways are some of the reported problems with small UAS frequency implications.

B.6.1.1 To avoid frequency interference, many modern small UAS operate using a 5.8 GHz system to control the small unmanned aircraft and a 2.4 GHz system to transmit video and photos to the ground. Consult the small UAS operating manual and manufacturer’s recommended procedures before conducting small UAS operations.

B.6.1.2 It should be noted that both RF bands (2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz) are considered line of sight and the command and control link between the CS and the small unmanned aircraft will not work properly when barriers are between the CS and the unmanned aircraft. Part 107 requires the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls to be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times, which should also help prevent obstructions from interfering with the line of sight frequency spectrum.

B.6.2 Spectrum Authorization. Frequency spectrum used for small unmanned aircraft operations are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Radio transmissions, such as those used to control an unmanned aircraft and to downlink real-time video, must use frequency bands that are approved for use by the operating agency. The FCC authorizes civil operations. Some operating frequencies are unlicensed and can be used freely (e.g., 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz) without FCC approval. All other frequencies require a user-specific license for all civil users, except Federal agencies, to be obtained from the FCC.

C.1 In the interest of assisting operators with varying background levels of small UAS knowledge and skill, below is a chart offering conditions that, if noticed during a preflight inspection or check, may support a determination that the small unmanned aircraft is not in a condition for safe operation. Further inspection to identify the scope of damage and extent of possible repair needed to remedy the unsafe condition may be necessary prior to flight.

C.2 For Category 4 maintenance requirements for operating in accordance with 14 CFR part 107, see Chapter 8, paragraph 8.3.7.4.

C.3 For Category 4 record retention requirements, see Chapter 8, paragraph 8.3.7.4.1.

Specific knowledge requirements for the Remote Pilot Certificate are located in 14 CFR part 107 subpart C.

D.1.1 A person may apply for a Remote Pilot Certificate with one of the following certifying official: a CFI, a DPE, through an FAA aviation safety inspector (ASI) or aviation safety technician (AST), or with an Airman Certification Representative (ACR) associated with a 14 CFR part 141 pilot school. All Remote Pilot Certificates will be issued by the Civil Aviation Registry Division (AFB-700) on a high quality plastic card stock containing tamper- and counterfeit-resistant features.

D.1.2 Additional information on the eligibility requirements for remote pilots can be found at part 107, § 107.61. Note: If an applicant has a known medical issue that would require a limitation on the Remote Pilot Certificate, refer that applicant to the responsible Flight Standards office to ensure the application is processed with the correct limitations.

Certifying officials may accept an individual’s application for an FAA Remote Pilot Certificate by utilizing the FAA’s IACRA or the paper FAA Form 8710-13, Remote Pilot Certificate and/or Rating Application.

Authorized individuals are encouraged to utilize IACRA for the purpose of accepting a remote pilot application. IACRA is a web-based certification/rating application system that guides the user through the FAA’s application process. IACRA may be accessed at https://iacra.faa.gov/iacra/. The website also contains an instruction manual for additional assistance.

In order for a CFI to accept a remote pilot application, the CFI must be registered in IACRA as the role of “Recommending Instructor.” Even though the instructor is utilizing the role of a certifying officer, their signature will be reflected in the “Instructor Action” section of FAA Form 8710-13.

Before processing an application for a Remote Pilot Certificate, the certifying official must ensure the applicant meets the eligibility requirements of § 107.61, meets the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR part 61, § 61.56, and verifies the applicant’s identity. The certifying official should refer to AC 60-28, FAA English Language Standard for an FAA Certificate Issued Under 14 CFR Parts 61, 63, 65, and 107, and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) website to prepare for the assessment. The AC outlines the required procedures to ensure the applicant meets the FAA Aviation English Language Proficiency (AELP) standards. The ICAO website. After conducting an assessment of the applicant’s English language proficiency, in accordance with AC 60-28, if it is determined the applicant does not meet the FAA standard, process the application by:

D.5.1 When utilizing IACRA, answer the questions concerning FAA AELP. The system will recognize whether the applicant has met the FAA AELP and process the application as necessary. No additional paperwork will be required to be mailed to the responsible Flight Standards office.

D.5.2 When utilizing a paper FAA Form 8710-13, if the applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements of § 107.61, the certifying official will check the “Application Rejected” box in the appropriate section of the Submitting Official’s Report and specify the reason for rejection. The authorized individual will also check the “No” box after the statement “Applicant meets FAA Aviation English Language Proficiency.” After verifying the application is complete, forward this application to the responsible Flight Standards office for data entry and processing, even if the applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements.

The address and contact information for the responsible Flight Standards

Note: If the applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements of § 107.61, do not check the “Application Accepted” box. This box should only be checked once it is determined the applicant meets the eligibility requirements. Check the “Application Rejected” box and continue processing the application. The terms “accept” and “reject” are used to notify AFB-700 of whether the applicant meets the requirements for the issuance of a Remote Pilot Certificate.

A person who meets the eligibility requirements of a Remote Pilot Certificate may register as an applicant through IACRA, which stores FAA Form 8710-13 electronically until a certifying official accesses the form. FAA Form 8710-13 may be accessed by a certifying official by searching for the person’s unique FAA tracking number (FTN) assigned by an FAA internal system after the person has completed the required items on the remote pilot application form. The certifying official will verify that the applicant meets the regulatory eligibility requirements and that the application has been completed properly. Additionally, the certifying official will verify the applicant’s identity and input the photograph identification data into IACRA when prompted. Once the authorized individual has completed the application through IACRA, it will be transmitted electronically to AFB-700 for processing.

Applicants have the ability to apply for a Remote Pilot Certificate in paper format on the FAA Form 8710-13 to ensure all applicants have the uninterrupted ability to apply for an FAA Remote Pilot Certificate. The same information captured on the paper FAA Form 8710-13 is captured within IACRA. Once it is verified the applicant meets the eligibility requirements of § 107.61, the certifying official will check the “Application Accepted” box in the Submitting Official’s Report section. The certifying official will also select the “Yes” box after the statement “Applicant meets FAA Aviation English Language Proficiency.” Once the authorized individual has verified that the application was completed in accordance with the form’s instructions, the certifying official will send the completed remote pilot application to their responsible Flight Standards office for data entry. The address and contact information for the responsible Flight Standards office.

Once the data is captured, the FSDO will mail the application file to AFB-700 via first-class mail to the following address: DOT/FAA, Airmen Certification Branch, AFB-720, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. The FAA notes that the submittal of a paper FAA Form 8710-13 may delay the issuance of a Remote Pilot Certificate because of mailing time to AFB-700.

The certifying official accepting an individual’s application for a Remote Pilot Certificate should review the person’s photo identification presented at the time of application to confirm it is current and valid. The flight instructor should document the type of identification and number submitted (e.g., Virginia driver’s license number A12345678 and expiration date xx/xx/xxxx) on the FAA Form 8710-13 “Airman’s Identification” section in accordance with the following guidelines.

D.9.1 General Identity Document Review Guidelines:

D.9.1.1 Applicant must present a government-issued photo identification (refer to suggested list below).

D.9.1.2 Confirm that the applicant matches the photo on the identification document.

D.9.1.3 Identity document must be valid. Please note that some States do not provide an expiration date on certain documentation.

D.9.1.4 Name on the identity document must substantially match the name on the application.

D.9.1.4.1 Use best judgment when comparing the identity documents and application data as a person may reasonably identify themselves through the use of multiple variations of their legal, given, and/or nicknames (e.g., Robert Michael Smith Jr; Robert M Smith Jr; Robbie M Smith; Bob/Bobbie Smith).

D.9.1.4.2 Additionally, there may be a suffix on the identity document (such as JR, SR, II, III) that may not be present on the application. Ensure the applicant’s name on the application matches their identification.

D.9.1.5 If date of birth is present on the document provided, it must match the date of birth on the application.

D.9.1.6 If address is present on the document provided, compare to the address on the application. If the address is different, please request the applicant to provide a current address.

D.9.1.7 If gender is present on the document provided, it must match the gender on the application.

D.9.1.8 If an identity document appears to be fraudulent or shows signs of tampering, or if any of the identifying information on the identity document does not satisfactorily match the information on the application as explained in this guidance, do not challenge the individual; complete the application process, copy presented documents and record the individual’s name, address, and contact information to include phone numbers, emails, etc. Provide this information to supervisory, security, investigative, or law enforcement personnel as soon as possible.

D.9.2 List of Acceptable Documents or Combination of Documents:

1. Unexpired U.S. passport (book or card).

2. Unexpired Enhanced Tribal Card (ETC).

3. Unexpired Free and Secure Trade (FAST) Card.

4. Unexpired Global Entry Card.

5. Unexpired U.S. Enhanced Driver’s License (EDL) or Unexpired Enhanced Identification Card (EID).

6. Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551), commonly referred to as a “Green Card.”

7. Unexpired foreign passport.

8. Unexpired Reentry Permit (Form I-327).

9. Unexpired driver’s license issued by a State or outlying possession of the United States.

10. Unexpired temporary driver’s license plus expired driver’s license.

11. Unexpired photo ID card issued by a State or outlying possession of the United States. This must include a State or State agency seal or logo (such as a State university ID). Permits are not considered valid identity documents (such as gun permits).

12. Unexpired photo ID card issued by a regional, county, or city/municipal governmental authority, to include but not limited to law enforcement, governmental, education, transportation, or utility authority.

13. Unexpired U.S. military ID card.

14. Unexpired U.S. retired military ID card.

15. Unexpired U.S. military dependent’s card.

16. Native American tribal document with photo.

17. Unexpired Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC).

18. Unexpired Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC).

19. U.S. Birth Certificate and an unexpired government-issued ID.

20. U.S. Naturalization Certificate with a raised seal, or Certificate of Naturalization issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (Form N-550 or N-570) with a government-issued ID.

21. Certificate of Birth Abroad with raised seal, Department of State Form FS-545, or DS-1350 with government-issued ID.

22. Certificate of U.S. Citizenship with raised seal, or Certificate of Citizenship issued by USCIS or INS, or Certificate of Repatriation issued by USCIS or INS, together with a government-issued ID.

23. A Federal agency’s written certification of its employee’s U.S. citizenship, if the training is being conducted on behalf of that agency.

E.1 Sample Preflight Assessment and Inspection Checklist. Remote pilots may choose to use this checklist or develop their own for the operation of their specific small UAS. Preflight Assessment

1. Operating Environment:

a. Local Weather Conditions;

b. Local Airspace, ATC coordination/communication requirements, and any flight restrictions;

c. Identify the location of persons and property on the surface; and

d. Other ground hazards.

2. Crew Briefings:

a. Operating Conditions,

b. Purpose of Flight,

c. Potential Hazards,

d. Emergency Procedures,

e. Contingency Procedures,

f. Crew member Roles and Responsibilities, and

g. Human Factors (I.M.S.A.F.E).

3. Ensure all required documentation is available for inspection.

4. Verify all the manufacturer-required components that make up the small UAS are present and operating as designed.

5. Review Remote Pilot Operating Instructions (if applicable).

6. Complete Certificate of Waiver (CoW) review (if applicable). Review risk assessment and required mitigations.

7. Verify that the control station (CS) location, take-off and landing site(s), including emergency or alternate landing areas are suitable.

8. For operations that will not occur over human beings:

a. Consider whether lateral and vertical off-sets from human beings will be necessary to maintain safety of the operation.

b. Review and adjust the flightpath to ensure it accounts for any movement of human beings.

9. For operations that will occur over human beings:

a. Verify the small unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct the intended category of operations over human beings.

b. Verify the small unmanned aircraft is clearly labeled for the intended category of operations over human beings.

c. If the small unmanned aircraft has undergone any modification, verify the manufacturer allowed such modifications as described in the remote pilot operating instructions.

d. Verify the small unmanned aircraft is properly configured and mode selected for the category of operations over human beings.

e. Consider whether the operational area can be considered an open-air assembly of persons.

f. For Category 3 operations:

i. Ensure the small unmanned aircraft flightpath of the operation does not go over an open-air assembly of people.

ii. Not within or over a closed- or restricted-access site: May only operate the small unmanned aircraft above any human being if the operation does not maintain sustained flight over any person, unless the person is directly participating in the operation or located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle.

iii. Within or over a closed- or restricted-access site: May only operate the small unmanned aircraft above any human being if the operation is within or over a closed- or restricted-access site and any human being located within the closed- or restricted-access site is on notice that a small unmanned aircraft may fly over them.

10. Evaluate and use mitigations to prevent the remote pilot from becoming distracted or losing VLOS during flight operations.

11. Review small unmanned aircraft performance capabilities, considering density altitude and wind, to ensure positive control of the small unmanned aircraft can be maintained and at a safe distance over people, if applicable. The review should also include maintaining a clear flightpath while operating the small unmanned aircraft.

12. Visual condition inspection of the small UAS components.

13. Airframe structure (including undercarriage), all flight control surfaces, and linkages.

14. Registration markings, for proper display and legibility.

15. Moveable control surface(s), including airframe attachment point(s).

16. Servo motor(s), including attachment point(s).

17. Propulsion system, including powerplant(s), propeller(s), rotor(s), ducted fan(s), etc.

18. Check fuel for correct type and quantity.

19. Check that any equipment, such as a camera, is securely attached.

20. Verify all systems (e.g., aircraft and control unit) have an adequate power supply for the intended operation and are functioning properly.

21. Verify adequate communication between CS and small unmanned aircraft exists; check to ensure the small UAS has acquired GPS location from the minimum number of satellites specified by the manufacturer.

22. Verify correct indications from avionics, including control link transceiver, communication/navigation equipment, and antenna(s).

23. Check the display panel, if used, is functioning properly.

24. Check ground support equipment, including takeoff and landing systems, for proper operation.

25. Check for correct movement of control surfaces using the CS.

26. Check flight termination system, if installed (if applicable).

27. Check the anti-collision light is functioning and can be seen for at least 3 sm (for operations that will occur at civil twilight or night).

28. Calibrate small UAS compass, if required, prior to any flight.

29. Verify controller operation for heading and altitude.

30. Start the small unmanned aircraft propellers to inspect for any imbalance or irregular operation.

31. At a controlled low altitude, fly within range of any interference and recheck all controls and stability.

Post-Flight

1. Evaluate small UAS to determine whether repairs are required prior to subsequent flights.

2. Conduct a review of the flight to include any crew member(s) utilized. This review should consist of items, such as:

• Remote pilot and crew member performance of assigned duties;

• Equipment malfunctions and anomalies;

• Whether the planned risk mitigation measures were effective or require revision;

• Unanticipated risks and hazards encountered during flight operations, and mitigations used; and

• Crew member concerns and feedback to improve the safety of future flight operations.

14 CFR Part 11

14 CFR Part 11 – when a waiver to 14 CFR part 107 won’t work, then a Part 11 exemption may!

A petition for exemption is a request to the FAA by an individual or entity for relief from the requirements of a regulation in 14 CFR. The FAA may grant an exemption if it is in public interest and provides an equivalent level of safety. See, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) and 14 CFR § 11.81(e). A petition for rulemaking is a request by an individual or entity to the FAA Administrator requesting that the FAA adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation (14 CFR § 11.71). Regulations governing the rulemaking process can be found in Part 11 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Section 44807: Special Authority for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The Small UAS Rule (14 CFR Part 107) is only applicable to unmanned aircraft (drones) that weigh less than 55 pounds at takeoff. Not only is there a max weight, but there’s also a limitation to what rules can be waived under Part 107. To fly an unmanned aircraft that exceeds the maximum weight limit of Part 107 or your mission includes a non-waiverable rule, you may apply for an exemption in accordance with 14 CFR Part 11 and  the Congressional authority granted in Special Authority for Certain Unmanned Systems, 49 U.S.C. §44807.

49 U.S.C. § 44807 grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to use a risk-based approach to determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) on a case-by-case basis. This grants UAS operators safe and legal entry into the NAS, thus improving safety. We anticipate this activity will result in significant economic benefits. The FAA Administrator has identified this as a high priority project to address demand for civil operation of drones for commercial purposes.

2024 – NPRM – Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a Renewal of an Information Collection: Operational Waivers for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The FAA is seeing increased complexity of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) operation flying under 14 CFR part 107. Under 14 CFR 107.205, operators of small UAS continue to request waivers from certain operational rules. In 2018, the FAA updated and modernized the process for applying for such waivers by introducing the FAADroneZone website. These improvements have facilitated the process of collecting and submitting the information required as part of a waiver application. In 2021, recognizing the demand to expedite the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), the FAA revised the regulatory framework for safely integrating UAS into routine NAS operations. The was accomplished by publishing the “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People” rule in January, 2021, which permitted routine operations of small unmanned aircraft over people and at night under certain conditions. This change significantly decreased the waiver requests for such operations by over 55%. The reporting burdens for operational waiver applications are currently covered by Information Collection Request (ICR) 2120–0768. As part of this effort, the FAA is renewing this ICR, for operational waiver applications only. In order to process operational waiver requests, the FAA requires the operator’s name, the operator’s contact information, and information related to the date, place, and time of the requested small UAS operation. Additional information is required related to the proposed waiver and any necessary mitigations. The FAA will use the requested information to determine if the proposed UAS operation can be conducted safely. This information is necessary for the FAA to meet its statutory mandate of maintaining a safe and efficient national airspace. See 49 U.S.C. 40103, 44701 and 44807.

Comments close 3-4-2024

BVLOS and Proposed 14 CFR Part 108

In Summer 2023, FAA published a request for comments on UAS Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations and proposed exemptions for BVLOS operations for Phoenix Air Unmanned, uAvionix, UPS Flight Forward, and Zipline. They also published an overarching notice requesting feedback from the community UAS BVLOS operations. The request seeks comments on specific aspects of BVLOS drone operations that the concurrent exemption petitions are looking to permit, including detect and avoid, UTM, and shielded operations.  The data collected from the notices and their operations will inform the FAA’s policy and rulemaking activities. It is FAA’s goal to use these exemptions to signal what the Agency is planning for its final rulemaking on BVLOS.

While the Agency works toward a final BVLOS rulemaking, FAA’s goal is to template exemptions so that approvals will be streamline for operators seeking to conduct similar operations at similar risk levels. The end product will be the safe integration of drones as a transport category into the NAS. BVLOS operations are an essential component of maximizing the value that the aviation industry generates as its economic impact expands beyond today’s operations to more personalized transportation, delivery, and other services.  Making progress on drone operational integration will spur investment into the drone industry, including manufacturing and workforce development in the United States. The FAA’s Request for Comment is a key step forward in enabling BVLOS operations and reducing barriers for successful integration.

Part 108 – New Drone Regulations Proposed to the FAA

BVLOS ARC Report Summary – Recommendations and Proposed Regulatory Changes

The Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) started their work on June 24th, 2021, with an objective to propose new drone flight rules to the FAA in order to enable operations outside of a remote pilot’s visual line of sight. Below is summarized their recommendations from the 381 Page report published on March 10th, 2021. The final report includes 70 recommendations as well as a brand new proposed CFR Part 108. For a detailed explanation of each recommendation, please visit the full report. The representatives included a diverse range of individuals and companies including Amazon Prime Air, Wing, Helicopter Associations, and other Aviation Organizations.

The BVLOS ARC’s 70 Recommendations:

Air & Ground Risk Recommendations (AG)

AG 2.1 – The acceptable level of risk (ALR) for UAS should be consistent across all types of operations being performed, and no more restrictive than the accepted fatality rates of general aviation.

AG 2.2 – The rules should be predicated on the risks of operation based on UA capability, size, weight, performance, and characteristics of the operating environment as opposed to the purpose of the operation.

AG 2.3 – BVLOS operations to the greatest extent possible should be allowed to occur through compliance with the regulation alone without the need for a waiver or exemption.

AG 2.4 – The FAA should encourage voluntary reporting in accordance with the UAS Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).

AG 2.5 – The rule should enable the carriage of hazardous materials beyond the specified quantities (per OQ 2.19). Carriage of hazardous materials beyond the specified quantities of OQ 2.19 shall have appropriate mitigations, as established via a performance-based industry consensus standard that is proportionate to the risk of the operation.

AG 2.6 – The rule should allow UAS to conduct transient flights over people. The rule should allow sustained flight over non-participants with strategic and/or technical mitigations applied.

AG 2.7 – The rule should be based on a minimum capability needed to safely perform the operation, not a minimum equipment list.

AG 2.8 – The FAA should develop pathways to support innovation and accommodate emerging technology. The FAA should give consideration to approvals for low-risk Research and Development initiatives.

AG 2.9 – The FAA should incorporate uncrewed aviation into existing surveys or deploy a survey similar to the General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey.

Flight Rules Recommendations (FR)

FR 2.1 – The FAA should amend Part 91.113 (b) to allow a range of sensing methodologies

FR 2.2 – The ARC recommends that UA operations in Non-Shielded Low Altitude Areas (i.e., below 400’) yield right of way to crewed aircraft equipped with ADS-B or TABS and broadcasting their position.

FR 2.3 – The ARC recommends that UA operations in Non-Shielded Low Altitude Areas (i.e., below 400’) have right of way over crewed aircraft that are not equipped with an ADS-B out as specified in 14 CFR § 91.225 or TABS.

FR 2.4 – The FAA should amend FAR Rule Part 91.113(d) to give UA Right of Way for Shielded Operations

FR 2.5 – Pilots should be educated to associate obstacles and structures along their flight path with uncrewed flight operations to increase situational awareness during both preflight planning and actual operations.

FR 2.6 – The FAA should revise §91.103 to include a new part (c) to accommodate UA operations.

FR 2.7 – The FAA should amend § 91.119 to allow UA operations below the Minimum Safe Altitude restrictions

FR 2.8 – The FAA should amend FAR Rule Part 107.31 to include Extended Visual Line of Sight

FR 2.9 – The FAA should amend FAR Rule Part 107.33 to allow a visual observer to assist and support BVLOS operations

Aircraft & Systems Recommendations (AS)

AS 2.1 – The FAA should establish a new ‘BVLOS’ Rule which includes a process for qualification of uncrewed aircraft and systems. The rule should be applicable to uncrewed aircraft up to 800,000 ft-lb of kinetic energy in accordance with the Operating Environment Relative Risk Matrix.

AS 2.2 – The new BVLOS rule should address Maintenance, Repair, and Modifications of UA.

AS 2.3 – The new BVLOS rule should address software qualification for UA and AE.

AS 2.4 – The new rules should include UA noise certification requirements appropriate to the operating environment. Compliance should be demonstrated through a simple testing methodology.

AS 2.5 – The FAA should establish a new ‘BVLOS’ Rule which includes a process for qualification of the associated elements of an uncrewed aircraft system.

AS 2.6 – The new rule should define who must make a declaration of compliance.

AS 2.7 – Establish a new Special Airworthiness Certification for the UAS category under Part 21.

AS 2.8 – The FAA should establish a Repairperson Certification for the UAS Category to perform inspection, maintenance, and repair of UAS holding SAC under this proposed rule.

AS 2.9 – Recommend exemption from Production Certification requirements IF TC applicants declare compliance to the LSA standard for a quality system.

AS 2.10 – The FAA should consider allowing third-party test organizations to audit compliance.

Operator Qualifications Recommendations (OQ)

OQ 2.1 – The FAA create a new 14 CFR Part that governs UAS BVLOS Pilot and Operator certification requirements and operating rules.

OQ 2.2 – The FAA should adopt the categories defined in the Automation Matrix for BVLOS training and qualification requirements.

OQ 2.3 – The FAA modify 14 CFR Part 107 to enable limited BVLOS operations under the existing Remote Pilot with Small UAS Rating certificate.

OQ 2.4 – The FAA expand the knowledge test for the 14 CFR Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate with Small UAS Rating to cover topics associated with EVLOS and shielded UAS operations

OQ 2.5 – The FAA establish a new BVLOS rating for the Remote Pilot certificate under the new 14 CFR Part.

OQ 2.6 – The FAA’s required UAS pilot knowledge areas and skills for the BVLOS rating should include the knowledge areas required by the FAA for the 14 CFR Part 107 Remote Pilot certificate.

OQ 2.7 – The BVLOS rating process should incorporate additional knowledge and examination areas to support advanced BVLOS and 1-to-many operations.

OQ 2.8 – The FAA should provide both direct and progressive paths to achieving the Remote Pilot Certificate with a BVLOS rating.

OQ 2.9 – Remote Pilots certificated under Part 107 that have completed a BVLOS training program certified by a public aircraft operator entity (as defined in 14 CFR Part 1) should be able to receive their BVLOS rating via online training, similar to the existing Part 107 certification pathway for current Part 61 pilots.

OQ 2.10 – UAS BVLOS guidance and advisory materials should establish a clear and traceable path for operational control and specific training/qualification/currency requirements.

OQ 2.11 – Create two levels of Operating Certificates for commercial UAS operations: a Remote Air Carrier certificate and a Remote Commercial Operating certificate.

OQ 2.12 – Set threshold requirements for certain UAS BVLOS operations beyond which a Remote Air Carrier Certificate or Remote Operating Certificate is required.

OQ 2.13 – Create Operating Requirements that govern Remote Air Carrier and Remote Operating certificate holders.

OQ 2.14 – Create Certification and Operating Requirements that govern Agricultural Remote Aircraft Operations.

OQ 2.15 – For UAS Operating Certificate holders create a designated position authorized under the New Part that exercises operational control and ultimate responsibility for 1-to-many BVLOS flights conducted under their supervision.

OQ 2.16 – The FAA should develop tailored medical qualifications for UAS pilots and other crew positions that consider greater accessibility and redundancy options available to UAS.

OQ 2.17 – Remote Pilots (regardless of rating) are expressly authorized to act as Remote Pilot in Command of an uncrewed aircraft operated for compensation or hire.

OQ 2.18 – The intent of the ARC is that the privileges and limitations of the final BVLOS rule will be available to all aircraft operating under this rule, including public agency operations.

OQ 2.19 – Allow only appropriately vetted UAS operators that are approved by the relevant authority to conduct operations deemed to be a higher security risk.

OQ 2.20 – The FAA should provide an exception to the restrictions and requirements for the carriage of specified quantities of hazardous materials for delivery by holders of a Remote Air Carrier or Remote Operating Certificate.

Third-Party Services Recommendations (TP)

TP 2.1 – The FAA should adopt a regulatory scheme for third-party services to be used in support of UAS BVLOS.

TP 2.2 – The FAA and NASA should conduct a study to determine what level of aircraft operations in a defined volume of the airspace would trigger the need for mandatory participation in federated or third-party services.

Environmental Recommendations

ER 2.1 – As the FAA reviews the BVLOS Rule, the ARC recommends the FAA determined that the BVLOS Rule is unlikely to result in a significant impact on the environment.

ER 2.2 – NEPA review of the BVLOS rule must be timely and programmatic in scope.

ER 2.3 – Environmental reviews should not be required for individual BVLOS operations enabled by the Rule.

ER 2.4 – The FAA should provide an interim pathway to enable BVLOS operations in the near term, pending the finalization of the BVLOS Rule.

ER 2.5 – The FAA interprets NEPA in a way that expedites the BVLOS rulemaking. If the FAA concludes that it is required to implement NEPA in such a way that would substantially delay either the BVLOS rulemaking or BVLOS operations, the ARC recommends asking Congress to consider legislative actions.

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

General Recommendations

GP 2.1 – The DOT and the FAA should assess and evaluate societal benefits from UAS BVLOS operations broadly and consider categories and types of benefits that are not easily quantifiable. This includes a holistic and comprehensive analysis of the environmental, equitable, safety, economic, security, and health benefits.

GP 2.2 – Public Perception – The industry must continue to work with all governments, including federal, tribal, state, and local, as well as directly with communities to enhance public understanding of the benefits of UAS BVLOS use.

GP 2.3 – Immediately after promulgating the new BVLOS rule, the FAA should issue an Advisory Circular providing guidance.

GP 2.4 – The FAA should continue the waiver and exemption process while the rulemaking process is progressing, considering the proposed recommendations as a basis for approval when appropriate.

GP 2.5 – International Harmonization – The FAA should work closely with international partners to streamline regulatory processes.

GP 2.6 – Resolve Ambiguity around Intergovernmental Jurisdictional Roles – The FAA should continue an open dialogue with all interested stakeholders on jurisdictional issues. Further, the FAA should explore a clearinghouse for relevant inputs from certified entities, especially local governments, to advance the industry integration.

GP 2.7 – The FAA should publish an order that governs FAA participation in industry standards development organizations.

GP 2.8 – Executive Branch Leadership on UAS Issues – The White House and the Department of Transportation should play a leadership role in UAS BVLOS integration.

GP 2.9 – Counter-UAS Issues – The US government should renew the Preventing Emerging Threats Act.

GP 2.10 – FAA Extension Act – The FAA, together with national security agencies, should implement a process by which trusted operators, including those operating BVLOS, can receive FAA approval to traverse FAA-designated fixed sites.

GP 2.11 – DOT Economic Authority – Congress and the Department of Transportation should review the application of the aviation citizenship laws to the UAS industry to minimize barriers to entry and operational hindrances.

GP 2.12 – Spectrum Related Issues – The FAA should work with the FCC and NTIA to support enabling all available communications technology for the industry in a timely way.

GP 2.13 – Network Remote ID Implementation – The ARC urges the national security agencies and the FAA to engage in an open dialogue with industry and civil society stakeholders to find solutions that enable network remote identification implementation.

GP 2.14 – The FAA establish a cybersecurity working group composed of members of the UAS and aviation industry, communications industry, academics, expert agencies, and other cybersecurity experts.

GP 2.15 – Until the new rule is promulgated, the proposed framework outlined in the Operations Matrix should be leveraged as Guidance Material for applicants and reviewers under the existing FAR Part 107 Waiver Process.

The ARC’s New Proposed Rule – 14 CFR Part 108

Subpart A – General

§ 108.1 Applicability.

§ 108.3 Definitions.

§ 108.5 Falsification, reproduction, or alteration.

§ 108.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.

§ 108.9 Accident reporting.

Subpart B – Operating Rules

§ 108.11 Applicability.

This Subpart applies to UAS BVLOS operations at the following Automated Flight Rules (AFR) Levels:

(a) For UA with 25,000 ft-lbs. or less of kinetic energy, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft, operating at:

1. AFR Level 2 Automation: a pilot to UA ratio greater than 1:5

2. AFR Level 3 Automation: a pilot to UA ratio greater than 1:20

(b) For UA with more than 25,000 ft-lbs. of kinetic energy, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft, operating at:

a pilot to UA ratio greater than 1:5

§ 108.12 Requirement for a remote pilot certificate.

§ 108.13 Registration.

§ 108.15 Condition for safe operation.

(a) No person may conduct a BVLOS UA operation unless the UA is in a condition for safe operation. For a BVLOS UA flight under AFR, the remote pilot in command will take appropriate steps to confirm conditions for safe operation and safe launch and landing areas by consulting relevant information, which may include weather station information, systems, and sensors on-aircraft and other flight support systems. Prior to each flight, the remote pilot in command must check the uncrewed aircraft system, and associated elements, to determine whether it is in a condition for safe operation. Such checks may be conducted on-site by direct inspection; remotely via aircraft system monitoring and health ground and flight checks, or a combination of both as approved in the aircraft’s flight manual.

(b) No person may continue a BVLOS UA operation when the person knows or has reason to know that the UAS, or associated elements, are no longer in a condition for safe operation.

§ 108.29 Operation at night.

§ 108.20 Operations in shielded areas.

§ 108.21 In-flight emergency.

§ 108.23 Hazardous operations.

§ 108.27 Alcohol or drugs.

§ 108.35 Operation of multiple uncrewed aircraft.

§ 108.37 Operation near aircraft; low altitude right-of-way rules.

(a) Every uncrewed aircraft operating below 500’ AGL and away from structures, must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles equipped and broadcasting their position via ADS-B out or Traffic Awareness Beacon Systems (TABS). Yielding the right of way means that the small uncrewed aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless there is adequate separation.

(b) Every crewed aircraft, airborne vehicle, and launch and reentry vehicle operating below 500’ AGL and away from structures, that are not equipped and broadcasting their position via ADS-B out or TABS must yield the right of way to all uncrewed aircraft. Yielding the right of way means that the crewed aircraft or vehicle must give way to the uncrewed aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless there is adequate separation.

c. Every uncrewed aircraft operating below 500’ AGL and within 100 feet of a structure has right of way over all other aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles.

d. No person may operate an aircraft or an uncrewed aircraft in a manner that creates a collision hazard.

§ 108.XX Transient operations over human beings

To conduct transient operations –

1. The UA operations shall be a transient operation (with regard to flight over human beings) or includes a transient flight over human beings. Transient flight over human beings is a transit route flight over people or a person. Transient operations are merely incidental to a point-to-point operation unrelated to the people or a person.

2. RPIC requirements.

a. A remote pilot in command –

i. Must use a UA that is eligible for transient operations pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;

3. Uncrewed aircraft requirements for transient operations. To be eligible to conduct transient operations over human beings under this section, the UA must –

a. Have the minimum BVLOS capabilities; and

b. Software performs as intended.

4. Maintenance requirements for transient operations. The owner/operator must maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition and,

a. Uses the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual;

b. Has the knowledge, skill, and appropriate equipment to perform the work; and

c. Performs the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on the uncrewed aircraft in a manner using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual.

§ 108.XX Sustained operations over human beings

To conduct sustained operations over human beings –

1. The UA shall be a sustained operation (with regard to flight over human beings) or includes sustained flight over human beings. Sustained flight is hovering above people or a person, flying back and forth over people or a person or circling above people in such a way that the unmanned aircraft remains above some portion of the person or persons.

2. RPIC requirements

a. A remote pilot in command –

i. Must use a UA that is eligible for sustained operations pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;

3. Uncrewed aircraft requirements for sustained operations. To be eligible to conduct sustained operations over human beings under this section, the UA must –

a. Meet the requirements for BVLOS operations per Subpart D

4. System requirements

a. The UAS or associate elements performs as intended.

5. Maintenance requirements sustained operations. The owner/operator must maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition and,

a. Uses the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual;

b. Has the knowledge, skill, and appropriate equipment to perform the work; and

c. Performs the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on the uncrewed aircraft in a manner using the methods, techniques,

Subpart C – Certification: Remote Pilots

§ 108.56 Applicability.

§ 108.57 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.

§ 108.59 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test results.

§ 108.61 Eligibility.

§ 108.63 Issuance of a remote pilot certificate with a BVLOS rating.

§ 108.64 Temporary certificate.

§ 108.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency.

Subpart D – Qualification: Procedures for Uncrewed Aircraft and Systems for BVLOS

§ 108.xx Applicability.

§ 108.xx Level 1 operations: Eligibility of aircraft and systems for BVLOS

§ 108.xx Level 2A operations: Eligibility of aircraft and systems for BVLOS

§ 108.xx Level 2B operations: Eligibility of aircraft and systems for BVLOS

§ 108.xx Level 3 operations: Eligibility of aircraft and systems for BVLOS

§ 108.xx Means of Compliance § 108.xx Declaration of Compliance

Subpart E – Certification: Remote Air Carriers and Remote Commercial Operators (Part 119 equivalent)

§108.XX Applicability (From § 119.1)

1. This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil uncrewed aircraft –

As a remote air carrier or a remote commercial operator, or both, in air commerce.

(b) This part prescribes –

The types of remote air operator certificates issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, including remote air carrier certificates and remote operating certificates;

The certification requirements an operator must meet in order to obtain and hold a certificate authorizing operation under this part and operations specifications for each kind of operation to be conducted under this part;

The requirements an operator must meet to conduct operations under this part and in its operations specifications.

§108.XX Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions. (From §119.5)

(a) A person authorized by the Administrator to conduct operations as a remote air carrier will be issued a Remote Air Carrier Certificate.

(b) A person who is not authorized to conduct remote air carrier operations, but who is authorized by the Administrator to conduct remote operations as a U.S. commercial operator, will be issued a Remote Operating Certificate.

(c) No person may operate as a remote air carrier or as a remote commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No person may operate as a remote air carrier or as a remote commercial operator in violation of

(d) No person may operate as a direct air carrier without holding appropriate economic authority from the Department of Transportation.

(e) A certificate holder under this part may not operate aircraft under this part in a geographical area unless its operations specifications specifically authorize the certificate holder to operate in that area.

(f) No person may advertise or otherwise offer to perform an operation subject to this part unless that person is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct that operation.

(g) No person may operate an aircraft under this part in violation of a remote air carrier certificate, remote operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under this part.

§108.XX Operations specifications. (From §119.7)

(a) Each remote certificate holder’s operations specifications must contain –

(1) The authorizations, limitations, and certain procedures under which each kind of operation, if applicable, is to be conducted; and

(2) Certain other procedures under which each class and size of aircraft is to be operated.

(b) Except for operations specifications paragraphs identifying authorized kinds of operations, operations specifications are not a part of a certificate.

§108.XX Safety Management Systems. (From §119.8)

1. A person applying to the Administrator for a remote air carrier certificate or a remote operating certificate to conduct operations under this part must demonstrate, as part of the application process, that it has an SMS that is acceptable to the Administrator.

§108.XX Use of business names. (From §119.9)

(a) A certificate holder under this part may not operate an aircraft under this part using a business name other than a business name appearing in the certificate holder’s operations specifications.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft under this part unless the name of the certificate holder who is operating the aircraft, or the air carrier or operating certificate number of the certificate holder who is operating the aircraft, is legibly displayed on the aircraft and is clearly visible and readable from the outside of the aircraft to a person standing on the ground at any time except during flight time. The means of displaying the name on the aircraft and its readability must be acceptable to the Administrator.

§108.XX Applicability of Operating Requirements to Different Kinds of Operations Under Parts 121, 125, and 135 of This Chapter (From Part 119 Subpart B)

§108.XX Commercial operators engaged in intrastate common carriage and direct air carriers. (From § 119.21)

§108.XX Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved. (From § 119.23)

§108.XX Rotorcraft operations: Direct air carriers and commercial operators. (§ 119.25)

§108.XX General Requirements. (From § 119.33)

(a) A person may not operate as a remote air carrier unless that person –

(2) Obtains a Remote Air Carrier Certificate; and

(3) Obtains operations specifications that prescribe the authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which each kind of operation must be conducted.

(b) A person other than a remote air carrier may not conduct any commercial cargo aircraft operation for compensation or hire under this part unless that person –

(1) Is a citizen of the United States;

(2) Obtains an Operating Certificate; and

(3) Obtains operations specifications that prescribe the authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which each kind of operation must be conducted.

(c) Each applicant for a remote air carrier or remote operating certificate under this part and each applicant for operations specifications authorizing a new kind of operation shall conduct proving tests as authorized by the Administrator during the application process for authority to conduct operations under this part. All proving tests must be conducted in a manner acceptable to the Administrator. All proving tests must be conducted under the appropriate operating and maintenance requirements of this part that would apply if the applicant were fully certificated. The Administrator will issue a letter of authorization to each person stating the various authorities under which the proving tests shall be conducted.

§108.XX Certificate application requirements for all operators. (From § 119.35)

§108.XX Additional certificate application requirements for commercial operators. (From § 119.36)

(a) Each applicant for the original issue of an operating certificate for the purpose of conducting intrastate common carriage operations under this part must submit an application in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator to the responsible Flight Standards office.

(b) Each application submitted under paragraph (a) of this section must contain a signed statement showing the following:

(1) For corporate applicants:

(i) The name and address of each stockholder who owns 5 percent or more of the total voting stock of the corporation, and if that stockholder is not the sole beneficial owner of the stock, the name and address of each beneficial owner. An individual is considered to own the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his or her spouse, children, grandchildren, or parents.

(ii) The name and address of each director and each officer and each person employed or who will be employed in a management position described in paragraph XX for “Management Personnel”, as applicable.

(iii) The name and address of each person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by the applicant and each person under direct or indirect control with the applicant.

(2) For non-corporate applicants:

(i) The name and address of each person having a financial interest therein and the nature and extent of that interest.

(ii) The name and address of each person employed or who will be employed in a management position described in paragraph XX for “Management Personnel”, as applicable.

(c) In addition, each applicant for the original issue of an operating certificate under paragraph (a) of this section must submit with the application a signed statement showing –

(1) The nature and scope of its intended operation, including the name and address of each person, if any, with whom the applicant has a contract to provide services as a commercial operator and the scope, nature, date, and duration of each of those contracts.

(d) Each applicant for, or holder of, a certificate issued under paragraph (a) of this section, shall notify the Administrator within 10 days after –

(1) A change in any of the persons, or the names and addresses of any of the persons, submitted to the Administrator under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.

§108.XX Contents of a Remote Air Carrier Certificate or Remote Operating Certificate. (From § 119.37)

The Remote Air Carrier Certificate or Remote Operating Certificate includes –

(a) The certificate holder’s name;

(b) The location of the certificate holder’s principal base of operations;

(c) The certificate number;

(d) The certificate’s effective date; and

(e) The name or the designator of the responsible Flight Standards office.

§108.XX Issuing or denying a certificate. (From § 119.39)

(a) An applicant may be issued a Remote Air Carrier Certificate or Remote Operating Certificate if, after investigation, the Administrator finds that the applicant –

(1) Meets the applicable requirements of this part;

(2) Holds the economic authority applicable to the kinds of operations to be conducted, issued by the Department of Transportation, if required; and

(3) Is properly and adequately equipped in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and is able to conduct a safe operation under appropriate provisions of this part and operations specifications issued under this part.

§108.XX Amending a certificate. (From § 119.41)

§108.XX Certificate holder’s duty to maintain operations specifications. (From § 119.43)

§108.XX Maintaining a principal base of operations, main operations base, and main maintenance base; change of address. (From § 119.47)

§108.XX Contents of operations specifications. (From § 119.49)

§108.XX Amending operations specifications. (From § 119.51)

§108.XX Wet leasing of aircraft and other arrangements for transportation by air. (From § 119.53)

§108.XX Obtaining deviation authority to perform an emergency operation. (From § 119.57)

§108.XX Conducting tests and inspections. (From § 119.59)

§108.XX Duration and surrender of certificate and operations specifications. (From § 119.61)

§108.XX Recency of operation. (From § 119.63)

§108.XX Management personnel required for operations conducted under this part. (From § 119.69)

§108.XX Management personnel: Qualifications for operations conducted under this part. (From § 119.71)

§108.XX (NEW) Flight supervisory personnel that may be designated for operations conducted under this part.

(a) In the case of certain highly automated systems, responsibility for the operation of more than one aircraft simultaneously may be assigned to a designated Remote Flight Operations Supervisor.

When designated by a Remote Air Carrier certificate holder or a Remote Commercial Operations certificate holder, the Remote Flight Operations Supervisor;

• Must be designated before the flight(s) over which they are assigned responsibility;

• Must have an assigned and specific scope of responsibility that may be defined as a geographic area or through the assignment of a set of specific aircraft registration numbers;

• Is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of aircraft for which they have been assigned responsibility;

• Ensures that the small, unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the small unmanned aircraft for any reason.

• Ensures that the aircraft complies with all applicable regulations of this chapter.

§108.XX (New) Flight supervisory personnel: Qualifications for operations conducted under this part.

§108.XX Employment of former FAA employees. (From § 119.73)

Subpart F – Operating Requirements: Remote Air Carriers and Remote Commercial Operators

§108.XX Risk Class and Type of Operations

Subpart G – Agricultural Remote Aircraft Operations

§108.XX Risk Class and Type of Operations (Taken from Part 137)

Other – 3PSP (Third Party Service Provider)

§108.XX Issuance of a 3PSP Certificate

(1) Applicability

(a) This regulation is applicable to a person who applies for a 3rd Party UAS Service Provider Certificate.

(2) Minimum performance requirements

(a) A 3rd Party UAS Service Provision Certificate will be issued by the FAA to a person who makes a declaration of compliance to an FAA accepted means of compliance.

§108.XX 3PSP Certificate Eligibility

(a) Eligibility. Any 3PSP may apply for a certificate to provide a service identified in an acceptable means of compliance.

(b) Application. The 3PSP will submit an application for a certificate as prescribed by the Administrator.

(c) Declaration of Compliance. The 3PSP will submit a declaration of compliance to the means of compliance as prescribed by the Administrator.

(d) Required Information. All material required by an accepted means of compliance must be prepared and submitted or archived as required by the means of compliance.

Changes to Part 107

§ 107.31 – Expand Visual Line of Sight Aircraft Operation to Include Extended Visual Line of Sight

(1) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one or more are used), or the person manipulating the flight control of the small uncrewed aircraft system must be able to see the uncrewed aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(a) Know the uncrewed aircraft’s location;

(b) Determine the uncrewed aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(c) Monitor the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(d) Determine that the uncrewed aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(2) Throughout the entire flight of the small uncrewed aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(a) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small uncrewed aircraft system; or

(b) A visual observer.

(3) The remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the controls are relieved from the requirement of seeing the uncrewed aircraft throughout the entire flight if they are able to:

(a) Know the uncrewed aircraft’s location;

(b) Determine the uncrewed aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(c) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(d) Determine that the uncrewed aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(4) To be relieved of the requirement to see the uncrewed aircraft per subsection (c), the uncrewed aircraft must not be flown more than three statute miles away from the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), or the person manipulating the controls, and the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), or the person manipulating the controls must:

(a) Receive training on and be permitted to operate an aviation radio; and

(b) Monitor aviation frequencies for nearby air traffic.

§ 107.33 Visual observer.

If a visual observer is used during the aircraft operation, all of the following requirements must be met:

(1) The remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls of the small uncrewed aircraft system, and the visual observer must maintain effective communication with each other at all times.

(2) The remote pilot in command must ensure that the visual observer is able to see the uncrewed aircraft in the manner specified in § 107.31.

(3) The remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls of the small uncrewed aircraft system, and the visual observer must coordinate to do the following:

(a) Scan the airspace where the small uncrewed aircraft is operating for any potential collision hazard; and

(b) Maintain awareness of the position of the small uncrewed aircraft through direct visual observation.

(4) The remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls of the small uncrewed aircraft system, and the visual observer are relieved from subsections (b) and (c) if the flight is conducted in compliance with 107.31(c) and (d).

§ 107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(1) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(2) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

(3) UA operating within 100 feet of a structure have right of way over all other aircraft.

Changes to Part 91 – Crewed Aircraft Operations

§ 91.103 – Pre-Flight Actions for Remote Pilots in Command (RPIC)

For a BVLOS UA flight under AFR and a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, the remote pilot in command will take appropriate steps to confirm conditions for safe operation and safe launch and landing areas by consulting relevant information, which may include weather station information, systems, and sensors on-aircraft and other flight support systems.

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except for water operations.

§ 91.113(b)

General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules, visual flight rules, or automated flight rules vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see detect and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless able to maintain adequate separation well clear.

§ 91.113 (d)(4)

Uncrewed Aircraft Conducting BVLOS in Shielded Operations have right of way over all other aircraft.

§ 91.113(h)

Uncrewed Aircraft Conducting BVLOS Operations Below 500 ft AGL.

(1) Uncrewed Aircraft with a maximum kinetic energy of no more than 800,000 ft.-lbs. must yield right of way to all aircraft that are equipped with an ADS-B out as specified in 14 CFR § 91.225 or TABS.

(2) The UA must:

be equipped with an FAA-approved or accepted detect and avoid system that can detect ADS-B or TABS equipped aircraft or can detect all aircraft using another means

Notify other aircraft of their operation through the use of a NOTAM or other means accepted by the FAA.

Be approved in accordance with 14 CFR Part 108.XX.

(3) The UA operator must:

• For operations in controlled airspace, prior authorization from the airspace controlling facility must be obtained

• For operations in uncontrolled airspace, the UA operator must coordinate with the airport operator for operations within 3 nautical miles for public airports

• For operations in uncontrolled airspace, the UA operator must coordinate with the heliport operator for operations within ½ nautical mile of the published heliport.

§ 91.119 – Minimum Safe Altitudes – General

(1) Helicopters, powered parachutes weight-shift-control, and uncrewed aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface –

(2) A UA may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided those operations are done in accordance with 14 CFR 108.XX

Changes to Part 21 – Type Certification

§21.175b – Special Airworthiness Certification for Uncrewed Aircraft

Special airworthiness certificates are primary, restricted, limited, light-sport, uncrewed aircraft systems and provisional airworthiness certificates, special flight permits, and experimental certificates.

Changes to Part 1 – Definitions

§1.1 General Definitions

Pilotage. Navigation by visual reference to landmarks or in the case of UAS by remote or electronic means.

Third-Party Service Provider (3PSP). A person (as defined by 14 CFR 1.1) that is not an applicant, as defined by the FAA and Industry Guide to Product Certification”, offering services and/or Associated Elements as a Third-Party Service to a UAS operator

Uncrewed aircraft system service supplier (USS) is a person qualified by the Administrator to provide aviation-related services to uncrewed aircraft systems.

UTM Services are a set of automated functions and digital services designed to support safe, efficient, and secure access to airspace for UAS. A list of 3PSP UTM services is provided in Table 2 “PART 14 CFR § 91.xxx (or new UAS BVLOS operating rule) – UAS Service Supplier performance requirements.

Declaration of compliance means a record submitted to the FAA by the 3PSP to attest that all the requirements of the applicable regulation have been met.

Network remote identification service is a service that ensures the remote identification of the operator throughout the flight. It shares the registration number of UAS operators as well as further details about their flights (speed, height, course) with authorized users (citizens, authorities, air traffic services).

Service level agreement (SLA) means the agreement between the 3PSP and the UAS operator covering the safety, performance, service area, and security of the 3rd Party UAS Service provision as required for the UAS operator’s intended operations.

Shielded Area is a volume of airspace that includes 100’ above the vertical extent of an obstacle or critical infrastructure and is within 100 feet of the lateral extent of the same obstacle or critical infrastructure as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 5195c. A Shielded Operation is a UAS BVLOS operation within a Shielded Area.

Traffic information service informs UAS operators about other air traffic (both crewed and uncrewed) that may be present in proximity to their UAS.

Automated Flight Rules (AFR) for UAS BVLOS operations

AFR Level 1 – A manual system. Direct monitoring and human interface are necessary and intended for the vast majority of the flight. The aircraft may have some automated features (e.g., auto hover, “return to home”), but the human remote pilot has direct control over the aircraft’s flight control surfaces and is actively controlling the aircraft state during all phases of flight.

AFR Level 2 –  Increased automation. Human remote pilots are responsible for the flight of assigned aircraft and are expected to directly monitor and maintain situational awareness for the flight(s) under their control. During AFR Level 2 operations, human intervention is possible but not required for certain aspects of the operation, such as to abort a mission or trigger a non-normal 42 response. The Remote Pilot is directing the aircraft through a software interface and does not directly manipulate flight control surfaces. The pilot may also program or direct routes, altitudes, and contingency procedures through the software interface.

AFR Level 3 – Represents extensive automation, similar to the capabilities of existing on-demand delivery operations. While AFR Level 3 operations may not require human intervention to operate successfully, they may accommodate human supervision and intervention. For the human RFOS or Remote Pilot, such accommodation may include monitoring operations in an area or sector, coordinating and executing exception management functions, and the pausing or halting of operations in response to changing conditions. When AFR Level 3 operations are used to support substantially scaled 1-to-many operations, the ARC expects that such operations will be conducted by the holder of an Air Carrier certificate or a Commercial Operating Certificate.

AFR Level 4 – Represents a state of ultimate automation. AFR Level 4 flight (and in some cases, ground) operations are handled completely by the automation, with no provision for human intervention during both nominal and off-nominal operations. AFR Level 4 operations are assumed to be at very high volumes/scale to the extent that no human pilot could maintain the situational awareness necessary to effectively and safely intervene. The ARC has stipulated AFR Level 4 as a future state and has not assigned attributes to this state.

Future Considerations

In the course of its deliberations, the ARC identified certain issues that should be considered for rulemaking initiatives but were beyond the ARC’s purview. The issues listed below are topics that future ARCs should address. Much of the information was developed by Phase 2 Working Group 2.5 as part of their analysis of Automated Flight Rules to facilitate BVLOS operations.

1. Droneports

Operations near airports in Class G airspace will be necessary and vital as UA operations expand, including within the Mode C veil and under the controlled airspace. The ARC encourages the FAA to examine public airports and published heliport integration for UAS.

2. Air Traffic Control Services for Uncrewed Aircraft

Although out of scope, the ARC considers that as AFR operations expand in the future, the ATC system will need to evolve to accommodate the expected mix of crewed and uncrewed aircraft in the NAS.

3. First Person View

FPV technology has advanced dramatically over the last five years, and FPV is expanding beyond recreational use. The FAA should consider FPV regulations that are suitable for the missions and consistent with this ARC’s recommendations. For example, aircraft type certification should not be required where the pilot is manually controlling the FPV UAS. However, type-certified aircraft, pilot certification, and some type of practical testing could be considered as the mission complexity and risks increase. A robust regulatory regime will help to accelerate innovation, improve safety, and optimize productivity.

4. Operations – Non-Compliance

Volume 14 of FAA Order 8900.1 covers the Flight Standards Compliance and Enforcement policies and procedures. The ARC did not identify any reasons to change the language, policies, and procedures currently being used for traditional aviation. If a UA or GA operator does something that poses a safety risk, they should be held responsible for any consequences of that action. However, the ARC encourages the FAA and the states to consider requirements for aviation liability insurance.

5. Urban Air Mobility (UAM)

UAM is beyond the scope of the ARC, but the ARC recognizes the significant attention that UAM is receiving from FAA and Congress, and recognizes that UAS and UAM could present some complementary regulatory policy issues.

New Third Party Service Provider (3PSP) Types

Remote ID USS – Remote ID USS means a USS qualified by the Administrator to provide remote identification services.

Strategic Deconfliction USS – Strategic Deconfliction USS means a USS qualified by the Administrator to provide Strategic Deconfliction services.

Constraint USS – Constraint USS means a USS qualified by the Administrator to provide Constraint services.

Conformance Monitoring USS – Conformance Monitoring USS means a USS qualified by the Administrator to provide Conformance Monitoring services

Operational Planning and Authorization USS – Operational Planning and Authorization USS mean a USS qualified by the Administrator to provide Operational Planning and Authorization services.

C2 Communication Service Provider (CSCSP) – C2 Link. The data link between the uncrewed aircraft and the control station for the purposes of managing the flight. C2 Link communication service provider (C2CSP). An entity that provides a portion of, or all, the C2 Link service for the operation of a UAS.

Detect and Avoid Service Provider (DAASP) – Detect and Avoid (DAA) – A service providing the situational awareness, alerting, and avoidance necessary to maintain safe BVLOS operation of the ownship in the presence of intruders. DAA Service Provider (DAASP). An entity that provides a portion of, or all, the DAA service for the operation of a UAS. A UAS operator may also be its own DAASP

Workforce Development

According to McKinsey & Company, the world of work is changing. Artificial intelligence and automation will make this shift as significant as the mechanization in prior generations of agriculture and manufacturing. While some jobs will be lost, and many others created, almost all will change. The COVID-19 crisis accelerated existing trends and caused organizations to reevaluate many aspects of work. This regularly updated collection of articles draws together our latest perspectives on the future of work, workforce, and workplace.

Recreational Drone Rules

The rule for operating UAS under 55 pounds in the NAS is 14 CFR 107. However, if you want to fly your UAS for purely recreational purposes, there is a limited statutory exception (“carve out”) that provides a basic set of requirements.

A recreational flight is one that is not operated for a business or any form of compensation. However, financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not what determines if the flight is recreational or commercial. Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school’s website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your UAS to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.

The Exception for Limited Operation of Unmanned Aircraft (49 USC 44809) or “carve out” is the law that describes how, when, and where you can fly UAS for recreational purposes. Following these rules will keep people, your drone, and the NAS safe:

1. Fly only for recreational purposes (personal enjoyment).
2. Follow the safety guidelines of an FAA-recognized Community Based Organization (CBO). Read AC 91-57C.
3. Keep your drone within your visual line of sight or use a VO who is co-located (physically next to) and in direct communication with you.
4. Give way to and do not interfere with manned aircraft.
5. Fly at or below 400 feet in controlled airspace (Class B, C, D, and surface E designated for an airport) only with prior authorization by using LAANC or FAADroneZone.
6. Fly at or below 400 feet in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace.
7. Take The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) and carry proof of test passage.
8. Have a current registration, mark your drones on the outside with the registration number, and carry proof of registration with you. Beginning September 16, 2023, if your drone requires an FAA registration number it will be also required to broadcast Remote ID information.
9. Do not operate your drone in a dangerous manner.
10. Do not interfere with emergency response or law enforcement activities.
11. Do not fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Individuals violating any of these rules, and/or operating in a dangerous manner, may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

Starting on February 20, 2023, Recreational Flyers may request an airspace authorization to operate in controlled airspace at night through LAANC.

As a recreational flyer you can fly in controlled airspace if you have an airspace authorization from the FAA prior to flight through LAANC  or the FAA’s Drone Zone. In LAANC enabled areas authorizations are provided to drone pilots through companies approved by the FAA. These companies are known as FAA-Approved UAS Service Suppliers (FAA LAANC USSs). The companies have built desktop and mobile applications through which drone pilots submit their authorization request and receive other safety critical information related to their flight. The companies provide near-real time airspace authorizations at pre-approved altitudes on the UAS Facility Maps. Choose the company that works best for you – they all provide information about the maximum altitude you can fly in a specific location and whether or not your flight is in controlled or uncontrolled airspace.

Follow these steps to get approval to fly through LAANC:

– Register your drone

– Take The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST).

– Apply on the date you wish to fly (requests may be submitted up to 90 days in advance of your planned flight).

– Select the exact time, altitude and location where you wish to fly. Make sure you select to fly at or below the altitude defined by the UAS Facility Maps (this will show up automatically in your LAANC provide app).

FAA Drone Zone provides authorizations for airports that are not LAANC-enabled, however it does not provide authorizations in near-real time. All requests are processed manually at the FAA Air Traffic Service Centers. Only apply for authorization at or below approved altitudes on the UAS Facility Maps.

Airspace Authorization through FAA Drone Zone:

– Log into the FAA Drone Zone under The Exception for Recreational Flyers.

– Select “Airspace Authorization”.

– Fill in the required fields – Review and submit your information to the FAA.

– Upon submission you will receive a reference number for your application.

– You may check you application status anytime by logging back into the FAA DroneZone.

– If you have questions while filling out the request, contact the UAS Support Center.

On August 7, 2023, the FAA released Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Continued Approval of Information Collection: Limited Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Operation Applications

Comments closed 10-6-2023

AC 91-57

1.5 Related References (current editions).

1. 49 USC VII, Aviation Programs, § 40101 et seq.

2. 49 USC § 44809, Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft.

3. PL 115-254, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

4. PL 116-283, William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.

5. 14 CFR Part 45, Identification and Registration Marking.

Government and Public Safety Drone Rules

Public Safety Agencies, like Law Enforcement, are in the best position to deter, detect, and investigate unauthorized or unsafe UAS operations. While drones can serve as a useful tool, these agencies also have an important role in protecting the public from unsafe and unauthorized drone operations. The FAA has published information to help law enforcement and public safety professionals understand safe drone operations and their authority and thereby assist the FAA with enforcement of CFRs. The FAA publishes a toolkit designed to assist law enforcement and public safety entities in operating and handling situations involving drones or UAS. Special agents from the FAA’s Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) are the point of contact for federal, state, local, tribal, territorial and international law enforcement agencies. LEAP special agents can provide information on drone enforcement and registration matters. Providing a LEAP special agent with reports of suspected unauthorized UAS incidents in a timely manner increases the FAA’s ability to take enforcement action when appropriate.

Some additional resources:

DRONE RESPONSE PLAYBOOK FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

Supplement to the Drone Response Playbook for Public Safety

Navigating the Skies: The Roadmap to Implementing an Effective Unmanned Aircraft System Program

Government agencies (including Federal, State, and Tribal), law enforcement, and public safety entities have two options for operating drones under 55 pounds:

(1) Fly under 14 CFR 107 – for operations of UAS under 55 pounds at or below 400 feet AGL for visual line of sight operations.

(2) Fly under the statutory requirements for public aircraft (49 USC §40102(a) and § 40125). Operate with a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) to be able to self-certify UAS and operators for flights performing governmental functions.

To support first responders and other entities affiliated with them, the FAA can quickly issue authorizations for natural disasters and other emergency responses.

The FAA issued AC 00-1.1B – Public Aircraft Operations—Manned and Unmanned to assist in determining whether government-owned or government-contracted manned and unmanned aircraft operations conducted within the territory of the United States are public or civil aircraft operations under the statutory definition of “public aircraft” in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) §§ 40102(a)(41) and 40125 (the statute). Additionally, this AC contains FAA policy pertaining to civil aircraft operators that provide contract support to government entities. The intent of this material is to better define the responsibilities of the parties to these contracts. This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. Nothing in this AC changes the legal requirement for public aircraft operators to comply with the statute.

Educational Drone Rules

The FAA has a program designed for universities, colleges, and technical schools called the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Collegiate Training Initiative (UAS-CTI). In this program the FAA recognizes and collaborates with institutions that prepare students for careers in UAS or drones. The FAA has resources for educators.

The rules for flying drones are based on the purpose of the operation. There are a few options for flying for educational purposes:

(1) There is an exception, Limited Exception for Recreational Flyers, and Community-Based Organizations (49 USC § 44809) that allows flying drones for recreational purposes (under certain conditions) without complying with Part 107. To fly under the statutory exception, you must comply with all portions of Section 44809, including flying your drone for recreational purposes.

(2) 14 CFR 107 is the primary law for flying small drones (less than 55 pounds) in the US. You can fly under 14 CFR 107 rules for many reasons, including work or business, recreation, education, or for public safety missions.

(3) There is also a statutory provision P.L. 115-254, Section 350, as amended by P.L. 116-283, Section 10002 that clarifies that education and research uses of drones for educational purposes can be operated under the rules for recreational flyers. This includes programs for institutes of higher education, programs run by JROTC, and educational programs chartered by a recognized CBO.

UAS Facility Maps

In the US, the FAA has created grid maps to assist remote pilots with navigating the complexity of airspace and associated airspace authorizations.

UAS Facility Maps show the maximum altitudes around airports where the FAA may authorize 14 CFR Part 107 operations without additional safety analysis. The maps should be used to inform requests for 14 CFR Part 107 airspace authorizations and waivers in controlled airspace.

These maps do not authorize operations in these areas at the depicted altitudes. They are for informational purposes only. Operators must still apply to operate in controlled airspace, Class B, C, D, or surface area E, by completing an airspace authorization request in LAANC or the FAADroneZone or a waiver application in FAADroneZone.

Airport Data & Information Portal (ADIP)

The Airport Data and Information Portal (ADIP) helps the FAA collect airport and aeronautical data to meet the demands of the Next Generation National Airspace System. Guided by Advisory Circulars (ACs), the Airport Sponsor or proponents are key links in the information chain. Use the Airport Data and Information Portal to access airport data and submit changes matching defined business rules. FAA lines of business are notified once data has been submitted and approved.

Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC)

LAANC, or Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability, is a partnership between FAA and industry. It directly supports UAS integration into the airspace.

LAANC provides:

(1) drone pilots with access to controlled airspace at or below 400 feet;

(2) awareness of where pilots can and cannot fly; and

(3) air traffic professionals with visibility into where and when drones will operate.

Through the UAS Data Exchange, which is a collaborative approach between government and private industry facilitating the sharing of airspace data between the two parties, companies called UAS Service Suppliers (USS) provide desktop applications and mobile apps for the drone pilot. LAANC automates the application and approval process for airspace authorizations.

The FAA also has an industry page for UAS Service Suppliers.

FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs)

Beginning September 16, 2023, if your drone doesn’t have Remote ID, you may be able to operate within a FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA).  A FRIA is a defined geographic area where drones can be flown without Remote ID equipment. Both the drone and the pilot must be located within the FRIA’s boundaries throughout the operation. In addition, the pilot of the drone must be able to see it at all times throughout the duration of the flight.

Note: If a drone is equipped with Standard Remote ID, it may not be disabled or shut off while flying in a FRIA.

The FAA publishes the locations of approved FRIAs on the FAA’s UAS Data Delivery Service (UDDS) website

Only FAA-recognized Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and educational institutions such as primary and secondary schools, trade schools, colleges, and universities are eligible to request the establishment of a FRIA.

Note: FRIA approvals are valid for 48 calendar months and can be renewed.

FRIA applications are accepted through the FAA’s DroneZone website
1.    Create an account, or log into your existing account.
2.    Click “Add a Service” from the FAA DroneZone Services screen.
3.    Click “Select FRIA Service” followed by the “Add Service” button.
4.    Launch the FRIA dashboard and then confirm your profile.
5.    Click “Create a FRIA Application” from the FRIA dashboard.
6.    Complete and submit the FRIA application.
Note: The FAA cannot provide an estimated timeline on application review. The Remote ID operational compliance date is September 16, 2023.

For further guidance on the FRIA application, read Advisory Circular 89-3.

For additional information on FRIA, read 14 CFR Part 89.

Community Based Organizations (CBOs) that meet the statutory definition in Section 44809(h) of the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, may apply for FAA recognition:

• Described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
• Exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
• Mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;
• Provide a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation;
• Provide programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
• Provide assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites

Recreational drone flyers must use FAA-recognized CBO safety guidelines to meet the statutory requirement of Section 44809(a)(2). However, recreational flyers are not required to become members of a CBO.

FAA-recognized CBOs are eligible to apply for fixed sites, CBO sponsored events and FAA Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs).

For more information on how to become an FAA-recognized CBO, read Advisory Circular 91-57C. Organizations seeking FAA recognition must apply through the FAA’s DroneZone.

FAA-recognized CBOs

• Academy of Model Aeronautics
• First Person View Freedom Coalition
• Flite Test Community Association
• STEM+C Inc. 

DronePros and FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam)

DronePros are the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) volunteers who work closely with the FAA to promote safety in their local areas. These volunteers are interviewed and trained by the FAA and are provided with equipment and materials to help them plan events and give presentations. A DronePro may be able to come talk to your students or setup a flight demonstration. The FAASTeam has an online directory.

B4UFLY App

Recreational drone pilots who only fly their drone for fun may utilize the B4UFLY app to help show where they can and cannot fly with interactive maps. It is a free download for both iOS and Android.

Airspace Restrictions – NO DRONE ZONES

There are many types of airspace restrictions in the US.

• Stadiums and sporting events
• Near airports
• Security sensitive airspace restrictions (military bases, national landmarks, and critical infrastructure)
• Restricted or special use airspace
• Washington, D.C.
• Wildfires
• Hurricanes

Drone pilots are encouraged to check for temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) by checking NOTAMs.

Drones are prohibited from flying over designated national security sensitive facilities. Operations are prohibited from the ground up to 400 feet above ground level, and apply to all types and purposes of UAS flight operations. Examples of these locations are:

• Military bases designated as Department of Defense facilities
• National landmarks – Statue of Liberty, Hoover Dam, Mt. Rushmore
• Certain critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants

The FAA’s UAS Data Delivery System shows a map of security sensitive airspace.

“No Drone Zones” help people identify areas where they cannot operate a UAS. It is crucial to understand the meaning behind the sign as some identify areas where there is a TFR, whereas others only restrict taking off or landing but not overflight.

These photos, taken by the author on November 6, 2022, are typical of the No Drone Zone signage.

UAS Roadmap and ConOps

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) mandated the creation and publication of a 5-year Roadmap for the FAA‘s process of developing regulations, policy, procedures, guidance material, and training requirements to support safe and efficient UAS operations in the NAS, while coordinating with relevant departments and agencies to address related key policy areas of concern such as privacy and national security. Since 2013, the FAA has published this Roadmap for the integration of UAS into the NAS. In the latest version, published in 2020, the FAA has the following to say:

This Roadmap lays out the current and projected status of many of the most complex issues the FAA and the drone community face as we work together to integrate UAS into the NAS. It touches on recent UAS accomplishments, the 2018 Reauthorization Act, the UAS IPP, other partnerships, the regulatory outlook, airspace access and management, and education and outreach efforts. As we look to the future, we must consider the challenges of remote ID implementation, c-UAS issues, UTM and AAM. The roadmap also focuses on the challenges of the pace of UAS innovation and the human element—societal acceptance. Certainly, there is a long road ahead of us. But the Roadmap tells another story, too. Here we see a path forward, through regulation and innovation, all in the service of seamless drone operation. It is the story of an Agency and Department determined to work with stakeholders to overcome obstacles, in the pursuit of the promise of an airspace system that includes manned and unmanned aircraft operating safely in the sky.

Incidentally, the DOD also has a Roadmap for 2017-2042.

In 2018, FAA NextGen Office released an initial overarching ConOps (V1.0) for UTM that presented a vision and described the associated operational and technical requirements for developing a supporting architecture and operating within a UTM ecosystem. UTM is defined as the way the FAA will support operations for UAS operating in low altitude airspace. UTM utilizes industry’s ability to supply services under the FAA’s regulatory authority where these services do not currently exist. It is a community-based traffic management system, where the Operators and entities providing operation support services are responsible for the coordination, execution, and management of operations, with rules of the road established by FAA. This federated set of services enables cooperative management of operations between UAS Operators, facilitated by third-party support providers through networked information exchanges. UTM is designed to support the demand and expectations for a broad spectrum of operations with ever-increasing complexity and risk through an innovative, competitive open market of service suppliers. The services provided are interoperable to allow the UTM ecosystem to scale to meet the needs of the UAS Operator community.

The FAA updated this ConOps to document the continued maturation of UTM and share the vision with government and industry stakeholders. UTM ConOps V2.0 continues to focus on UTM operations below 400 feet AGL, but also addresses increasingly more complex operations within and across both uncontrolled (Class G) and controlled (Classes B, C, D, E) airspace environments. V2.0 updates and expands the set of operational scenarios, describing more complex operations in denser airspace, including BVLOS operations in controlled airspace. V2.0 includes updated descriptions of/approaches to several UTM components, including UAS Volume Reservations (previously referred to as Dynamic Restrictions), Performance Authorizations, data archiving and access, USS service categories, UTM/ATM contingency notification, and security aspects associated with UTM operations. V2.0 also introduces new topics including Airspace Authorization for BVLOS flight within controlled airspace, UTM architecture support to remote identification of UAS Operators, and standards development efforts with industry as an integral part of enabling UTM operations.

FAA UTM ConOps documents do not prescribe solutions or specific implementation methods, unless for example purposes. Rather, they describe the essential conceptual and operational elements associated with UTM operations that will serve to inform development of solutions across the many actors and stakeholders involved in implementing UTM. They also support a spiral implementation approach – maturing the concept through analysis of more complex airspace environments, tested and validated by field demonstrations, including NASA Technology Capability Level (TCL), FAA UPP, and UAS IPP demonstrations. Future versions will continue to be developed as needed to reflect the progress of research and continued concept maturation resulting from collaboration with the FAA, NASA, and industry partners.

Know Before You Fly

Know Before You Fly is an educational campaign that provides prospective users with the information and guidance they need to fly safely and responsibly. The campaign is organized by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), and the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Please take a look at their vast array of resources.

Federal v. State Powers v. Local Powers

State sovereignty has been a major issue in American political history. The founders of the republic designed a federal system that established supremacy for the US government within the realm of its delegated authority while also protecting the sovereign interests of the states.

Certain powers are given to the federal government through the Constitution, and all other matters are reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. This means that each state government is also a sovereign entity. We therefore have two levels of sovereignty: the federal government and the state governments.

The US Constitution Article VI declares that federal law is the “Supreme Law of the Land.” As a result, when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other laws. This is commonly known as “preemption” to put it simply.

Congress has vested the FAA with authority to regulate the areas of airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise at its source. 49 USC §§ 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735. Congress has directed the FAA to “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” 49 USC § 40103(b)(1). Congress has further directed the FAA to “prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes)” for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; protecting individuals and property on the ground; using the navigable airspace efficiently; and preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. 49 USC § 40103(b)(2).

A consistent regulatory system for aircraft and use of airspace has the broader effect of ensuring the highest level of safety for all aviation operations. To ensure the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system and of navigable airspace free from inconsistent restrictions, FAA has regulatory authority over matters pertaining to aviation safety.

In 2015, to address the potential clash between federal and state and local laws, the FAA published a State and Local Regulation of UAS Fact Sheet.

In this fact sheet the FAA was clear:

UAS are aircraft subject to regulation by the FAA to ensure safety of flight, and safety of people and property on the ground. States and local jurisdictions are increasingly exploring regulation of UAS or proceeding to enact legislation relating to UAS operations. In 2015, approximately 45 states have considered restrictions on UAS. In addition, public comments on the FAA’s proposed rule, “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems” (Docket No. FAA-2015-0150), expressed concern about the possible impact of state and local laws on UAS operations. Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year. During this past summer, the presence of multiple UAS in the vicinity of wildfires in the western U.S. prompted firefighters to ground their aircraft on several occasions. This fact sheet is intended to provide basic information about the federal regulatory framework for use by states and localities when considering laws affecting UAS. State and local restrictions affecting UAS operations should be consistent with the extensive federal statutory and regulatory framework pertaining to control of the airspace, flight management and efficiency, air traffic control, aviation safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source.

In 2018 the FAA again reiterated the need for states to avoid stepping on federal toes.

Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among other things. State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace.

However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites, which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation. 
Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft.
However, as indicated, they may generally determine the location of aircraft landing sites through their land use powers.

In 2023, the FAA released an Updated Fact Sheet (2023) on State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) issued by the FAA, Office of the Chief Counsel, and the United States Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, discussing legal considerations applicable to state and local regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) (also commonly referred to as “drones”). Like its 2015 predecessor, the Fact Sheet is a guide for state and local governments as they respond to the increased use of UAS in the national airspace.

Rulemaking Procedure

Agencies, like the FAA, get their authority to issue regulations, CFRs, from laws, statutes, enacted by Congress. Congress may also pass a law that more specifically directs an agency to solve a particular problem or accomplish a certain goal. An agency must not take action that goes beyond its statutory authority or violates the Constitution. Agencies must follow an open public process when they issue regulations, according to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This includes publishing a statement of rulemaking authority in the Federal Register (government website) for all proposed and final rules. The guiding document to the rulemaking process discusses the Petition for Rulemaking, NPRM, Federal Register, Comment Period, interim rule, direct final rule, and effective date, among others.

In a nutshell, Congress mandates the FAA to create CFRs, or the FAA receives a “Petition for Rulemaking” from a member of the public. The NPRM, drafted by the FAA is then placed on the Federal Register to notify the public and to give them an opportunity to submit comments. The proposed rule and the public comments received on it form the basis of the final rule.

In general, the FAA will specify a comment period ranging from 30 to 60 days. For complex rulemakings, the FAA may provide for longer time periods, like 180 days or more. But they may also use shorter comment periods when that can be justified.

At the end of the comment period, several committees review the comments, and then a final rule is issued.

Final rules have preambles. They are placed on the Federal Register together with a summary and an effective date. Generally, the rule is effective no less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. If the agency wants to make the rule effective sooner, it must cite “good cause” (persuasive reasons) as to why this is in the public interest.

Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP) for UAS

Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP) for UAS includes protections offered through NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). This will ensure that the safety data that is collected will result in actionable information for the entire aviation community. This ASRP enables a non-punitive avenue for anonymous reporting. If you file a report with NASA’s ASRS, also known as a NASA report, even if a finding of a violation is made, a civil penalty or certificate suspension will not be imposed if:

(1) the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;

(2) the violation did not involve a crime, accident of action under 49 USC § 44709;

(3) the person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 USC Subtitle VII, or any regulation there for a period of 5 years; and

(4) the report was filed within 10 days after the violation.

UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP)/BEYOND

A Presidential Memorandum established the UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP) on October 25, 2017. The US DOT instituted it as a three-year program to enable state, local, and tribal governments, in collaboration with industry to advance more complex UAS operations in the NAS. Under the IPP, the FAA executed Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with 10 state, local, and tribal governments to conduct advanced UAS operations to advance safe and secure integration. One of those participants, the Lee County Mosquito Control District in Florida, withdrew from the program in early 2019. The 9 remaining lead participants accomplished many achievements under the IPP, and the FAA shared the relevant data and lessons learned with the appropriate policymakers and regulatory teams within the FAA and DOT to inform regulations, policy, and guidance. The FAA concluded the IPP on October 25, 2020, as mandated by statute, and decided to continue the partnerships and progress it made under the IPP to continue to address remaining challenges.

The FAA is tackling the remaining challenges of UAS integration through a new program called BEYOND. These challenge areas are:

(1) BVLOS operations that are repeatable, scalable, and economically viable with specific emphasis on infrastructure inspection, public operations, and small package delivery.

(2) Leveraging industry operations to better analyze and quantify the societal and economic benefits of UAS operations.

(3) Focusing on community engagement efforts to collect, analyze and address community concerns.

The BEYOND program started on October 26, 2020, to continue the partnerships with eight of the nine IPP participants. The program will focus on operating under established rules rather than waivers, collecting data to develop performance-based standards, collecting and addressing community feedback and understanding the societal and community benefits, and to streamline the approval processes for UAS integration.

Integration Partnership Agreement (IPA)

The Integration Partnership Agreement (IPA) program was created as a natural evolution of the Partnership for Safety Plan (PSP). The IPA program will continue addressing and advancing complex drone operations by establishing working relationships with industry partners to aid the full integration of drones into the NAS.

With the implementation of the IPA, the FAA will slowly phase out the PSP and once complete, allocate all resources to the new IPA program.

The IPA provides an arrangement to share mutually beneficial information, while building trust, leadership, and teamwork through a public-private relationship. By outlining the principles and procedures for early identification of critical issues and planning, the FAA can assist IPA participants in coordinating the safety cases necessary for operational approvals, and future projects can be completed more efficiently.

One of the primary objectives of the IPA program is to provide a framework for collaboration that focuses on complex operations. In turn, this arrangement will help further develop and normalize our review and approval processes in a way that will benefit the industry at large.

UAS Test Sites

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA 2012) directed the FAA Administrator to initiate a 5-year program to establish 6 UAS test sites to support the FAA in integrating UAS into the NAS. After conducting a competitive selection process, the FAA designated 6 UAS Test Sites, which became operational in 2014 and began to conduct test flights. In 2016, the FAA added a seventh test site as mandated by the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 (FESSA 2016). The following list names the seven FAA UAS Test Sites:

(1) Griffiss International Airport, NY

(2) New Mexico State University, NM

(3) North Dakota Department of Commerce, ND

(4) State of Nevada, NV

(5) Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, TX

(6) University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK

(7) Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, VA

The main objective of the UAS Test Site Program is to provide verification of the safety of public and civil UAS, operations, and related navigation procedures before their integration into the NAS. Other program requirements include supporting the FAA during the development of certification standards, air traffic requirements, coordinating research and other work with NASA, FAA NextGen, the DoD, and other Federal agencies.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970 and requires the FAA to ensure that environmental considerations are factored into its decision-making process. NEPA reviews must be completed for actions that could cause reasonably foreseeable effects on the human environment, whether the actions are taken by the agency itself, or the actions are taken by airspace users seeking FAA authorization.

The NEPA process ensures that:

• FAA decision makers understand the potential environmental impacts of proposed authorizations;
• FAA fully discloses the potential impacts to the human environment from the proposed activities; and
• FAA evaluates the reasonable alternatives to the proposed activities.

The FAA is conducting NEPA reviews for advanced drone operations that are being proposed to the FAA for authorization.

Completed records of decision may be found below:

June 29, 2023 – Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs) under the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Final Rule (14 CFR Part 89) – The FAA will receive and consider applications from eligible entities to establish FRIAs, which are defined geographic areas where unmanned aircraft can be flown without remote identification. The FAA has discretion to approve or deny an application to establish a FRIA as set forth in subpart C of the Remote ID Rule. The FAA will conduct reviews of individual requests to establish FRIAs to ensure that they reflect the environmental impacts and assumptions set forth in this document. As such, some individual FRIA locations may require additional environmental analysis and documentation. However, any subsequent environmental review may be tiered from the PEA, requiring the environmental review to focus only on the specific issue at the FRIA location that falls outside the review of this PEA.

March 30, 2023 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for UPS Flight Forward Drone Package Delivery Operations in Columbus, Ohio – UPS Flight Forward, Inc. (UPSFF) will conduct drone package delivery operations using the 29-pound Matternet M2 drone within an operating area that covers roughly 3.77 square miles in Columbus, Ohio. UPSFF will deliver small packages to pre-approved distribution centers (DCs) within the operating area. The operations would occur during daylight hours up to seven days per week, with no flights on holidays.

January 3, 2023 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Issuing a Certificate of Waiver to Florida Power & Light Company for Drone Operations in Florida – Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), owned by NextEra Energy, Inc. (NextEra), will conduct drone operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) of the remote pilot in command (RPIC), without a visual observer, and over people and moving vehicles. The waiver would apply to drone operations at NextEra-owned or serviced property in Florida. FPL uses drones to inspect and assess NextEra-owned or serviced infrastructure across Florida for damage, preventative maintenance, and post-storm assessment.

December 23, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for UPS Flight Forward Drone Package Delivery Operations in Winston-Salem, North Carolina – UPS Flight Forward, Inc. (UPSFF) will conduct drone package delivery operations using the 29-pound Matternet M2 drone within an operating area that covers roughly 40.4 square miles in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. UPSFF will deliver small packages to pre-approved distribution centers (DCs) within the operating area. The operations would occur during daylight hours up to seven days per week, with no flights on holidays.

December 23, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Zipline International Inc. Drone Package Delivery Operations, Salt Lake City, Utah and Surrounding Area – Zipline International Inc. (Zipline) will conduct drone package deliveries using its 46-pound drone from one hub, or “nest,” in South Jordan/Salt Lake City, Utah, within an approved operating area that covers approximately 1,675 square miles of the Salt Lake City region. The proposed delivery operations from the South Jordan/Salt Lake City nest would occur during daylight hours up to seven days per week. Zipline is planning to conduct deliveries to pre-approved customer locations in 17 communities across the operating area, with a maximum of approximately 20 delivery flight operations per day from the South Jordan/Salt Lake City nest under the scope of the proposed action.

December 9, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Amazon Prime Air Drone Package Delivery Operations in College Station, Texas – Amazon Prime Air (Prime Air) will conduct drone package delivery operations from its Prime Air Drone Delivery Center (PADDC) in College Station, Texas, using its electric-powered drone that has an empty weight of 87 pounds and can carry packages weighing up to five pounds to eligible delivery locations within 3.73 miles. Operations from the College Station PADDC would occur during daylight hours up to five days per week. The operating area is divided into four sectors, with each sector having a maximum of approximately 50 delivery flights per operating day. Only one aircraft in each sector can be airborne at any time.

November 23, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Causey Aviation Unmanned, Inc. Drone Package Delivery Operations in Fayetteville, Holly Springs, Raeford, and Pinehurst, North Carolina – Causey will conduct drone package delivery operations at four locations in North Carolina – Fayetteville, Holly Springs, Raeford, and Pinehurst – using the 33-pound Flytrex Drone Delivery System. In each of the four locations, Causey will operate from its existing Distribution Centers (DCs) that serve as a central hub of operations. Causey is partnering with Flytrex to transport medical supplies, small consumer goods, and food items to pre-approved delivery locations within two nautical miles of its DCs.

November 18, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for UPS Flight Forward Drone Package Delivery Operations in The Villages, Florida – UPS Flight Forward (UPSFF) will conduct drone package delivery operations using the 29-pound Matternet M2 drone within an operating area that covers roughly 37 square miles in The Villages, Florida. UPSFF will deliver small packages to pre-approved distribution centers (DCs) within the operating area. The operations would occur during daylight hours up to seven days per week, with no flights on holidays.

November 10, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Amazon Prime Air Drone Package Delivery Operations in Lockeford, California – Amazon Prime Air (Prime Air) will conduct drone package delivery operations from its Prime Air Drone Delivery Center (PADDC) in Lockeford, California, using its electric-powered drone that has an empty weight of 87 pounds and can carry packages weighing up to five pounds to eligible delivery locations within four miles. Operations from the Lockeford PADDC would occur during daylight hours up to five days per week. The operating area is divided into four sectors, with each sector having a maximum of approximately 50 delivery flights per operating day. Only one aircraft in each sector can be airborne at any time.

November 9, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Amazon Prime Air Drone Package Delivery Test Operations in Pendleton, Oregon – Amazon Prime Air (Prime Air) will continue drone package delivery test operations and Durability & Reliability (D&R) flights at the Pendleton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Test Range in Pendleton. Prime Air projects operating a maximum of approximately 48 test flights per operating day over roughly 250 operating days per year. The proposed test flight operations would occur during daylight hours up to five days per week.

August 11, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for UPS Flight Forward, Inc. Drone Flight Training Operations at “The Farm” in Fisherville, Kentucky – UPS Flight Forward (UPSFF) will conduct training operations under Part 91 that may include checking, proving, testing, operational developments, assessments, and validations using its 29-pound Matternet M2 drone. UPSFF projects operating a maximum of 32 flights per operating day at the Farm, combining both the Part 107 training operations and the Part 91 training operations.

July 14, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Zipline International Inc. Drone Package Delivery Operations, Pea Ridge, Arkansas and Surrounding Area – Zipline will conduct drone package deliveries using a 46-pound drone from one hub, or “nest,” in Pea Ridge, Arkansas, within an approved operating area that covers roughly 1,200 square miles of northwest Arkansas and southwest Missouri. Zipline is planning to conduct deliveries to pre-approved customer locations in 12 communities across the operating area.

February 28, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for Zipline International Inc. Drone Package Delivery Operations, Kannapolis, North Carolina and Surrounding Area – Zipline will conduct drone package deliveries using a 46-pound drone from one hub, or “nest,” in Kannapolis, North Carolina, within an approved operating area on the northern side of the Charlotte Metropolitan Area. Zipline is planning to conduct deliveries to pre-approved customer locations in 16 communities across the operating area.

February 9, 2022 – Final Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision for Wing Aviation Drone Package Delivery Operations, Frisco and Little Elm, Texas – Wing Aviation will conduct commercial package deliveries using a 15-pound drone from two nests in Frisco and Little Elm, Texas, on the northern side of the Dallas Metropolitan Area. Small consumer goods and food items will be delivered to pre-approved delivery locations within the operating area.

December 17, 2021 – Environmental Assessment and Record of Decision for UPS Flight Forward: Drone Package Delivery Operations, Wake Forest Baptist Health Routes, Winston-Salem, North Carolina – UPS Flight Forward will modify some of its existing drone package delivery routes between three Wake Forest Baptist Health facilities in Winston-Salem, NC. UPS Flight Forward will transport packages including medical supplies and samples using a 28-pound drone. The route measurements will be 0.77 nautical miles (NM), 0.71 NM, and 0.31 NM, respectively.

December 17, 2021 – Environmental Assessment for Wing Aviation: Drone Package Delivery Operations, Christiansburg, Virginia – Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision for Environmental Assessment for Wing Aviation Drone Package Delivery Operations Christiansburg, Virginia – Wing Aviation will be conducting package deliveries using its 15-pound drone from one nest in Christiansburg, Virginia. Wing will deliver small consumer goods and food items to residences and other delivery locations. Wing is amending its air carrier Operations Specifications so that it can operate at a higher pilot to aircraft ratio.

November 15, 2021 – Environmental Assessment for UPS Flight Forward: Drone Package Delivery Operations, Lake Sumter Landing Route, The Villages, Florida – UPS Flight Forward will be conducting package deliveries using a 28-pound drone. UPSFlight Forward will transport small consumer goods and food items from a new distribution center at Lake Sumter Landing to an existing distribution center approximately 2.38 miles away near the Elan Buena Vista Senior Living community in The Villages, FL.

H.R.1512 – CLEAN Future Act

H.R.1512 – CLEAN Future Act – 17th Congress (2021-2022)

This bill creates requirements and incentives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The bill establishes an interim goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 as well as a national goal to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Each federal agency must develop a plan to achieve the goals.

Beginning in 2023, retail electricity suppliers must provide an increasing percentage of electricity that is generated without the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (zero-emission electricity). By 2035, the suppliers must provide 100% zero-emission electricity or demonstrate alternative means of compliance. For example, the suppliers may buy credits under a trading program that allows entities to buy, sell, and trade credits to demonstrate compliance.

The bill also establishes a variety of requirements, programs, and incentives to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by

• modernizing the electric grid and supporting clean energy microgrids;
• increasing the use of renewable energy and advanced nuclear power technologies;
• increasing energy efficiency in buildings, homes, and appliances;
• supporting clean transportation, including electric vehicles and related charging infrastructure;
• issuing greenhouse gas standards for certain vehicles, engines, and aircraft;
• promoting manufacturing and industrial decarbonization, including through buy-clean programs;
• supporting environmental justice efforts; and
• reducing methane, plastics, and super pollutants.

National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries

The Biden Administration has laid out a bold agenda to address the climate crisis and build a clean and equitable energy economy that achieves carbon-pollution-free electricity by 2035, and puts the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economy-wide, by no later than 2050 to the benefit of all Americans. Lithium-based batteries power our daily lives from consumer electronics to national defense. They enable electrification of the transportation sector and provide stationary grid storage, critical to developing the clean-energy economy. The US has a strong research community, a robust innovation infrastructure for technological advancement of batteries, and an emerging lithium-based, battery manufacturing industry. Establishing a domestic supply chain for lithium-based batteries requires a national commitment to both solving breakthrough scientific challenges for new materials and developing a manufacturing base that meets the demands of the growing electric vehicle (EV) and stationary grid storage markets. This National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries, developed by the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries will help guide investments to develop a domestic lithium-battery manufacturing value chain that creates equitable clean-energy manufacturing jobs in America while helping to mitigate climate change impacts.

Package Delivery by Drone (Part 135)

From 2017 through 2020, UAS IPP focused on testing and evaluating the integration of civil and public drone operations into our NAS. This work continues under the UAS BEYOND program which focuses on the remaining challenges of UAS integration, including BVLOS operations, societal and economic benefits of UAS operations, and community engagement.

Participants in these programs are among the first to prove their concepts, including package delivery by drone through part 135 air carrier certification. Part 135 certification is the only path for small drones to carry the property of another for compensation beyond visual line of sight.

As participants in these programs move to prove their concepts, they must use FAA’s existing Part 135 certification process, some of which FAA has adapted for drone operations by granting exemptions for rules that don’t apply to drones, such as the requirement to carry the flight manuals on board the aircraft.

All part 135 applicants must go through the full five phases of the certification process.

The FAA issued the first Part 135 Single pilot air carrier certificate for drone operations to Wing Aviation, LLC in April 2019. The FAA later issued Wing a Standard Part 135 air carrier certificate to operate a drone aircraft in October 2019. Wing Aviation is part of the IPP, delivering food and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals directly to homes in Christiansburg, VA.

UPS Flight Forward, Inc., another participant in the IPP, was the first company to receive a Standard Part 135 air carrier certificate to operate a drone aircraft. On September 27, 2019, UPS Flight Forward conducted its first package delivery by drone with its part 135 certification when it flew medical supplies at WakeMed hospital campus in Raleigh, NC.

Amazon, a PSP participant, is the first company to operate a drone larger than 55lbs under a standard Part 135 air carrier certificate. Amazon began commercial operations in August 2020.  They currently deliver Amazon products in Oregon and Northern California, with further expansion planned.

On June 17, 2022, Zipline became the fourth drone operator to receive a part 135 certificate to be authorized to operate as an air carrier and conduct common carriage operations. This is the first part 135 certificate issued to an operator under the BEYOND program and the first fixed wing part 135 UAS operator to be certified.

Agricultural drones under Part 137

At the FAA Drone Symposium in Baltimore, in August 2023, David Boulter, the FAA’s Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (Acting), was quoted as saying the FAA announced changes to Part 137 UAS operations: “FAA has determined that Part 137 UAS agricultural aircraft operations present a lower risk than other certificated operations and revising the part 137 certification process would not adversely affect safety.” Boulter expanded on FAA’s work to streamline the agricultural drone process so that operators can receive certification in days, as opposed to months or years. Part 137 operations are some of the most common exemptions because they are low-risk in rural and sparsely operated areas. Since May 2023 and under the new process, FAA has issued 200 operator certificates and 750 exemptions to allow current exemption holders to take advantage of the new process. The Agency is continuing to clear the backlog so that operators can take advantage of the new process this growing season. Boulter also announced that FAA has approved Pyka Pelican Spray aircraft for agricultural operations. Weighing over 1,000 pounds, it is the largest UAS the Agency has approved for these types of operations.

Pyka Secures FAA Authorization for Commercial Operation of Largest Ever Highly-Automated Electric Drone in the United States

UAS Traffic Management (UTM)

The FAA, NASA, other federal partner agencies, and industry are collaborating to explore concepts of operation, data exchange requirements, and a supporting framework to enable multiple BVLOS drone operations at low altitudes (under 400 feet AGL) in airspace where FAA air traffic services are not provided.

UAS Traffic Management (UTM) is a “traffic management” ecosystem for uncontrolled operations that is separate from, but complementary to, the FAA’s Air Traffic Management (ATM) system. UTM development will ultimately identify services, roles and responsibilities, information architecture, data exchange protocols, software functions, infrastructure, and performance requirements for enabling the management of low-altitude uncontrolled drone operations.

In 2023, the FAA published its UTM plan.

The UTM ConOps reflects collaborative efforts across the FAA, as well as ongoing interagency efforts with NASA.

UTM Pilot Program (UPP)

SUAS operators are continuously exercising new applications for SUAS, including goods delivery, infrastructure inspection, search and rescue, and agricultural monitoring. There has been limited infrastructure available to manage the widespread expansion of SUAS operations within the NAS. In response to this need, the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 established the UTM Pilot Program (UPP) to define an initial set of industry and FAA capabilities required to support UTM operations.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) envisions a safe and efficient aviation transportation system that will use highly automated aircraft that will operate and transport passengers or cargo at lower altitudes within urban and suburban areas. UAM will be composed of an ecosystem that considers the evolution and safety of the aircraft, the framework for operation, access to airspace, infrastructure development, and community engagement.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) builds upon the UAM concept by incorporating use cases not specific to operations in urban environments, such as:

(1) Commercial Inter-city (Longer Range/Thin Haul)

(2) Cargo Delivery

(3) Public Services

(4) Private / Recreational Vehicles

The initial UAM ecosystem will use existing helicopter infrastructure such as routes, helipads, and ATC services, where practicable given the aircraft characteristics. Looking toward the future, the FAA is working to identify infrastructure design needs for these aircraft.

For eVTOLs to be deployed commercially at scale, 3 core aviation regulatory approvals will be required in most jurisdictions:

1. type certification – Type certifications are the regulatory approval of the airworthiness of a particular manufacturing design (type design), and are the first step for commercialization of any eVTOL. Many companies are currently in this phase of their business plans, as they design their eVTOL aircraft and pursue a type certificate.

The first step in obtaining a type certificate for an eVTOL involves airworthiness approval of the aircraft and its components according to its type design.

Order 8110.4C – Type Certification – With Change 6

To address eVTOL type certification, the FAA applies one of two existing certification processes in 14 CFR Part 21.17(a) and (b).

Part 21.17 (a) involves the designation of applicable airworthiness standards when the aircraft closely matches the characteristics of a particular airplane or rotorcraft class, along with special conditions to address any differences.

Part 21.17(b) is used for special classes of aircraft, and the FAA will apply airworthiness requirements derived from other regulations as appropriate, in addition to other airworthiness criteria that the FAA may find to provide an equivalent level of safety to existing airworthiness requirements.

The FAA is currently working on draft policy and guidance for eVTOL type certification and has indicated that it is deciding whether the process under Part 21.17(a), using the airworthiness standards for Normal Category Airplanes under 14 CFR Part 23, or the process under Part 21.17(b) will apply to eVTOLs.

Small Airplanes Issues List (SAIL)

FAA Design Approvals

Going forward, Part 21.17(a) may offer eVTOL companies more certainty with the FAA using existing airworthiness standards if the eVTOL design closely matches the characteristics a particular airplane or rotorcraft class (e.g., Normal Category Airplanes).

The FAA has also updated the airworthiness standards in Part 23 to provide for a performance-based approach, which will offer some flexibility in the special conditions applied to eVTOLs under the Part 21.17(a) process. 83 FR 21850

Part 21.17(a) may also expedite certification transferability across jurisdictions as compared to the special class process under Part 21.17(b).

Given the unique designs of eVTOL concepts, however, type certification under Part 21.17(b) may offer eVTOL companies a greater degree of flexibility. Many current eVTOL concepts differ in significant ways from available certification requirements, and future concepts are expected to require further changes to the type certification process (e.g., automation). Some examples include unique aircraft configurations, electric distributed propulsion, energy storage and distribution systems, high voltage architecture, fly-by-wire flight control systems, advanced or automated systems, crashworthiness requirements, and noise standards. In connection with the process under Part 21.17(b), these additional certification considerations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis or through Issue Papers to provide the FAA with detailed system descriptions and an understanding of what specific systems do and what other systems they are connected with, allowing the FAA to develop the requisite standards.

FAA Order 8110.112A

2. production certification – Production certification will allow mass production of a particular eVTOL and is granted when a manufacturer can demonstrate that it can produce aircraft that will meet the standards of a type certificate.

Once a type certificate is issued, eVTOL manufacturers will need to obtain a production certificate, which requires that a manufacturer demonstrate its ability to produce the aircraft to the same standards.

3. operational authorities – To operate eVTOLs commercially by transporting passengers or cargo, additional operational requirements and authorizations for commercial operations are required.

These government approvals align with requirements for traditional commercial aircraft used in passenger and cargo operations. However, civil aviation authorities worldwide are in the process of adapting regulatory frameworks to account for fundamental differences in eVTOL technology and operations as compared to traditional aircraft.

Companies wishing to operate eVTOLs commercially must also obtain an Air Carrier Certificate from the FAA under 14 C.F.R. Part 135, which carries additional safety, maintenance, performance, and operational requirements. eVTOL operators must also obtain economic authority from the DOT to operate commercially and will be subject to associated US ownership and control requirements. Given varying requirements based on aircraft type, the FAA’s decisions around eVTOL type certification will be critical in determining the applicability of specific rules to future regulatory issues such as operations, pilots, and infrastructure, or whether new rules will be required.

14 CFR Part 135 Air Carrier and Operator Certification

Charter type services

Future eVTOL applications will include autonomous operations, without pilots, which present many of the same regulatory challenges that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or “drones”) have been grappling with in recent years.

In September 2022, the FAA released its design guidelines for vertiports, infrastructure that will support AAM aircraft. The design standards will serve as the initial step to provide key information for airport owners, operators, and infrastructure developers to begin development of facilities that will support operations of AAM aircraft that are electrically powered and take-off and land vertically. These VTOL operations will transport passengers or cargo at lower altitudes in rural, urban, and suburban areas. The design standards include critical information that designers and builders will need to follow to allow for safe takeoffs and landings. Some of those include:

(1) Safety-critical geometry and design elements: Dimensions for vertiport touchdown and liftoff areas, additional airspace needed for approach and departure paths and load-bearing capacity. In the future FAA anticipates a high rate of operations at many vertiports.

(2) Lighting, markings, and visual aids: Guidelines on markings, lighting and visual aids that identify the facility as a vertiport. The FAA recommends the Vertiport Identification Symbol, as shown in the middle of the graphic below.

(3) Charging and electric infrastructure: Initial safety standards and guidelines for batteries and charging equipment that will be central to vertiports.

(4) On-airport vertiports: Requirements for airports looking to add vertiports to an existing commercial airport, including the distance a vertiport would have to be from a current runway.

(5) Elevated vertiports: Requirements and guidelines for vertiports that may be on top of existing structures.

This vertiport guidance will be used until performance-based vertiport design guidance is developed. The final design standards are based on research conducted by the FAA, collaboration with industry partners and feedback from the public. The FAA held a virtual Industry Day on March 29, 2022, to discuss the draft standards it released in early 2022.

The FAA is including AAM and UAM in their planning efforts, and their work is organized around five areas of activity – aircraft, airspace, operations, infrastructure, and community.

FAA guidance – Advanced Air Mobility Infrastructure

In March 2023, the FAA published Engineering Brief No. 105, Vertiport Design.

Prior to this, the only other published vertiport standard was ASTM International’s F-3423, Standard Specification for Vertiport Design, which came out in August 2022.

The FAA is collaborating with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on their Advanced Air Mobility National Campaign.

In March 2023, the White House released A Vision for America’s Continued Global Leadership in Aeronautics which identifies three key priority areas that will be essential to US leadership in the industry of tomorrow:

• Achieving sustainable aviation: The Administration is committed to reducing and eventually eliminating the climate impact of aeronautics and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This includes implementing the US Aviation Climate Action Plan and the Climate Adaptation Plans across the federal government.

• Transforming the national airspace system: The Administration is committed to transforming aviation in both urban and rural communities, creating new industries and jobs. This includes transitioning from legacy technologies, and integrating modern and emerging technologies, including drones and Advanced Air Mobility aircraft, into the national airspace system.

• Promoting connectivity and speed: The Administration is committed to exploring new technologies that will enhance global connectivity at greater speed. This includes continued support for research and development of superior aircraft and technologies, from subsonic through hypersonic technologies, that emphasize speed.

On May 17, 2023, the FAA put out a Request for Information on Advanced Air Mobility

Comments closed 7-17-2023

On November 15, 2023, the FAA out out Policy on the Definition of Aeronautical Activities

Comments close 1/15/2024

In June 2020, FAA developed and shared the UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps) version 1.0 with both internal and external stakeholders. In April, 2023, FAA released UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps) version 2.0.

In July, 2023, FAA released Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Implementation Plan known as Innovate28.

In June 2023, the FAA Proposed Pilot Training Requirements and Operational Rules for Powered-Lift Aircraft.

Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes

The FAA took another key step toward safely enabling advanced air mobility by proposing a comprehensive rule for training and certifying pilots. “These proposed rules of the sky will safely usher in this new era of aviation and provide the certainty the industry needs to develop,” said Acting Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety David Boulter. 

Comments closed 8-14-2023

The NPRM proposes a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) that will remain in effect for 10 years after the final rule’s publication. An SFAR permits the FAA to make assumptions about technology that can later be rectified if contrary operational data is collected and allows the FAA to modify the rules over the SFAR’s life span. As a result, an SFAR enables the FAA to adapt its regulations as the industry develops, allowing critical flexibility when drafting rules related to emerging technology. It serves as a noncommittal mechanism to achieve regulatory integration without first fully knowing how the operations will work. During the SFAR’s 10-year term, the FAA would collect operational data to inform future adoption of permanent regulations. The FAA’s use of an SFAR, as opposed to more traditional regulatory frameworks, is consistent with its approach to enable other operations that were initially supported by limited data. For example, the FAA utilized an SFAR in 1975 when it permitted instrument helicopter operations pending the further collection of operational data. Thus, while the SFAR method is relatively unique, it is not unprecedented. The SFAR would be housed in a new subchapter L, “Other Special Federal Aviation Regulations,” and consist of 14 C.F.R. part 194, SFAR No. 120. In addition to this new subchapter, the NPRM also proposes permanent amendments to several existing regulatory parts, including Parts 61, 91, 135, 141, and 142.

Powered-lift according to 14 CFR Part 1.1 means a heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.

FAA Proposes Rule to Enhance Safety and Performance of Light Sport Aircraft

The FAA is planning to enhance the safety and performance of Light Sport Aircraft operations. The proposed Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) rule would put performance safety standards around larger aircraft that innovators are building by expanding the definition of Light Sport Aircraft.

“This rule will encourage manufactures to make Light Sport Aircraft operations safer, more versatile and accessible while maintaining rigorous safety standards,” said Acting FAA Associate Administrator for Safety David Boulter.

Under the proposal, the aircraft’s weight limit is based on its stall speed. By permitting higher stall speeds, the proposal would bring within the Light Sport Aircraft regulatory framework aircraft weighing as much as 3,000 pounds. This more than doubles the weight of aircraft under the current definition of Light Sport of 1,320 pounds, allowing larger and stronger aircraft to qualify as Light Sport.

The proposal would also expand the type of aircraft sport pilots can operate and allows them to use their aircraft for a wider range of operations such as some aerial work. Although sport pilots could operate aircraft designed with up to four seats, they would remain limited to operating with only one passenger.

The public had 90 days to comment on the proposed rule published in the Federal Register (Comments closed October 23, 2024). The FAA will publish a final rule and respond to comments next.

Advanced Air Mobility Interagency Working Group

In October 2022, President Biden signed into law the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act (the Act) and directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish the Advanced Air Mobility Interagency Working Group (AAM IWG).  The purpose of the AAM IWG is to plan for and coordinate efforts to integrate advanced air mobility aircraft into the national airspace system, particularly passenger carrying aircraft, in order to grow new transportation options, amplify economic activity and jobs, advance environmental sustainability and new technologies, and support emergency preparedness and competitiveness.

The AAM IWG is comprised of 22 members from the following Federal departments and agencies.

• Department of Transportation
• Department of State
• Department of Defense
• Department of Justice
• Department of the Interior
• Department of Agriculture
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Labor
• Department of Energy
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Department of Homeland Security
• National Aeronautics & Space Administration
• Office of Management and Budget
• Council of Economic Advisors
• National Security Council
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Office of the National Cyber Director
• Federal Communications Commission
• Department of Education

The AAM IWG will develop a national strategy that includes recommendations regarding the safety, operations, security, infrastructure, air traffic concepts, and other Federal investment or actions necessary to support the evolution of early AAM to higher levels of activity and societal benefit; and a comprehensive plan detailing the roles and responsibilities of each Federal department and agency, and of State, local, and Tribal governments, necessary to facilitate or implement the recommendations developed.

LATEST NEWS 

On February 22, 2023, the Department of Transportation began implementation of the Act which directs the Secretary of Transportation with establishing an interagency working group to develop a whole-of-government national strategy for the future of Advanced Air Mobility in the United States.

On March 21-22, 2023, DOT hosted an in-person meeting with representatives from over 15 Federal departments and agencies to develop a comprehensive work plan for the next year and ultimately deliver the AAM National Strategy in 2024 per the requirements of the law.  The team also heard presentations on existing government activities from FAA, NASA, and DOD, as well as an external analysis by NEXA Capital Partners on the economic long-term potential for the industry and the communities it may serve.

• The interagency team will frame their work over the next year through established subgroups focused on automation strategy, security, infrastructure, air traffic, and community roles and engagement.

The interagency team plans to engage the public and a variety of stakeholders over the next few months including manufacturers and operators, aviation industry and labor stakeholders, as well as State, local, and Tribal governments. The team looks forward to those engagements and will ensure all voices are heard in building the AAM National Strategy.

NASA Advanced Air Mobility Partnerships

Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC)

The Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC) is a broad-based federal advisory committee that provides independent advice and recommendations to the FAA on key UAS and AAM integration issues, interests and policies. The AAAC‘s work relates to the efficiency and safety of integrating advance aviation technologies into the NAS.

The charter amendment modified the FAA‘s Drone Advisory Committee, renaming the committee and expanding membership from 35 to 41 members. The vacancies expand representation in current stakeholder groups to include members with an AAM background. Additionally, there is a new stakeholder group that includes a community advocate representative to provide insight and expertise on potential impacts of increased drone traffic on communities.

High-Density Automated Vertiport Concept of Operations

2021 – NASA Autonomous Systems & Robotics Roadmap and Investments

2023 – Autonomy Verification & Validation Roadmap and Vision 2045

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)

NASA ARMD Programs

NASA’s vision for AAM Mission

– to help emerging aviation markets to safely develop an air transportation system

– that moves people and cargo

– between places previously not served or underserved by aviation

– local, regional, intraregional, urban

– using revolutionary new aircraft that are only just now becoming possible

The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)

– initiated the AAM Mission Integration Office during the 2020 fiscal year

– with the objective to promote flexibility and agility

– while fostering AAM mission success and

– to promote teamwork across ARMD projects contributing to the AAM Mission

The AAM Mission addresses a broad set of barriers necessary to enable AAM which will be accomplished with the contributions made by projects across the mission directorate.

Contributing projects include:

Advanced Air Mobility

Air Traffic Management eXploration

Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology

System-Wide Safety

Transformational Tools and Technologies

In 2018, NASA asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study, entitled Advanced Aerial Mobility: A National Blueprint,  to evaluate the potential benefits and challenges associated with AAM, an emerging technological development that can be simultaneously transformative and disruptive for the nation’s aviation infrastructure and industry. Although the statement of task referred to UAM, while this study was under way the aviation community, and NASA itself, increasingly used the term AAM of which UAM is considered a subset (albeit the most challenging one). This committee therefore chose to use AAM to capture the broader range of opportunities and operations that are being discussed.

NASA has developed a framework for UAM Maturity Levels (UMLs), which categorizes anticipated evolutionary stages of a UAM transportation system into six levels. Each UML represents a level of maturity of the UAM ecosystem, with UML-6 representing the ubiquitous integration of UAM into daily life.

Some additional resources:

Description of the NASA Urban Air Mobility Maturity Level (UML) Scale

AAM National Campaigns (NC)

UAM Vision ConOps UAM Maturity Level (UML) – 4

The figure below shows the anticipated evolution through the UMLs.

Photo courtesy of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

NASA is Creating an Advanced Air Mobility Playbook

NASA is building the system to make soaring over traffic in air taxis, providing public good missions in the form of medical and emergency response by drone, receiving packages faster, and participating in a sustainable and safe mode of air transportation a reality. This new form of transportation is called Advanced Air Mobility (AAM).

June 21, 2023 – US DOT, Office of Inspector General – Regulatory Gaps and Lack of Consensus Hindered FAA’s Progress in Certifying Advanced Air Mobility Aircraft, and Challenges Remain

AAM is a Government and industry initiative to develop an air transportation system between and within rural and urban locations. This new technology, including highly automated hVTOL and eVTOL aircraft, promises many benefits. However, the FAA’s regulations are still primarily intended for traditional small aircraft, creating challenges for FAA. Given these challenges, the Ranking Members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Aviation requested this audit. OIG’s objective was to determine FAA’s progress in establishing the basis for certification of AAM aircraft, including ensuring the safety of novel features and providing guidance to applicants.

Regulatory, management, and communication issues hindered FAA’s progress in certifying AAM aircraft, and challenges remain. Given their unique features, AAM aircraft do not fully fit into FAA’s existing airworthiness standards. For over 4 years, FAA made limited progress in determining which certification path to use. One issue is that, over 2 decades ago, FAA defined an aircraft category called powered-lift that is applicable to some AAM aircraft. However, FAA never established corresponding airworthiness standards and operational regulations, leading to significant internal debates and a lack of consensus on how to proceed. This lack of consensus affected rulemaking efforts that hindered the Agency’s progress. Further, FAA changed its certification path, which caught industry by surprise. The Agency will likely continue to face challenges as it progresses through the certification process for AAM aircraft, including reviewing novel features and establishing new operational regulations. Finally, FAA has not sufficiently established policies and procedures for its Center for Emerging Concepts and Innovation, or communicated about its role in AAM certification. Continued ineffective coordination and communication, as well as the lack of timely decision making and established policies, could further hinder progress.

FAA concurred with OIG’s four recommendations to enhance FAA’s regulatory efforts and communication regarding the AAM aircraft certification process. OIG considers all recommendations resolved but open pending completion of planned actions.

Additional resources:

2021 –  The future of Advanced Aerial Mobility

2022 – Urban Air Mobility Study: Safety Standards, Aircraft Certification, and Impact on Market Feasibility and Growth Potentials

2022 – US GAO – Transforming Aviation: Congress Should Clarify Certain Tax Exemptions for Advanced Air Mobility

2022 – US GAO – Transforming Aviation:Stakeholders Identified Issues to Address for ‘Advanced Air Mobility’

2023 – FAA UAS-AAM Integration Research Plan 2021-2026

2023 – UP.Partners – The Moving World Report

2023 – HAI – Roadmap of Advanced Air Mobility Operations

2023 – NASA: EAD thrusters offer nearly silent propulsion for AAM aircraft

Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification

Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification

The FAA proposes to amend rules related to the certification and operation of light-sport category aircraft. This rule would modernize the regulatory approach to light-sport aircraft, incorporating performance-based requirements that reflect advances in technology and use cases for this type of aircraft. The proposal is designed to respond to the evolving needs of this sector and provide for future growth and innovation without compromising safety.

In 2004, the FAA published the final rule titled “Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft,” which established rules for the manufacture, certification, operation, and maintenance of light-sport aircraft (69 FR 44771; July 27, 2004) (hereafter “the 2004 final rule”). That rule provided for the operation and manufacture of aircraft weighing less than 1,320 pounds (or 1,430 pounds for aircraft intended for operation on water). These “light-sport” aircraft included airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. The FAA bases the rigor of certification requirements and operational limitations on a safety continuum that assesses the exposure of the public to risk for each aircraft and operation; as the risk increases due to increased operating privileges and aircraft capability, the requirements and corresponding rigor of requirements and procedures for certification increase.

In establishing the 2004 final rule, the FAA intentionally established a rigor of certification for light-sport category aircraft between normal category aircraft and aircraft holding experimental certificates in view of intended operating privileges and aircraft capability. This preamble uses experimental amateur-built aircraft for the safety continuum discussions since they are similar to light-sport category aircraft in this proposal. Amateur-built aircraft are largely used for recreational purposes, are flown by sport pilots and pilots with higher grade certificates, and generally have the same flight envelope and occupancy limits. Amateur-built aircraft are below light-sport category aircraft on the safety continuum because of their lower safety assurance for aircraft design and being subject to stringent operating limitations. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory design requirements for suitability of materials used, structural integrity, or instruments, equipment, and systems. This proposed rule would prescribe design requirements for light-sport category aircraft for these items. This proposed rule would also allow light-sport aircraft to conduct aerial work operations that have been authorized by the manufacturer for compensation or hire. Amateur-built aircraft are limited to non-commercial operations for the purpose of education and recreation.

Since the 2004 rule, light-sport category aircraft have shown a lower accident rate than experimental amateur-built airplanes. The FAA considers that the successful safety record of light-sport category aircraft validates certification requirements established in the 2004 final rule and provides support for expanding the scope of certification for light-sport category aircraft and operations. As a result, the FAA identified this proposed rule as an opportunity to expand the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and increase operating privileges to extend these safety benefits to more aircraft. The FAA intends for these expansions to increase safety by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be deciding between an experimental aircraft or a light-sport category aircraft, to choose aircraft higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft certification requirements.

This proposed rule also addresses other aircraft that hold special airworthiness certificates. Specifically, the FAA proposes to codify additional special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft that the FAA has previously approved under discretion provided in § 21.25(b)(7). In addition, this rule would amend the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness certificates issued for experimental purposes.

The FAA has identified proposals to improve both the safety and functionality of light-sport category aircraft and light-sport category kit-built aircraft. This rule would amend aircraft, pilot, maintenance, and operational requirements to increase both the safety and performance of these aircraft while mitigating risk. The FAA recognizes that this is a balancing act—where the risk is increased due to greater capability in one area, mitigations may be required from the other areas.

This proposal would establish performance-based requirements related to light-sport certificated aircraft. As a fundamental matter, the proposal would restructure how certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft are presented in the FAA’s regulations. Currently, issuance of special airworthiness certificates under § 21.190 for light-sport category aircraft, sport pilot certificates under part 61, subpart J, and repairman (light-sport) certificates under part 65 are limited by a number of aircraft design limitations included in the definition of light-sport aircraft in § 1.1. This proposal would remove that definition and, in its place, write performance-based standards for aircraft and airman certification into 14 CFR parts 21, 61, and 65, where these requirements for other types of aircraft and airman certification reside. This would make the FAA’s regulatory approach to light-sport category aircraft more consistent with its approach to other types of aircraft.

Another important change proposed under this rule would eliminate the weight limits for light-sport category aircraft. To enable the design and manufacture of light-sport category aircraft that are safe to fly with increased capacity and ability, this proposal would apply new design and manufacturing requirements. This would allow growth and innovation within performance-based safety parameters. This proposal also expands aircraft that sport pilots can operate. Under this proposal, sport pilots could operate airplanes designed with up to four seats, even though they would remain limited to operating with only one passenger. Finally, the proposal would change the name of the repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) to repairman certificate (light-sport). This certificate would apply to existing and new types of aircraft certificated in the light-sport category, such as rotorcraft and powered-lift. Related provisions would update the requirements for maintenance.

The FAA is also proposing regulations related to noise for light-sport aircraft, expanding applicability of part 36 noise limits. To provide flexibility and reduce burdens of compliance with these noise limits, the FAA is proposing options for compliance: conventional noise testing per part 36 or means of compliance via FAA-approved, industry consensus standards. The FAA expects that any consensus standards would not be limited to physical measurements of noise taken during test flights. They might instead to be based on empirical data, analytical modeling, or generally accepted noise prediction methods if the underlying noise prediction methods are found to be robust.

In addition to maintenance and manufacturing requirements, the FAA also proposes to expand the kinds of operations that can be performed by light-sport category aircraft. Specifically, this proposal would permit light-sport category aircraft to be used in certain aerial work operations for aircraft that meet the applicable consensus standard for that operation.

Additionally, the FAA is proposing amendments to experimental aircraft regulations. The proposed regulations create new operating purposes for former military and kit-built aircraft and amend the operating purpose for market survey. The proposed regulations also include new operating limitations, an increased certificate duration, and new noise requirements. The FAA is further proposing amendments related to restricted category aircraft, including a codification of special operating purposes for restricted category aircraft. This NPRM also includes proposed changes to right of way and operations around airports in Class G airspace.

Counter-UAS (C-UAS) Laws

49 USC 44718 – Structures interfering with air commerce

FAA Order JO 7400.2M

14 CFR Part 139 and more specifically 14 CFR Part 139.333 and 14 CFR Part 139.203

Grant Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and Mitigation

Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan

Updated Information on UAS-Detection and Countermeasures Technology (Counter-UAS) at Airports, May 2019

Attachment 1, July 19, 2018, Letter From FAA Office of Airports on Guidance on Use of Counter UAS Systems at Airports

Attachment 2, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Concerning UAS Detection Systems

Attachment 3, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Detection – Technical Considerations

Section 2206 of PL 114-190, FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016

18 USC

Pen/Trap Statute – 18 USC 3121 on

Wiretap Act – 18USC 2520 on

Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986

Prohibition against interference with certain satellite operations – 18 USC 1367

49 USC

Aircraft Piracy – 49 USC 46502

Berlin Memo

CRDA – Cooperative Research and Development Agreements

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) – 2023 Security Planning Workbook

DHS

DHS S&T Seeks to Assess Kinetic Mitigation Capabilities for Countering Small Unmanned Aerial Systems

Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Technology Guide – 2023

DOD

DSIAC TECHNICAL INQUIRY (TI) RESPONSE REPORT Use of Water for Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS)

FAA ADO – Airport District Office

FAA – Advisory and Rulemaking Committees – Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Detection and Mitigation Systems ARC Charter

FAA ARP – Office of Airports

FAA ASH – Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety

FAA ATO – Air Traffic Organization

FAA – UAS Sightings Report

FAA – UAS Detection, Mitigation, and Response on Airports

FCC

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

INTERPOL convenes global summit on the use of drones – INTERPOL Drone Countermeasure – June 2022

NTIA

UN Counter-Terrorism and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Digital Forensics

Counter-UAS (C-UAS) is often described as deploying UAS detection and mitigation equipment.

Detection equipment includes radars, acoustic sensors, radio frequency (RF) sensors, and electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) cameras.

Mitigation equipment includes kinetic and non-kinetic technologies to disrupt, disable, or destroy a drone.

C-UAS is more than just the deployment and use of technologies, it is what defines the mission.

In the Advisory on the Application of Federal Laws to the Acquisition and Use of Technology to Detect and Mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems, issued in 2020, co-authored by the DOJ, DHS, FCC, and the DOT, an implied definition of C-UAS is provided as, “…using technical tools, systems, and capabilities to detect and mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).” 

In 49 U.S.C. § 44801(5), a “counter-UAS system” means “a system or device capable of lawfully and safely disabling, disrupting, or seizing control of an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system.”

Although no specific term such as C-UAS is used to describe the mission in 6 U.S.C. § 124n, which provides statutory relief from provisions of Title 18 and Title 49 to the DOJ and DHS, C-UAS is characterized as the “protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft,” and “…may authorize personnel with assigned duties that include the security or protection of people, facilities, or assets” to take further actions which include:

• Detect, identify, monitor, and track the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft without prior consent;
• Warn the operator of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft;
• Disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft without prior consent;
• Seize or exercise control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft;
• Seize or otherwise confiscate the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft;
• Use reasonable force, if necessary, to disrupt, disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

In the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress addressed C-UAS in great detail.

(a) In General.–Not later than 60 days after that date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with government agencies currently authorized to operate Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (C-UAS) systems within the United States (including the territories and possessions of the United States), shall initiate a review of the following:

(1) The process the Administration is using for interagency coordination of C-UAS activity pursuant to a relevant Federal  statute authorizing such activity within the United States (including the territories and possessions of the United States). (2) The standards the Administration is utilizing for operation of a C-UAS systems pursuant to a relevant Federal statute authorizing such activity within the United States (including the territories and possessions of the United States), including whether the following criteria are being taken into consideration in the development of the standards:

(A) Safety of the national airspace.

(B) Protecting individuals and property on the ground.

(C) Non-interference with avionics of manned aircraft, and unmanned aircraft, operating legally in the national airspace.

(D) Non-interference with air traffic control systems.

(E) Adequate coordination procedures and protocols with the Federal Aviation Administration during the operation of C-UAS systems.

(F) Adequate training for personnel operating C-UAS systems.

(G) Assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the coordination and review processes to ensure national airspace safety while minimizing bureaucracy.

(H) Best practices for the consistent operation of C-UAS systems to the maximum extent practicable.

(I) Current airspace authorization information shared by automated approval processes for airspace authorizations, such as the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability.

(J) Such other matters the Administrator considers necessary for the safe and lawful operation of C-UAS systems.

(3) Similar interagency coordination processes already used for other matters that may be used as a model for improving the interagency coordination for the usage of C-UAS systems.

(b) Report.–Not later than 180 days after the date upon which the review in subsection (a) is initiated, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, a report on the Administration’s activities related to C-UAS systems, including–

(1) any coordination with Federal agencies and States, subdivisions and States, political authorities of at least 2 States that operate C-UAS systems;

(2) an assessment of the standards being utilized for the operation of a counter-UAS systems within the United States (including the territories and possessions of the United States);

(3) an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the interagency coordination and review processes to ensure national airspace safety while minimizing bureaucracy; and

(4) a review of any additional authorities needed by the Federal Aviation Administration to effectively oversee the management of C-UAS systems within the United States (including the territories and possessions of the United States).

In matters relating to the use of systems in the national airspace system intended to mitigate threats posed by errant or hostile unmanned aircraft system operations, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Secretary of Defense to streamline deployment of such systems by drawing upon the expertise and experience of the Department of Defense in acquiring and operating such systems consistent with the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system.

(a) In General.–Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop a comprehensive strategy to provide outreach to State and local governments and provide guidance for local law enforcement agencies and first responders with respect to–

(1) how to identify and respond to public safety threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems; and

(2) how to identify and take advantage of opportunities to use unmanned aircraft systems to enhance the effectiveness of local law enforcement agencies and first responders.

(b) Resources.–Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a publicly available Internet website that contains resources for State and local law enforcement agencies and first responders seeking–

(1) to respond to public safety threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems; and

(2) to identify and take advantage of opportunities to use unmanned aircraft systems to enhance the effectiveness of local law enforcement agencies and public safety response efforts.

(c) Unmanned Aircraft System Defined.–In this section, the term “unmanned aircraft system” has the meaning given that term in section 44801 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Labor, shall determine whether occupations of the Administration relating to unmanned aircraft systems technology and regulations can be incorporated into the Veterans’ Employment Program of the Administration, particularly in the interaction between such program and the New Sights Work Experience Program and the Vet-Link Cooperative Education Program.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue guidance for the expedited and timely access to special use airspace for public unmanned aircraft systems in order to assist Federal, State, local, or tribal law enforcement organizations in conducting law enforcement, emergency response, or for other activities.

This division may be cited as the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018.

The Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018 (codified at 6 U.S. Code Section 124n) (“the Act”) authorizes the United States Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to engage in certain counter-UAS (“C-UAS”) activities that might otherwise violate relevant provisions of federal law.

Those laws are 49 U.S.C. § 46502 (aircraft piracy), 18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud and abuse), 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (interference with the operation of a satellite), and chapters 119 (interception of communications) and 206 (pen registers and trap and trace devices) of Title 18.

(a) In General.–Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

SEC. 210G. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES AND ASSETS FROM UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.

(a) Authority.–Notwithstanding section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, or sections 32, 1030, 1367 and chapters 119 and 206 of title 18, United States Code, the Secretary and the Attorney General may, for their respective Departments, take, and may authorize personnel with assigned duties that include the security or protection of people, facilities, or assets, to take such actions as are described in subsection (b)(1) that are necessary to mitigate a credible threat (as defined by the Secretary or the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation) that an unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft poses to the safety or security of a covered facility or asset.

(b) Actions Described.–

(1) In general.–The actions authorized in subsection (a) are the following:

(A) During the operation of the unmanned aircraft system, detect, identify, monitor, and track the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by means of intercept or other access of a wire communication, an oral communication, or an electronic communication used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(B) Warn the operator of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, including by passive or active, and direct or indirect physical, electronic, radio, and electromagnetic means.

(C) Disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by disabling the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft by intercepting, interfering, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(D) Seize or exercise control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(E) Seize or otherwise confiscate the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(F) Use reasonable force, if necessary, to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(2) Required coordination.–The Secretary and the Attorney General shall develop for their respective Departments the actions described in paragraph (1) in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation.

(3) Research, testing, training, and evaluation.–The Secretary and the Attorney General shall conduct research, testing, training on, and evaluation of any equipment, including any electronic equipment, to determine its capability and utility prior to the use of any such technology for any action described in subsection (b)(1).

(4) Coordination.–The Secretary and the Attorney General shall coordinate with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration when any action authorized by this section might affect aviation safety, civilian aviation and aerospace operations, aircraft airworthiness, or the use of the airspace.

(c) Forfeiture.–Any unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft described in subsection (a) that is seized by the Secretary or the Attorney General is subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(d) Regulations and Guidance.–

(1) In general.–The Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations and shall issue guidance in the respective areas of each Secretary or the Attorney General to carry out this section.

(2) Coordination.–

(A) Coordination with department of transportation.–The Secretary and the Attorney General shall coordinate the development of their respective guidance under paragraph (1) with the Secretary of Transportation.

(B) Effect on aviation safety.–The Secretary and the Attorney General shall respectively coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration before issuing any guidance, or otherwise implementing this section, if such guidance or implementation might affect aviation safety, civilian aviation and aerospace operations, aircraft airworthiness, or the use of airspace.

(e) Privacy Protection.–The regulations or guidance issued to carry out actions authorized under subsection (b) by each Secretary or the Attorney General, as the case may be, shall ensure that–

(1) the interception or acquisition of, or access to, or maintenance or use of, communications to or from an unmanned aircraft system under this section is conducted in a manner consistent with the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and applicable provisions of Federal law;

(2) communications to or from an unmanned aircraft system are intercepted or acquired only to the extent necessary to support an action described in subsection (b)(1);

(3) records of such communications are maintained only for as long as necessary, and in no event for more than 180 days, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determine that maintenance of such records is necessary to investigate or prosecute a violation of law, directly support an ongoing security operation, is required under Federal law, or for the purpose of any litigation;

(4) such communications are not disclosed outside the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice unless the disclosure–

(A) is necessary to investigate or prosecute a violation of law;

(B) would support the Department of Defense, a Federal law enforcement agency, or the enforcement activities of a regulatory agency of the Federal Government in connection with a criminal or civil investigation of, or any regulatory, statutory, or other enforcement action relating to an action described in subsection (b)(1);

(C) is between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the course of a security or protection operation of either agency or a joint operation of such agencies; or

(D) is otherwise required by law; and

(5) to the extent necessary, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are authorized to share threat information, which shall not include communications referred to in subsection (b), with State, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement agencies in the course of a security or protection operation.

(f) Budget.–The Secretary and the Attorney General shall submit to Congress, as a part of the homeland security or justice budget materials for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2019, a consolidated funding display that identifies the funding source for the actions described in subsection (b)(1) within the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. The funding display shall be in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

(g) Semiannual Briefings and Notifications.–

(1) In general.–On a semiannual basis during the period beginning 6 months after the date of enactment of this section and ending on the date specified in subsection (i), the Secretary and the Attorney General shall, respectively, provide a briefing to the appropriate congressional committees on the activities carried out pursuant to this section.

(2) Requirement.–Each briefing required under paragraph (1) shall be conducted jointly with the Secretary of Transportation.

(3) Content.–Each briefing required under paragraph (1) shall include–

(A) policies, programs, and procedures to mitigate or eliminate impacts of such activities to the National Airspace System;

(B) a description of instances in which actions described in subsection (b)(1) have been taken, including all such instances that may have resulted in harm, damage, or loss to a person or to private property;

(C) a description of the guidance, policies, or procedures established to address privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties issues implicated by the actions allowed under this section, as well as any changes or subsequent efforts that would significantly affect privacy, civil rights or civil liberties;

(D) a description of options considered and steps taken to mitigate any identified impacts to the national airspace system related to the use of any system or technology, including the minimization of the use of any technology that disrupts the transmission of radio or electronic signals, for carrying out the actions described in subsection (b)(1);

(E) a description of instances in which communications intercepted or acquired during the course of operations of an unmanned aircraft system were held for more than 180 days or shared outside of the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security;

(F) how the Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Transportation have informed the public as to the possible use of authorities under this section;

(G) how the Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Transportation have engaged with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to implement and use such authorities.

(4) Unclassified form.–Each briefing required under paragraph (1) shall be in unclassified form, but may be accompanied by an additional classified briefing.

(5) Notification.–Within 30 days of deploying any new technology to carry out the actions described in subsection (b)(1), the Secretary and the Attorney General shall, respectively, submit a notification to the appropriate congressional committees. Such notification shall include a description of options considered to mitigate any identified impacts to the national airspace system related to the use of any system or technology, including the minimization of the use of any technology that disrupts the transmission of radio or electronic signals, for carrying out the actions described in subsection (b)(1).

(h) Rule of Construction.–Nothing in this section may be construed to–

(1) vest in the Secretary or the Attorney General any authority of the Secretary of Transportation or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration;

(2) vest in the Secretary of Transportation or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration any authority of the Secretary or the Attorney General;

(3) vest in the Secretary of Homeland Security any authority of the Attorney General;

(4) vest in the Attorney General any authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security; or

(5) provide a new basis of liability for any State, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement officers who participate in the protection of a mass gathering identified by the Secretary or Attorney General under subsection (k)(3)(C)(iii)(II), act within the scope of their authority, and do not exercise the authority granted to the Secretary and Attorney General by this section.

(i) Termination.–The authority to carry out this section with respect to a covered facility or asset specified in subsection (k)(3) shall terminate on the date that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this section.

(j) Scope of Authority.–Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide the Secretary or the Attorney General with additional authorities beyond those described in subsections (a) and (k)(3)(C)(iii).

(k) Definitions.–In this section:

(1) The term `appropriate congressional committees’ means–

(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

(2) The term `budget’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the budget for that fiscal year that is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31.

(3) The term `covered facility or asset’ means any facility or asset that–

(A) is identified as high-risk and a potential target for unlawful unmanned aircraft activity by the Secretary or the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation with respect to potentially impacted airspace, through a risk-based assessment for purposes of this section (except that in the case of the missions described in subparagraph (C)(i)(II) and (C)(iii)(I), such missions shall be presumed to be for the protection of a facility or asset that is assessed to be high-risk and a potential target for unlawful unmanned aircraft activity);

(B) is located in the United States (including the territories and possessions, territorial seas or navigable waters of the United States); and

(C) directly relates to one or more–

(i) missions authorized to be performed by the Department of Homeland Security, consistent with governing statutes, regulations, and orders issued by the Secretary, pertaining to– 

(I) security or protection functions of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, including securing or protecting facilities, aircraft, and vessels, whether moored or underway;

(II) United States Secret Service protection operations pursuant to sections 3056(a) and 3056A(a) of title 18, United States Code, and the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976 (18 U.S.C. 3056 note); or

(III) protection of facilities pursuant to section 1315(a) of title 40, United States Code;

(ii) missions authorized to be performed by the Department of Justice, consistent with governing statutes, regulations, and orders issued by the Attorney General, pertaining to–

(I) personal protection operations by–

(aa) the Federal Bureau of Investigation as specified in section 533 of title 28, United States Code; and

(bb) the United States Marshals Service of Federal jurists, court officers, witnesses, and other threatened persons in the interests of justice, as specified in section 566(e)(1)(A) of title 28, United States Code;

(II) protection of penal, detention, and correctional facilities and operations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons; or

(III) protection of the buildings and grounds leased, owned, or operated by or for the Department of Justice, and the provision of security for Federal courts, as specified in section 566(a) of title 28, United States Code;

(iii) missions authorized to be performed by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice, acting together or separately, consistent with governing statutes, regulations, and orders issued by the Secretary or the Attorney General, respectively, pertaining to–

(I) protection of a National Special Security Event and Special Event Assessment Rating event;

(II) the provision of support to State, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement, upon request of the chief executive officer of the State or territory, to ensure protection of people and property at mass gatherings, that is limited to a specified timeframe and location, within available resources, and without delegating any authority under this section to State, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement; or

(III) protection of an active Federal law enforcement investigation, emergency response, or security function, that is limited to a specified timeframe and location; and

(iv) missions authorized to be performed by the United States Coast Guard, including those described in clause (iii) as directed by the Secretary, and as further set forth in section 104 of title 14, United States Code, and consistent with governing statutes, regulations, and orders issued by the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating.

(4) The terms `electronic communication’, `intercept’, `oral communication’, and `wire communication’ have the meaning given those terms in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code.

(5) The term `homeland security or justice budget materials’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the materials submitted to Congress by the Secretary and the Attorney General in support of the budget for that fiscal year.

(6) For purposes of subsection (a), the term `personnel’ means officers and employees of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice.

(7) The terms `unmanned aircraft’ and `unmanned aircraft system’ have the meanings given those terms in section 44801, of title 49, United States Code.

(8) For purposes of this section, the term `risk-based assessment’ includes an evaluation of threat information specific to a covered facility or asset and, with respect to potential impacts on the safety and efficiency of the national airspace system and the needs of law enforcement and national security at each covered facility or asset identified by the Secretary or the Attorney General, respectively, of each of the following factors:

(A) Potential impacts to safety, efficiency, and use of the national airspace system, including potential effects on manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems, aviation safety, airport operations, infrastructure, and air navigation services related to the use of any system or technology for carrying out the actions described in subsection (b)(1).

(B) Options for mitigating any identified impacts to the national airspace system related to the use of any system or technology, including minimizing when possible the use of any technology which disrupts the transmission of radio or electronic signals, for carrying out the actions described in subsection (b)(1).

(C) Potential consequences of the impacts of any actions taken under subsection (b)(1) to the national airspace system and infrastructure if not mitigated.

(D) The ability to provide reasonable advance notice to aircraft operators consistent with the safety of the national airspace system and the needs of law enforcement and national security.

(E) The setting and character of any covered facility or asset, including whether it is located in a populated area or near other structures, whether the facility is open to the public, whether the facility is also used for nongovernmental functions, and any potential for interference with wireless communications or for injury or damage to persons or property.

(F) The setting, character, timeframe, and national airspace system impacts of National Special Security Event and Special Event Assessment Rating events. 

(G) Potential consequences to national security, public safety, or law enforcement if threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems are not mitigated or defeated.

(l) Department of Homeland Security Assessment.–

(1) Report.–Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall conduct, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Transportation, an assessment to the appropriate congressional committees, including–

(A) an evaluation of the threat from unmanned aircraft systems to United States critical infrastructure (as defined in this Act) and to domestic large hub airports (as defined in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code);

(B) an evaluation of current Federal and State, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement authorities to counter the threat identified in subparagraph (A), and recommendations, if any, for potential changes to existing authorities to allow State, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement to assist Federal law enforcement to counter the threat where appropriate;

(C) an evaluation of the knowledge of, efficiency of, and effectiveness of current procedures and resources available to owners of critical infrastructure and domestic large hub airports when they believe a threat from unmanned aircraft systems is present and what additional actions, if any, the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Transportation could implement under existing authorities to assist these entities to counter the threat identified in subparagraph (A);

(D) an assessment of what, if any, additional authorities are needed by each Department and law enforcement to counter the threat identified in subparagraph (A); and

(E) an assessment of what, if any, additional research and development the Department needs to counter the threat identified in subparagraph (A).

(2) Unclassified form.–The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 210F the following:

Sec. 210G. Protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft.

(a) In General.–Chapter 5 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 103 the following:

Sec. 104. Protecting against unmanned aircraft

For the purposes of section 210G(k)(3)(C)(iv) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the missions authorized to be performed by the United States Coast Guard shall be those related to–

(1) functions of the U.S. Coast Guard relating to security or protection of facilities and assets assessed to be high-risk and a potential target for unlawful unmanned aircraft activity, including the security and protection of– 

(A) a facility, including a facility that is under the administrative control of the Commandant; and

(B) a vessel (whether moored or underway) or an aircraft, including a vessel or aircraft–

(i) that is operated by the Coast Guard, or that the Coast Guard is assisting or escorting; and

(ii) that is directly involved in a mission of the Coast Guard pertaining to–

(I) assisting or escorting a vessel of the Department of Defense;

(II) assisting or escorting a vessel of national security significance, a high interest vessel, a high capacity passenger vessel, or a high value unit, as those terms are defined by the Secretary;

(III) section 91(a) of this title;

(IV) assistance in protecting the President or the Vice President (or other officer next in order of succession to the Office of the President) pursuant to the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976 (18 U.S.C. 3056 note);

(V) protection of a National Special Security Event and Special Event Assessment Rating events;

(VI) air defense of the United States, including air sovereignty, ground-based air defense, and the National Capital Region integrated air defense system; or

(VII) a search and rescue operation; and

(2) missions directed by the Secretary pursuant to 210G(k)(3)(C)(iii) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

(b) Clerical Amendment.–The analysis for chapter 5 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 103 the following:

104. Protecting against unmanned aircraft.

According to their website on DHS C-UAS, the rapid increase in the availability and sophistication of UAS represents a significant challenge, as their capabilities progress faster than the ability to assess and mitigate the threat posed by nefarious small UAS. The Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T’s) program assesses C-UAS technologies both in laboratory and real-world operational environments and assists DHS Components in: developing and refining requirements, completing the Congressionally mandated 6 USC 124n process to test and evaluate prototype C-UAS capabilities at a covered asset or mission, and in executing limited-duration C-UAS technology pilots at DHS Component locations. The program also guides the development of new and innovative technologies to deliver critical C-UAS capabilities to DHS Components.

The DHS is working within the C-UAS industry. The rapid increase in the availability and sophistication of UAS represents a significant challenge, as their capabilities progress faster than the ability to assess and mitigate potential threats. The DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) C-UAS Program is assessing C-UAS technologies and guiding the development of new capabilities for the Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE). The program supports requirements documentation, rapid development, system integration, and specification and performance testing based on the C-UAS needs and requirements of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal Protective Service (FPS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

When it comes to the DOD and C-UAS, the primary purpose of the DoD domestic aviation operations are to support Homeland Defense (HD) and Defense Support of Civilian Authorities (DSCA) operations, and military training and exercises. While manned aircraft primarily support these missions, the operational use of DoD UAS, in lieu of manned aircraft may be appropriate for some domestic mission sets, when sustained endurance efforts are required; unmanned aircraft provide superior capabilities; or physical infrastructure limitations prohibit the use of manned rotary or fixed-winged aircraft.

Since 2006, DoD has had very specific and stringent guidance on the domestic use of DoD UAS. On occasion, DoD operates UAS domestically in support of a request from Federal or State civilian authorities. DoD only conducts these operations with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, who in 2018, delegated the approval of the use of smaller UAS to the Secretaries of the Military Departments, or the Geographic Combatant Commander where smaller UAS use supports Force Protection and Defense Support of Civil Authorities. This policy direction is set out in the Secretary of Defense Policy Memorandum titled Guidance for the Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. National Airspace. This guidance also states that armed DOD UAS may not be used in the US except for training, exercises, and testing purposes. Additionally, in recognition of the potential value of UAS, the Secretary of Defense has authorized State Governors to use smaller UAS by State National Guard units conducting Search and Rescue, and Incident and Awareness and Assessment missions, while in a State Active Duty status.

The primary purpose, and large majority, of DoD domestic UAS operations is for DoD forces to gain realistic training experience, test equipment and tactics in preparation for potential overseas warfighting missions, which occasionally also contributes DSCA training and exercises. DoD has logged millions of UAS flight hours worldwide. This extensive experience is the foundation of the Department’s careful adherence to aviation safety policies and procedures regarding both manned and unmanned aircraft. The DoD fields DoD UAS across all four Services, including the National Guard. The Department currently operates more than 11,000 UAS in support of domestic training events and overseas contingency missions. These aircraft range in size from the small RQ-11B Raven to the largest RQ/MQ-4 Global Hawk/Triton, which weighs more than 32,000 pounds.

DoD UAS currently do not have direct access to the NAS, unlike manned aircraft. In order for DoD UAS to operate in the NAS, the DoD is required to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the FAA. A COA allows DoD UAS to fly pre-coordinated flight routes to DoD special use airspace.

The vast majority of DoD UAS training is conducted in airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use. Airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use includes Special Use Airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use (SUA), temporary Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace Areas (ATCAA), airspace above land with express permission of the landowner or government-owned or -leased land as permitted by DoD-FAA MOA, US National Airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use to provide air traffic services, US National Airspace under an approved FAA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), and airspace delegated by the FAA and coordinated with DoD for permanent, long-term and short-term requirements.

Upon DoD request, the FAA may issue a Class G COA via notification for low-altitude training operations in uncontrolled airspace. Class G COA via notification are issued for small-UAS that operate over government land, government-leased land or with permission of the landowner while the operator maintains sight of the aircraft.

You can read more about DOD – C-UAS Strategy. the Blue UAS is a holistic and continuous approach to rapidly prototyping and scaling capable and secure commercial UAS technology for the DoD. Here is the Blue SUAS List.

AUVSI, to provide the civilian counterpart to this, has launched Green UAS, that builds on Blue UAS to serve the non-defense drone community and bolsters the drone manufacturing base. Green UAS is the first product of AUVSI’s broader Trusted Cyber Program, which AUVSI launched in August 2022 with collaboration from AUVSI members and Fortress Information Security, a leading cybersecurity firm with experience in industry-led cyber standards development.

The assessment process is administered by AUVSI — the world’s largest nonprofit for drones and autonomous systems — in collaboration with the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). AUVSI will work with a network of cybersecurity firms to rapidly vet drones that are seeking Green UAS certification using frameworks that address threats and cyber risks in the areas of corporate cyber hygiene, product and device security, supply chain risk management, and for drones that are not seeking to go from Green to Blue, remote operations and connectivity.

Green compliant drones that have a DoD customer/sponsor willing to sponsor and fund a DoD Authority to Operate (ATO) will have the opportunity to transition from the Green UAS cleared list to Blue UAS cleared list.

10 U.S.C. Section 130i

10 U.S.C. Section 130i authorizes the US DOD to engage in certain C-UAS activities that might otherwise violate relevant provisions of federal law.

Those laws are 49 U.S.C. § 46502 (aircraft piracy), 18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud and abuse), 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (interference with the operation of a satellite), and chapters 119 (interception of communications) and 206 (pen registers and trap and trace devices) of Title 18.

10 U.S.C. Section 130i is related to covered facilities or assets as identified by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation.  The covered facilities or assets are located in the United States, to include territories and possessions.

Interagency Security Committee – Protecting against the threat of UAS – 2020 – One of the priorities of the DHS is the protection of federal employees and private citizens who work within and visit federally-owned or -leased facilities. The Interagency Security Committee (ISC), chaired by the DHS, consists of 64 departments and agencies and has a mission to develop security policies, standards, and recommendations for nonmilitary federal facilities in the US. This document, known as Protecting Against the Threat of UAS: An Interagency Security Committee Best Practice, outlines awareness and mitigation measures for use by federal departments and agencies to protect against malicious UAS operations. Topics covered in this document include the following:

• An overview of UAS;

• Threats posed by UAS;

• Vulnerability assessments;

• Protective measures and activities;

• How to develop a facility response plan for UAS incidents;

• How to increase workforce awareness; and

• How to engage with community partners.

Although most agencies do not have the authority to disable, disrupt, or seize control of an unmanned aircraft, there are other effective risk reduction measures they may implement. This document provides best practices that any organization or facility can use to mitigate UAS threats. This document represents exemplary collaboration within the ISC Unmanned Aircraft Systems Working Group and across the entire ISC.

50 USC 2661

50 U.S.C. Section 2661 authorizes the US DOE to engage in certain C-UAS activities that might otherwise violate relevant provisions of federal law.

Those laws are 49 U.S.C. § 46502 (aircraft piracy), 18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud and abuse), 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (interference with the operation of a satellite), and chapters 119 (interception of communications) and 206 (pen registers and trap and trace devices) of Title 18.

50 USC 2661

§ 2661. Protection of certain nuclear facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft

(a) Authority Notwithstanding any provision of title 18, the Secretary of Energy may take such actions described in subsection (b)(1) that are necessary to mitigate the threat (as defined by the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation) that an unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft poses to the safety or security of a covered facility or asset.

(b) Actions described

(1) The actions described in this paragraph are the following:

(A) Detect, identify, monitor, and track the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by means of intercept or other access of a wire, oral, or electronic communication used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(B) Warn the operator of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, including by passive or active, and direct or indirect physical, electronic, radio, and electromagnetic means.

(C) Disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by disabling the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft by intercepting, interfering, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(D) Seize or exercise control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(E) Seize or otherwise confiscate the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(F) Use reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

(2) The Secretary of Energy shall develop the actions described in paragraph (1) in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation.

(c) Forfeiture Any unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft described in subsection (a) that is seized by the Secretary of Energy is subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(d) Regulations The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations and shall issue guidance in the respective areas of each Secretary to carry out this section.

(e) Definitions In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘covered facility or asset’’ means any facility or asset that is—

(A) identified by the Secretary of Energy for purposes of this section;

(B) located in the United States (including the territories and possessions of the United States); and

(C) owned by the United States or contracted to the United States, to store or use special nuclear material.

(2) The terms ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ and ‘‘unmanned aircraft system’’ have the meanings given those terms in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–95; 49 U.S.C. 40101 1 note).

Jan 2021 – Executive Order – Protecting the United States From Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Section 383 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 mandated the FAA ensure that technologies or systems that are developed, tested, or deployed by authorized federal departments and agencies to detect and mitigate potential risks posed by errant or hostile UAS or drone operations do not adversely impact or interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the NAS. In addition, Section 383 requires the FAA to develop a plan for the certification, permitting, authorizing, or allowing of UAS detection and mitigation systems in the NAS, and to convene an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to make recommendations for such a plan.

Consistent with Section 383, the FAA launched an effort to test and evaluate technologies and systems that could detect and mitigate potential safety risks posed by unmanned aircraft at and near airports.

On March 2, 2021, the FAA selected the following airports to participate in the testing program:

• Atlantic City International Airport, Atlantic City, New Jersey
• Syracuse Hancock International Airport, Syracuse, New York
• Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, Ohio
• Huntsville International Airport, Huntsville, Alabama
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, Washington

The research will lead to the implementation of new technologies that will make airports safer for passengers and traditional, crewed aircraft. Researchers plan to test and evaluate at least 10 technologies or systems at these airports. Testing began in 2022 and continues through 2023. The results from this testing and evaluation effort will inform other components of Section 383, including the ARC and the plan for certifying, permitting, or authorizing UAS detection and mitigation technologies at airports around the country.

Order JO 7210.3CC – Facility Operation and Administration

2−1−34. USE OF COUNTER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (C−UAS)

Airport owners/operators or local enforcement may contact ATC facilities to coordinate their acquisition, testing, and operational use of UAS detection systems. These systems and how they are used may have implications for FAA regulations for airports; potentially affect ATC and other Air Navigation Services systems (e.g., RF interference with radars); and/or trigger airport responses (e.g., closing runways), which must be coordinated with ATC.

a. Requests by airport authorities for ATC facility cooperation/authorization in the acquisition, testing, or use of UAS detection systems will be referred to the appropriate FAA Airports District Office (ADO). The ADO will initiate internal FAA coordination, including reviews by the responsible ATO offices and facilities.

b. ATC facilities must not enter into any verbal or written agreement with a commercial vendor or an airport authority regarding UAS detection capabilities without prior coordination and approval from HQ−AJT−0.

NOTE− 1. UAS detection systems do not include the interdiction components that characterize UAS mitigation technologies, also referred to as Counter Unmanned Aircraft System (C−UAS) technologies. Only select Federal Departments and Agencies have the legal authority to use C−UAS systems in the NAS. The FAA does not support the use of this technology by other entities without this legal authorization.

2. The FAA does not advocate the use of UAS detection in the airport environment until appropriate policy and procedures are developed.

2−1−35. USE OF COUNTER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (C−UAS)

Select Departments and Agencies, which have been legally authorized to use this technology, are operationally using Counter Unmanned Aircraft System systems (C−UAS) in the NAS to protect certain facilities and assets. C−UAS systems are capable of disabling, disrupting, or seizing control of a suspicious UAS, and may integrate or be linked to UAS detection capabilities. These Departments and Agencies are required to coordinate with the FAA to assess and mitigate risks to the NAS posed by these C−UAS systems. These systems and their deployment may affect ATC and other Air Navigation Services systems (e.g., RF interference with radars); which could impact other air traffic in the vicinity including legitimate, compliant UAS flights. Additionally, the C−UAS may involve the response and deployment of ground/airborne operational security assets, which must be coordinated with ATC.

a. The Joint Air Traffic Operations Command (JATOC) Air Traffic Security Coordinator (ATSC) team, which manages the Domestic Events Network (DEN), must notify affected ATC facilities when C−UAS systems are activated.

NOTE− Only select Federal Departments/Agencies have been legally authorized to utilize C−UAS to cover certain facilities and assets, and with coordination with the FAA to address risks to the NAS. Risk mitigation for the NAS typically includes notification to potentially affected ATC facilities.

b. The DEN must alert all ATC facilities affected by C−UAS deployment and JATOC National Operations Control Center (NOCC) of any possible operational impacts.

1. The alerts will focus on real−time reporting regarding possible operational impacts of C−UAS activities providing the affected facilities with heightened awareness to potential flight and equipment anomalies; and will allow the facilities to take actions needed to sustain safe operations.

2. The alerts must be made via landline communications and must not be broadcast over radios, shout lines, or direct dial lines to air traffic controllers on position.

3. The affected ATC facilities must not discuss C−UAS operations with any outside entity.

47 USC 301

PART 301 – RELOCATION OF AND SPECTRUM SHARING BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STATIONS

47 USC 302a: Devices which interfere with radio reception

§302a. Devices which interfere with radio reception

(a) Regulations

The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations

(1) governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications; and

(2) establishing minimum performance standards for home electronic equipment and systems to reduce their susceptibility to interference from radio frequency energy. Such regulations shall be applicable to the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, or shipment of such devices and home electronic equipment and systems, and to the use of such devices.

(b) Restrictions

No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.

(c) Exceptions

The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to carriers transporting such devices or home electronic equipment and systems without trading in them, to devices or home electronic equipment and systems manufactured solely for export, to the manufacture, assembly, or installation of devices or home electronic equipment and systems for its own use by a public utility engaged in providing electric service, or to devices or home electronic equipment and systems for use by the Government of the United States or any agency thereof. Devices and home electronic equipment and systems for use by the Government of the United States or any agency thereof shall be developed, procured, or otherwise acquired, including offshore procurement, under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security.

(d) Cellular telecommunications receivers

(1) Within 180 days after October 28, 1992, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of-

(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service,

(B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or

(C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio.

(2) Beginning 1 year after the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (1), no receiver having the capabilities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as such capabilities are defined in such regulations, shall be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States.

(e) Delegation of equipment testing and certification to private laboratories

The Commission may-

(1) authorize the use of private organizations for testing and certifying the compliance of devices or home electronic equipment and systems with regulations promulgated under this section;

(2) accept as prima facie evidence of such compliance the certification by any such organization; and

(3) establish such qualifications and standards as it deems appropriate for such private organizations, testing, and certification.

(f) State and local enforcement of FCC regulations on use of citizens band radio equipment

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a State or local government may enact a statute or ordinance that prohibits a violation of the following regulations of the Commission under this section:

(A) A regulation that prohibits a use of citizens band radio equipment not authorized by the Commission.

(B) A regulation that prohibits the unauthorized operation of citizens band radio equipment on a frequency between 24 MHz and 35 MHz.

(2) A station that is licensed by the Commission pursuant to section 301 of this title in any radio service for the operation at issue shall not be subject to action by a State or local government under this subsection. A State or local government statute or ordinance enacted for purposes of this subsection shall identify the exemption available under this paragraph.

(3) The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, provide technical guidance to State and local governments regarding the detection and determination of violations of the regulations specified in paragraph (1).

(4)(A) In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, a person affected by the decision of a State or local government agency enforcing a statute or ordinance under paragraph (1) may submit to the Commission an appeal of the decision on the grounds that the State or local government, as the case may be, enacted a statute or ordinance outside the authority provided in this subsection.

(B) A person shall submit an appeal on a decision of a State or local government agency to the Commission under this paragraph, if at all, not later than 30 days after the date on which the decision by the State or local government agency becomes final, but prior to seeking judicial review of such decision.

(C) The Commission shall make a determination on an appeal submitted under subparagraph (B) not later than 180 days after its submittal.

(D) If the Commission determines under subparagraph (C) that a State or local government agency has acted outside its authority in enforcing a statute or ordinance, the Commission shall preempt the decision enforcing the statute or ordinance.

(5) The enforcement of statute or ordinance that prohibits a violation of a regulation by a State or local government under paragraph (1) in a particular case shall not preclude the Commission from enforcing the regulation in that case concurrently.

(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to diminish or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Commission under this section over devices capable of interfering with radio communications.

(7) The enforcement of a statute or ordinance by a State or local government under paragraph (1) with regard to citizens band radio equipment on board a “commercial motor vehicle”, as defined in section 31101 of title 49, shall require probable cause to find that the commercial motor vehicle or the individual operating the vehicle is in violation of the regulations described in paragraph (1).

47 USC 320

§320. Stations liable to interfere with distress signals; designation and regulation

The Commission is authorized to designate from time to time radio stations the communications or signals of which, in its opinion, are liable to interfere with the transmission or reception of distress signals of ships. Such stations are required to keep a licensed radio operator listening in on the frequencies designated for signals of distress and radio communications relating thereto during the entire period the transmitter of such station is in operation.

47 USC 325

§ 325. False, fraudulent, or unauthorized transmissions (a) False distress signals; rebroadcasting programs No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall knowingly utter or transmit, or cause to be uttered or transmitted, any false or fraudulent signal of distress, or communication relating thereto, nor shall any broadcasting station rebroadcast the program or any part thereof of another broadcasting station without the express authority of the originating station.

47 USC 333

§333. Willful or malicious interference

No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government.

47 USC 502

Under 47 USC § 502, any person who willfully and knowingly violates a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission is subject to a maximum fine of $500 for each day on which a violation occurs. Two pertinent regulations are found in 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.701 and 15.9, which prohibit the use of radio devices to intercept or record conversations unless all parties to the conversation first consent.

47 USC 605

§605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications

(a) Practices prohibited

Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, (4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.

(b) Exceptions

The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the interception or receipt by any individual, or the assisting (including the manufacture or sale) of such interception or receipt, of any satellite cable programming for private viewing if—

(1) the programming involved is not encrypted; and

(2)(A) a marketing system is not established under which—

(i) an agent or agents have been lawfully designated for the purpose of authorizing private viewing by individuals, and

(ii) such authorization is available to the individual involved from the appropriate agent or agents; or

(B) a marketing system described in subparagraph (A) is established and the individuals receiving such programming has obtained authorization for private viewing under that system.

(c) Scrambling of Public Broadcasting Service programming

No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt satellite delivered programs included in the National Program Service of the Public Broadcasting Service and intended for public viewing by retransmission by television broadcast stations; except that as long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of the same program.

(d) Definitions

For purposes of this section—

(1) the term “satellite cable programming” means video programming which is transmitted via satellite and which is primarily intended for the direct receipt by cable operators for their retransmission to cable subscribers;

(2) the term “agent”, with respect to any person, includes an employee of such person;

(3) the term “encrypt”, when used with respect to satellite cable programming, means to transmit such programming in a form whereby the aural and visual characteristics (or both) are modified or altered for the purpose of preventing the unauthorized receipt of such programming by persons without authorized equipment which is designed to eliminate the effects of such modification or alteration;

(4) the term “private viewing” means the viewing for private use in an individual’s dwelling unit by means of equipment, owned or operated by such individual, capable of receiving satellite cable programming directly from a satellite;

(5) the term “private financial gain” shall not include the gain resulting to any individual for the private use in such individual’s dwelling unit of any programming for which the individual has not obtained authorization for that use; and

(6) the term “any person aggrieved” shall include any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming, and, in the case of a violation of paragraph (4) of subsection (e) of this section, shall also include any person engaged in the lawful manufacture, distribution, or sale of equipment necessary to authorize or receive satellite cable programming.

(e) Penalties; civil actions; remedies; attorney’s fees and costs; computation of damages; regulation by State and local authorities

(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.

(2) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such conviction and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent conviction.

(3)(A) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a) of this section or paragraph (4) of this subsection may bring a civil action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.

(B) The court—

(i) may grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a) of this section;

(ii) may award damages as described in subparagraph (C); and

(iii) shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.

(C)(i) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed, at the election of the aggrieved party, in accordance with either of the following subclauses;

(I) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator’s profits, the party aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator’s gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or

(II) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of subsection (a) of this section involved in the action in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just, and for each violation of paragraph (4) of this subsection involved in the action an aggrieved party may recover statutory damages in a sum not less than $10,000, or more than $100,000, as the court considers just.

(ii) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each violation of subsection (a) of this section.

(iii) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $250.

(4) Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, or direct-to-home satellite services, or is intended for any other activity prohibited by subsection (a) of this section, shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation.

(5) The penalties under this subsection shall be in addition to those prescribed under any other provision of this subchapter.

(6) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent any State, or political subdivision thereof, from enacting or enforcing any laws with respect to the importation, sale, manufacture, or distribution of equipment by any person with the intent of its use to assist in the interception or receipt of radio communications prohibited by subsection (a) of this section.

(f) Rights, obligations, and liabilities under other laws unaffected

Nothing in this section shall affect any right, obligation, or liability under title 17, any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, or any other applicable Federal, State, or local law.

(g) Universal encryption standard

The Commission shall initiate an inquiry concerning the need for a universal encryption standard that permits decryption of satellite cable programming intended for private viewing. In conducting such inquiry, the Commission shall take into account—

(1) consumer costs and benefits of any such standard, including consumer investment in equipment in operation;

(2) incorporation of technological enhancements, including advanced television formats;

(3) whether any such standard would effectively prevent present and future unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming;

(4) the costs and benefits of any such standard on other authorized users of encrypted satellite cable programming, including cable systems and satellite master antenna television systems;

(5) the effect of any such standard on competition in the manufacture of decryption equipment; and

(6) the impact of the time delay associated with the Commission procedures necessary for establishment of such standards.

(h) Rulemaking for encryption standard

If the Commission finds, based on the information gathered from the inquiry required by subsection (g) of this section, that a universal encryption standard is necessary and in the public interest, the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking to establish such a standard.

6 USC 195g: Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems Coordinator

(a) Coordinator

(1) In general

The Secretary shall designate an individual in a Senior Executive Service position (as defined in section 3132 of title 5) of the Department within the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans as the Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems Coordinator (in this section referred to as the “Coordinator”) and provide appropriate staff to carry out the responsibilities of the Coordinator.

(2) Responsibilities

The Coordinator shall-

(A) oversee and coordinate with relevant Department offices and components, including the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Office, on the development of guidance and regulations to counter threats associated with unmanned aircraft systems (in this section referred to as “UAS”) as described in section 124n of this title;

(B) promote research and development of counter UAS technologies in coordination within the Science and Technology Directorate;

(C) coordinate with the relevant components and offices of the Department, including the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, to ensure the sharing of information, guidance, and intelligence relating to countering UAS threats, counter UAS threat assessments, and counter UAS technology, including the retention of UAS and counter UAS incidents within the Department;

(D) serve as the Department liaison, in coordination with relevant components and offices of the Department, to the Department of Defense, Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement entities, and the private sector regarding the activities of the Department relating to countering UAS;

(E) maintain the information required under section 124n(g)(3) of this title; and

(F) carry out other related counter UAS authorities and activities under section 124n of this title, as directed by the Secretary.

(b) Coordination with applicable Federal laws

The Coordinator shall, in addition to other assigned duties, coordinate with relevant Department components and offices to ensure testing, evaluation, or deployment of a system used to identify, assess, or defeat a UAS is carried out in accordance with applicable Federal laws.

(c) Coordination with private sector

The Coordinator shall, among other assigned duties, working with the Office of Partnership and Engagement and other relevant Department offices and components, or other Federal agencies, as appropriate, serve as the principal Department official responsible for sharing to the private sector information regarding counter UAS technology, particularly information regarding instances in which counter UAS technology may impact lawful private sector services or systems.

18 USC 119

§119. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties

(a) In General.—Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available—

(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person; or

(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person,

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Definitions.—In this section—

(1) the term “restricted personal information” means, with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual;

(2) the term “covered person” means—

(A) an individual designated in section 1114;

(B) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may be, or was, serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate;

(C) an informant or witness in a Federal criminal investigation or prosecution; or

(D) a State or local officer or employee whose restricted personal information is made publicly available because of the participation in, or assistance provided to, a Federal criminal investigation by that officer or employee;

(3) the term “crime of violence” has the meaning given the term in section 16; and

(4) the term “immediate family” has the meaning given the term in section 115(c)(2).

18 USC 3121

§3121. General prohibition on pen register and trap and trace device use; exception

(a) In General.—Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

(b) Exception.—The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply with respect to the use of a pen register or a trap and trace device by a provider of electronic or wire communication service—

(1) relating to the operation, maintenance, and testing of a wire or electronic communication service or to the protection of the rights or property of such provider, or to the protection of users of that service from abuse of service or unlawful use of service; or

(2) to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of service; or (3) where the consent of the user of that service has been obtained.

(c) Limitation.—A government agency authorized to install and use a pen register or trap and trace device under this chapter or under State law shall use technology reasonably available to it that restricts the recording or decoding of electronic or other impulses to the dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information utilized in the processing and transmitting of wire or electronic communications so as not to include the contents of any wire or electronic communications.

(d) Penalty.—Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 USC §1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

18 USC 1362

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1362 is an expansive statute designed to protect any part of a communications system, including its transmission lines, that is either operated or controlled directly by the United States, and it protects any part of a private communications system that is used or is intended to be used by the United States for military or civil defense functions.

18 USC 1367

The 1986 Act added 18 U.S.C. § 1367, which makes it an offense to intentionally or maliciously interfere with the authorized operation of a communications or weather satellite, or to hinder any satellite transmission. This section is intended to cover interference with transmissions from the ground to the satellite and transmissions from the satellite to the ground. See S.Rep. No. 541, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 49 (1986). The penalty for this offense is a fine under Title 18 and imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The criminal prohibition does not apply to any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

18 USC 2510

§2510. Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication;

(3) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;

(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.¹

(5) “electronic, mechanical, or other device” means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication other than—

(a) any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business; or (ii) being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties;

(b) a hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal;

(6) “person” means any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation;

(7) “Investigative or law enforcement officer” means any officer of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses;

(8) “contents”, when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication;

(9) “Judge of competent jurisdiction” means—

(a) a judge of a United States district court or a United States court of appeals; and

(b) a judge of any court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who is authorized by a statute of that State to enter orders authorizing interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications;

(10) “communication common carrier” has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934;

(11) “aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed;

(12) “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—

(A) any wire or oral communication;

(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;

(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or

(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;

(13) “user” means any person or entity who—

(A) uses an electronic communication service; and

(B) is duly authorized by the provider of such service to engage in such use;

(14) “electronic communications system” means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo optical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications;

(15) “electronic communication service” means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;

(16) “readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not—

(A) scrambled or encrypted;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;

(17) “electronic storage” means—

(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and

(B) any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication;

(18) “aural transfer” means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception;

(19) “foreign intelligence information”, for purposes of section 2517(6) of this title, means—

(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against—

(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or

(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or

(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to—

(i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or

(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States;

(20) “protected computer” has the meaning set forth in section 1030; and

(21) “computer trespasser”—

(A) means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer; and

(B) does not include a person known by the owner or operator of the protected computer to have an existing contractual relationship with the owner or operator of the protected computer for access to all or part of the protected computer.

18 USC 2511

§2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—

(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or

(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or

(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or

(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;

(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e)(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), 2511(2)(b)–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—

(A) a court order directing such assistance or a court order pursuant to section 704 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 signed by the authorizing judge, or

(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.

(iii) If a certification under subparagraph (ii)(B) for assistance to obtain foreign intelligence information is based on statutory authority, the certification shall identify the specific statutory provision and shall certify that the statutory requirements have been met.

(b) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.

(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act.

(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—

(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;

(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) to engage in any conduct which—

(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or

(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or

(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

(h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter—

(i) to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206 (relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of this title); or

(ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.

(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if—

(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer;

(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;

(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the investigation; and

(IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.

(j) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a provider of electronic communication service to the public or remote computing service to intercept or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication in response to an order from a foreign government that is subject to an executive agreement that the Attorney General has determined and certified to Congress satisfies section 2523.

(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.

(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication—

(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517 of this title;

(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;

(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or

(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted—

(i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or

(ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls,

is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.

(5)(a)(i) If the communication is—

(A) a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of that communication and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain; or

(B) a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, then the person who engages in such conduct shall be subject to suit by the Federal Government in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(ii) In an action under this subsection—

(A) if the violation of this chapter is a first offense for the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and such person has not been found liable in a civil action under section 2520 of this title, the Federal Government shall be entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and

(B) if the violation of this chapter is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or such person has been found liable in any prior civil action under section 2520, the person shall be subject to a mandatory $500 civil fine.

(b) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (ii)(A), and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of such an injunction.

49 USC 44903

Air transportation security

C-UAS Hub – online hub for Counter-UAS and airspace awareness vendors, products, services, news, jobs, and resources.

C-UAS Hub

Some great articles:

What is Counter-UAS?

A Comprehensive Approach to Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The Emergence of the Counter-UAS Industry

Bills that have been introduced to US Congress, but are still working their way through the system to become laws, are:

S.4687 – Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act of 2022 – 117th Congress (2021-2022)

H.R.8949 – Counter-UAS Authority Extension and Transparency Enhancement Act of 2022 – 117th Congress (2021-2022)

S.3542 – Drone Act of 2022 – 117th Congress (2021-2022)

Continuing Resolution Extends DHS and DOJ C-UAS Authority – H.R. 6363, the “Further Continuing Appropriates and Other Extensions Act, 2024,” was passed by both the House and Senate on November 2023 and signed by President Biden. The legislation extends the C-UAS Authority for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) until February 3, 2024. The authority was set to expire on November 18, 2023. The authorities for the two federal agencies have been extended multiple times since the authorities were initially set to expire in October 2022. The authorities were established under The Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, codified as 6 U.S. Code Section 124n(i).

2024 – FBI and CISA warn companies to be wary of using Chinese-made drones over national security risks

American Security Drone Act of 2023

American Security Drone Act of 2023

This bill bans the procurement or use by the federal government of UAS that are manufactured or assembled by certain foreign entities, including entities subject to influence or control by China, with exceptions. The ban includes associated elements that enable the operator to operate the aircraft in the NAS. The DHS, the DoD, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the DOJ are exempt from the restriction under specified circumstances. The bill sets forth further exemptions regarding the DOT, the FAA, the NTSB, and the NOAA. All executive agencies must account for existing inventories of UAS manufactured or assembled by a covered foreign entity in their personal property accounting systems. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall prescribe regulations or guidance to implement this bill’s requirements pertaining to federal contracts. Government-issued purchase cards may not be used to procure any UAS from a covered foreign entity. The Office of Management and Budget shall establish a government-wide policy for the procurement of UAS, taking into account information security. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment must report to Congress on the supply chain for certain UAS.

The bill terminates five years after enactment.

Information for Foreign Drone Operators

These are the rules you need to observe if you are not a US citizen and plan to bring your drone with you when you visit the US.

Federal Drone Laws

49 USC § 46320

Interference with wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response effort by operation of unmanned aircraft

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), an individual who operates an unmanned aircraft and in so doing knowingly or recklessly interferes with a wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response effort is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $20,000.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—This section does not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft conducted by a unit or agency of the United States Government or of a State, tribal, or local government (including any individual conducting such operation pursuant to a contract or other agreement entered into with the unit or agency) for the purpose of protecting the public safety and welfare, including firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response.

(c) COMPROMISE AND SETOFF.—

(1) COMPROMISE.—The United States Government may compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under this section.

(2) SETOFF.—The United States Government may deduct the amount of a civil penalty imposed or compromised under this section from the amounts the Government owes the person liable for the penalty.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) WILDFIRE.—The term ‘‘wildfire’’ has the meaning given that term in section 2 of the Emergency Wildfire Suppression Act (42 U.S.C. 1856m).

(2) WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION.—The term ‘‘wildfire suppression’’ means an effort to contain, extinguish, or suppress a wildfire.

USDA Forest Service Drone Laws

The USDA FS is highly interested in new technologies and believes there is potential to fly UAS to support a host of natural resource management activities, including forest health protection, wildfire suppression, research, recreational impacts, and law enforcement. In addition, other federal, state, and local agencies; researchers; businesses; members of the public; and others are interested in flying UAS on National Forest System lands for a variety of purposes.

The FAA has regulatory authority over all airspace. The US Forest Service is working to integrate UAS in furthering the agency’s mission and to provide for UAS flights by other entities on National Forest System lands in alignment with FAA regulations. The FAA and the US Forest Service consider all UAS, regardless of size or weight, to be aircraft. All UAS flown on National Forest System lands must comply with FAA and US Forest Service laws, regulations, and policies.

Firefighting aircraft – such as air attack aircraft, lead planes, air tankers and helicopters – typically fly in smoky, windy, and turbulent conditions. Safety depends on knowing what other aircraft are operating in the airspace and where they are always. This is compromised by the presence of unauthorized UAS.

Tips for Drone Operators on National Forests

Whether you call it a Drone, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), or Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), the following information applies to unmanned motorized equipment and aerial mechanical transport systems–a.k.a. drones–within most National Forests across the nation.

Individuals and organizations may fly drones for hobby or recreational purposes in compliance with Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) regulations.  Drones may be flown over and within the Coconino National Forest as long as the drone operator follows certain rules:

• Keep your drone within your visual line of sight at all times.
• Do not fly your drone within 5 miles of a towered airport (unless authorization from the Airport Manager is obtained).
• Drones must be flown below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles.
• Drones are not permitted to fly in areas that have Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), in place. Operators are responsible for knowing what TFRs are currently in place.
• Never fly your drone over or in close proximity to any fire operation (wildfire or prescribed burn). It is illegal to do so, and flights over fire operations disrupt aerial firefighting operations, creating hazardous conditions and grounding aerial resources, which means they can’t fight the fire any longer. Individuals who fly a drone without authorization over wildfires may be violating federal, state, and/or local laws, regulations, and ordinances, whether a TFR is in place or not. All unauthorized drone flights over wildfires on National Forest System lands will be reported to the FAA and law enforcement agencies. Individuals who have been determined to have endangered manned aircraft or people on the ground with a drone and/or interfered with wildfire suppression may be subject to civil penalties, including fines above $25,000, and potentially criminal prosecution. In short–don’t do it.
• The Forest Service regularly flies aircraft at low altitudes to perform natural resource management. It is the drone operator’s responsibility to be aware of these flights and take the steps necessary to avoid them. Contact the local Ranger District Office or the FAA for scheduled flights in the area.
• Do not fly over or near wildlife as this can create stress that may cause significant harm, and even death. Intentional disturbance of animals during breeding, nesting, rearing of young, or other critical life history functions is not allowed unless approved as research or management.
• Launch your drone more than 100 meters (328 feet) from wildlife.  Do not approach animals or birds vertically with your drone.
• The FAA is the authorizing agency for all U.S. airspace. New regulations regarding UAS (drones) can happen any time, so it’s your responsibility to check with the FAA for current specific rules and regulations.
• Wilderness areas have specific regulations, which are below:

Wilderness Areas

Drones cannot launch from, land in, or be operated from a designated Wilderness Area. This does not mean drones cannot fly over a Wilderness Area, but there are a couple of considerations you should take as a drone operator in that case. Designated Wilderness Areas are places people specifically seek out for the solitude and quiet they provide. Please be respectful and fly high enough (up to 400 feet) to respect the tranquility that should be reserved for Wilderness Areas.

Broadcast Media Drone Use

When accredited media wants to use a drone to cover a story on the Coconino National Forest land, they should contact the Public Affairs Officer.  The PAO will coordinate with the Fire & Aviation Air Resource Manager to make sure Fire Dispatch and District personnel are aware of the request and upcoming use. Any drone use by media to cover a story on a current wildfire will need to be coordinated through the Incident Management Team (IMT) assigned to the wildfire, which has its own public affairs staff and air resource manager. National Forest PAOs can get media representatives connected to the right contacts on IMTs.

For a complete set of rules you can visit the USDA FS Website.

National Park Service UAS Laws

UAS use has sometimes resulted in noise and nuisance complaints from park visitors, park visitor safety concerns, and one documented incident in which park wildlife were harassed. Small drones have crashed in geysers in Yellowstone National Park, attempted to land on the features of Mount Rushmore National Memorial, been lost over the edge of the Grand Canyon, and been stopped from flying in Prohibited Airspace over the Mall in Washington DC.

Policy Memorandum 14-05, released by the NPS director in June 2014, directed each superintendent to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to prohibit the launching, landing, or operation of unmanned aircraft, subject to the certain conditions and exceptions set forth in the memo. This is still in force with a very few exceptions.

This action applies to the launching, landing, and operation of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS. Jurisdiction by the NPS ends at the park boundary. The policy memorandum does not modify any requirement imposed by the FAA on the use or operation of unmanned aircraft in the NAS.

US Fish and Wildlife Drone Laws

US Fish and Wildlife laws

Launching, landing or disturbing wildlife by aircraft (drones) on national wildlife refuges is prohibited. Drone operators should not rely solely on applications such as AirMap, DJI Go or B4UFly to determine if a location is legal for drone use. Such applications do not always capture accurate locations of public lands where drones are prohibited. Contact the refuge manager if you have questions. The use of drones on or from refuge-administered lands for the purpose of taking commercial photography requires a permit in accordance with 43 CFR 5.1-12

Tribal Sovereignty and Drones

US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 – “The Congress shall have Power To … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Navajo Nation Drone laws – The Navajo Nation Transportation UAV Policy (RDCD-107-18) was approved on December 27, 2018.

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation – permits

2016 – Protecting Tribal Skies: Why Indian Tribes possess the Sovereign Authority to regulate Tribal Airspace

Environmental Laws

April 2021 – FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies

UAS Litigation

Short Essay Questions