Part 107 is finally out!

I always seem to be in a remote location with limited access to the internet whenever important news breaks.  Of course, today’s release of Part 107 was expected.  It was also expected that there would be few surprises, but there are some things that are worth noting:

While the altitude restriction is 400 ft AGL as opposed to 500 ft, you can fly higher if you are within 400 feet of a taller structure.  This makes sense when considering the number of drones that will be used for things like cellphone tower inspections.

The FAA will create a portal to apply for waivers of restrictions.

The FAA is creating a new certification, called “Remote Pilot Airman” certificate.  The good news is that the operator does not need to have the certificate as long as he is operating under the direct supervision of someone who does.  We are waiting to see what the aeronautical knowledge test will consist of.

While the FAA concedes that it does not regulate privacy issues, it intends to come out with some “best practices” on privacy.  It remains to be seen what those will be.

Of course, once the rule goes into effect, a Section 333 exemption will no longer be necessary to comply with what the FAA says is required to operate commercially.

For regular updates and commentary, on Part 107 and on other matters, follow us on Twitter at @dronelawdotcom.


Is Gun Drone Teen’s Challenge to FAA Subpoena Legally Sound?

Jason Koebler has another useful and informative story on a current development in the area of drone law.  This one concerns the “gun drone” teenager, Austin Haughwout, and he and his family’s challenge to an FAA subpoena demanding, among other things, “photographs and video, receipts for the flamethrower, YouTube audience, advertising, and monetization information. . . .”

The FAA is petitioning a federal judge to enforce its subpoena, which included a subpoena for depositions in New Haven.  The Haughwout’s opening brief in response (which cites this blog in a footnote) raises two arguments: (1) the FAA exceeded its regulatory authority by defining drones as “aircraft”; and, or alternatively, (2) the subpoena is unconstitutional as applied under the Commerce Clause of Article I.

For reasons that we discussed in this post and this post in the wake of the decision of the NTSB administrative appeals court in Pirker, this looks like a steep hill to climb.  Taking the second argument first, the Supreme Court practically slammed the door shut on limits to the Commerce Clause in Gonzalez v. Raich.  As we said here, the real question these days is, where does the Commerce Clause not extend?

Or, perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask, will the courts ever meaningfully limit the reach of the Commerce Clause? The Court did draw a line in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, but it was essentially rendered meaningless by the Court’s more memorable, alternative ruling that the Obamacare mandate could be construed as a tax.

Thus, unfortunately, the trend has been against the Haughwouts and, in any event, a court will decline to rule on a Constitutional question that can be resolved by statutory interpretation.  It would therefore take a judge of extraordinary courage to tell the FAA that is has overstepped its Constitutional bounds.

This brings us to the first question raised in the Haughwouts’ brief: Has the FAA overstepped its statutory authority by defining drones as “aircraft”?  The argument centers on the FAA’s interpretation of its “organic statute” at 49 U.S.C. §40101, and whether the FAA has overreached by defining drones as “aircraft”.  It also relies on a critique of the NTSB decision in Pirker II as having been wrongly decided.

This isn’t a bad question to raise.  Since the Pirker case settled, the question never went before an Article III court, and therefore remains unresolved.  Given that the question is to be argued at a hearing on July 6, I will not comment on the merits of this argument.

Surprisingly, we can find no discussion of FMRA Section 336, which bars the FAA from promulgating any regulation regarding model aircraft, the only exception being that nothing in Section 336 “shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”

We’re sure that the Haughwouts’ attorneys had good reasons for omitting any discussion of Section 336, but it’s certainly something that we would have considered raising.  The statute clearly evidences an intent by Congress to limit the FAA’s enforcement authority to threats to the NAS.  A battery-powered drone, being operated just above ground in a privately-owned forest, does not seem like a threat to the NAS, gun or no gun, flamethrower or no flamethrower.

Mr. Koebler correctly thinks that this might be the most important drone law case currently pending.

The story is also covered here by Ars Technica.

Who Is Being Fined By the FAA?

Jason Koebler of Motherboard made good use of FOIA and put together some useful information in a series of articles that are worth reading in detail:

Here, he reports on a list of every drone pilot that has ever been fined by the FAA:

The documents the FAA sent me show that the fine for flying a drone recklessly vary wildly: Some hobbyists have settled with the FAA for as little as $400, while others, such as the man who crashed his drone on the White House lawn, have paid as much as $5,500.

More commonly, the FAA fines people between $1,100 and $2,200 and, if it receives pushback, offers to settle for much less. Commercial operators have been fined as much as $1.9 million.

Among the interesting facts he reports is that the vast majority of fines are coming from the FAA’s Eastern Regional office.  What is it about the East Coast that makes it special? Tall buildings? More media attention?

I don’t want to detract from the excellent work, here, so go and read the whole thing.

Another article reports on the only licensed manned aircraft pilot in America who has had his license suspended (not revoked – the headline editor apparently doesn’t know the difference) for flying a drone.  Incredible.

The third article notes that the FAA has yet to fine anyone for flying commercially.  This may seem surprising, but it’s really not.  Koebler asked a former FAA counsel:

Loretta Alkalay, who was in charge of the FAA’s legal operations for the eastern region for more than 20 years, told me that the documents I showed her suggest the FAA doesn’t think it has legal standing to win a case that doesn’t involve reckless flight.

“I think it’s pretty obvious the FAA doesn’t think it can win a case on this whole commercial issue, which is why they haven’t really pushed it,” Alkalay told me.

That is probably why the FAA seems to treat FAR 91.13 as a catch-all for seeking fines against drone operators, but only sends cease and desist and educational letters to persons who are operating commercially without a Section 333.

The FAA’s Drone Registration Requirement: A Brief Review


A 12-year old boy opens a large package under the tree as his mom looks on with a tired smile.  “A drone!” the boy exclaims. “Just what I wanted! Thanks, Mom! Can I fly it, now? Can I, please?”

“I’m sorry, hon,” his mom sighs, “but you’re going to have to wait. Daddy’s still on the FAA website.”

And there you have it.  For the first time in the history of Christmas, an agency of the United States government will require you to register your child’s toy before he can begin to play with it.

Why?  Good question.

Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 contains an express prohibition, that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft. . . .”  We naively assumed that, when Congress says that an agency “may not” do a thing, the agency indeed “may not” do it.

But nothing will upset the Constitutional order of the Republic faster than a bout of media-driven hysteria. The FAA has taken the position that all drones – including what were traditionally called model aircraft – are “aircraft” within the meaning of the Federal Air Regulations.  Taking its cue from panic over sightings of drones coming too close to manned aircraft, the FAA suddenly decided that 49 U.S.C. § 44102 gives it the authority to require registration of all drones, regardless of whether they are operated recreationally or professionally.

A task force of very capable individuals was quickly set up to provide recommendations to the FAA on drone registration.  Their proposal was subjected to a lightning-fast comment period which, depending on who you ask, may or may not have violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Final Interim Rule (a title which leads us to suppose that the rule isn’t FINAL final) on drone registration has been published, here.

The putative purpose of the registration requirement:

The estimate for 2015 sales indicates that 1.6 million small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as model aircraft are expected to be sold this year (including approximately 50 percent of that total during the fourth quarter of 2015). With this rapid proliferation of new sUAS will come an unprecedented number of new sUAS owners and operators who are new to aviation and thus have no understanding of the NAS [National Airspace System – ed.] or the safety requirements for operating in the NAS.

The risk of unsafe operation will increase as more small unmanned aircraft enter the NAS. Registration will provide a means by which to quickly identify these small unmanned aircraft in the event of an incident or accident involving the sUAS. Registration of small unmanned aircraft also provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the agency to educate sUAS owners on safety requirements before they begin operating.

Let’s unpack that last paragraph:

1) The risk of unsafe operation will increase as more small unmanned aircraft enter the NAS.

Well, maybe. The fact is that we don’t really know. Numerous reports of “drone strikes” on manned aircraft have turned out to be false.  In any event, Congress expressly prohibited any “rule or regulation” concerning model aircraft.  We are unaware of the FAA’s authority to circumvent Congress.  Indeed, it is almost laughable that the FAA seized the authority to require registration while claiming, for example, that it lacks statutory authority to waive the airman certification requirement under Section 333 or to waive the registration fee requirement for model aircraft.

2) Registration will provide a means by which to quickly identify these small unmanned aircraft in the event of an incident or accident involving the sUAS.

This makes two very large assumptions, neither of which is likely to be valid.  First, there have been almost no incidents of alleged threats to the NAS in which the offending drone has been recovered.  Without recovery, there will be no identification.

Second, it assumes 100% compliance with the registration requirement.  We frankly doubt that the level of compliance will be anything approaching 100%.  We especially doubt that those who are intent on causing harm or, at least, mischief, are likely to comply.

3) Registration of small unmanned aircraft also provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the agency to educate sUAS owners on safety requirements before they begin operating.

This might be true if the rule had either a point of sale requirement (unworkable) or required a device that prevented the drone from being operated before it was registered (some drone companies build this sort of requirement into their devices).  But the rule does neither.

In addition to being likely ineffective and almost certainly contrary to law, the FAA registry will present a significant likelihood of exposing private data to the public.

The drone registration site is here.

The deadlines for compliance is December 21, 2015 for drones that are intended to be used exclusively as model aircraft but never flown, February 19, 2016 for drones that have been previously operated as model aircraft.

Merry Christmas!

FAA Publishes Drone Registration Rules

Other than a few blurbs on Twitter, I haven’t had much to say about the pending rules on drone registration, primarily because it was unclear to me just how it could work, especially vis a vis hobbyists.  And it seemed especially unlikely to achieve the putative goal of allowing authorities to trace drones that endanger other aircraft back to their owners.

As I have said in the past, where the burden imposed by a regulation significantly outweighs the chance of getting caught, the likely result will be a lot of non-compliance.  And, as with many things, the people who do comply are unlikely to be the people that you need to worry about.

But I also know some of the stakeholders who participated in crafting the rule, and I wanted to wait and give them the benefit of the doubt.  They were given an enormous task, and very little time to come up with a solution.

Following a breakneck rule-making timeline, the interim final rule on drone registration has now been published.  It goes into effect next Monday.

FAA Grants Section 333 Exemption for Paper Airplane

Yes, you read that correctly.  The FAA got massively trolled by Peter Sachs, who applied for and received a Section 333 Exemption to commercially operate a PowerUp 3.0 Smart Phone-controlled paper airplane.  From the article by John Goglia:

His exemption allows him to “conduct aerial photography and videography” with the powered paper airplane so long as he meets dozens of conditions specified in the exemption and attached certificate of authorization. I asked the FAA for comment on whether granting the exemption indicates that the FAA considers a powered paper airplane an unmanned aircraft system, or UAS. An FAA spokesperson responded that “Mr. Sachs submitted a valid petition for exemption, and we granted the requested relief.”

And while Mr. Sachs has a helicopter pilot’s license, he is not current, which means that, in order to operate his paper airplane, he will need to spend thousands of dollars to become current or to hire a pilot.

You can read the exemption and application, here.

This brings to mind the ruling of the law judge in the Pirker case, wherein he found that the FAA’s position, vis a vis regulation of model aircraft, would lead to the “risible argument that a flight in the air of, e.g., a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider, could subject the ‘operator’ to the regulatory provisions of [14 C.F.R. part 91 and] Section 91.13(a).”  As we know, an appellate panel at the NTSB rejected that notion.

Well, now we know.

About that handgun-firing drone

A knucklehead in Connecticut has caused quite the media firestorm over his video of a semi-automatic handgun being fired from a small drone.  I have received some media inquiries about whether it is legal or not.  The answer is that it depends.

Based on the video, it appears that this occurred on private property, away from any buildings or people.  The FAA does not seem to have a regulation that would prohibit discharging a firearm from a drone under those circumstances.

The closest thing you will find is FAR § 91.13, which prohibits the reckless operation of an aircraft (the FAA relied on this section in the Rafael Pirker case), and § 91.15, which prohibits dropping objects from an aircraft.  But both regulations apply only where the activity poses a danger to life or property.  That does not appear to be the case, here.

The more likely resource for determining the legality of this particular drone would be state law governing the handling and discharge of firearms.  These regulations vary by state, but in general one would look to whether a firearm was discharged in a reckless manner that posed a danger to others, or in a built-up area or an area zoned for housing.  You can review Florida’s law, here.

Does this presage the weaponization of private drones?  I doubt it.  The video seems to vindicate something I wrote back in October:

[A] small drone is unlikely to be a useful weapons platform. As anyone who has fired a gun can attest, the kickback from discharging a firearm would be just as likely to send a small drone tumbling out of the sky as it would be for the drone to hit its intended target.

The video proves the point.  The operator does not have any reasonable semblance of control over the weapon, and at one point he clearly seems to be downrange of the weapon.  That’s a big no-no among gun owners.

Having said that, I could foresee someone developing an “FPV drone paint-ball” war game (patent pending).  Where that would fit with FAA regulations and state firearms law might be a topic for another post.

sUAS Apples to Amazon Oranges

Amazon Prime Air

Two news items on drone rules have some reporters comparing sUAS apples to Amazon oranges. The first is that, yes, hallelujah, the FAA expects to finalize its sUAS rules within a year.  The other news is the congressional testimony of Amazon VP Paul Misener that his company’s drone delivery technology will be ready to roll out in about a year, as well.

Several reporters, including the one cited above, have leapt to the conclusion that Amazon PrimeAir can start deliveries as soon as the final sUAS rule has been published.  See here and here.  Not so fast.

The NPRM that will be finalized next year only contemplates flights that are remotely operated by a single pilot, within visual line of sight.  While the NPRM invites comments on using drones for air carriers, Amazon’s PrimeAir business plan contemplates something much more complex – multiple, autonomous flights, well beyond visual line of sight.

The Daily Mail, of all publications, gets it right – that the launch of PrimeAir will completely depend on the FAA making major changes to the proposed rules. It is therefore highly unlikely that the final sUAS rule will address Amazon’s proposed method for drone delivery.

In fact, it is more likely that the FAA would issue an entirely separate NPRM for autonomous drone delivery services like that contemplated by Amazon. This would, in turn, be subject to the usual notice and comment period.

The upshot is that, while we are thankfully only a year away from having a final sUAS rule for remote-controlled, visual line of sight operations, we are, unfortunately, probably still years away from autonomous drone deliveries.

This could change, of course, should Congress decide to intervene. But for now, no such discussion appears to be on the table.

Florida’s New Drone Law: Fulltime Employment for Lawyers?

Nothing can kill the growth of the commercial drone industry so much as bad laws and misguided regulations. And much as we discuss the issues surrounding federal regulation of drones, the industry faces equally difficult challenges at the state level, where an odd coalition of reactionaries from both the left and far-right have clamored for strict regulations on the use of drones, if not outright bans. State legislators are feeling the heat.

The Lawyers are lapping at my doorstep!Enter Florida’s new drone law.

Last week, Governor Scott signed Senate Bill 766 – called the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (“FUSA”) – into law.  This new law adds language to Florida’s existing drone law, found at Section 934.50, Florida Statutes, providing for additional protections against drone surveillance, as well as providing a private right of action for violations.

Some have warned that the law will lead to a wave of litigation. For reasons that I will explain in a moment, I am not so sure. In any event, the law is definitely an example of poor draftsmanship, and it unfairly targets drone technology in a way that seems hypocritical. But its scope does not appear to be as broad as others have suggested.

First, some background:

In Florida v. Riley, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a police officer did not conduct a “search”, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, when he observed a marijuana grow house from a helicopter that crossed the defendant’s property at 400 feet AGL (does that number seem familiar?). Relying on its prior opinion in California v. Ciraolo, in which police inspected the backyard of a house from a fixed-wing aircraft that was flying at 1,000 feet, the Court reasoned that “the home and its curtilage are not necessarily protected from inspection that involves no physical invasion.”

One might not like it, but for nearly three decades Riley and Ciraolo have been the standard for what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy on property as viewed from the air.

Thus, perhaps the most striking aspect of Florida’s FUSA is that it creates a “drone exception” to Riley and Ciraolo:

A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such persons reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

In other words, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you’re observed from a manned aircraft, but you do have such an expectation of privacy when observed from a drone. Go figure.

The statute contains a number of exceptions, such as when law enforcement has obtained a search warrant or when exigent circumstances exist. It also enumerates exceptions for commercial operations, such as land surveys, power grid inspections and, oddly enough, cargo delivery.

But the first commercial exception paragraph is likely to cause some problems.  It starts out well enough, excepting images captured:

By a person or an entity engaged in a business or profession licensed by the state, or by an agent, employee, or contractor thereof, if the drone is used only to perform reasonable tasks within the scope of practice or activities permitted under such person’s or entity’s license.

That would seem to cover realtors, doctors, and lawyers, right?  I’m just kidding. Lawyers and doctors don’t really need to spy on people.

Well, actually, lawyers do hire “agents” and “contractors” to spy on people. They’re called private investigators. And herein lies a problem:

However, this exception does not apply to a profession in which the licensee’s authorized scope of practice includes obtaining information about the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation, or character of any society, person, or group of persons.

In other words, if you’re a licensed private investigator, No exception for you! Which, by extension, means that lawyers also don’t get an exception. Unless they’re lawyers for the state, in which case they can get a search warrant. See how that works?

Speaking as a litigation professional, this is rather silly. Private Investigators are often called to check on whether someone is actually residing at a particular residence, or is hiding out to avoid service of process. Perhaps the legislature couldn’t figure out how to carve a narrow enough exception, or perhaps too many legislatures have been burned by divorce lawyers?

But the part that’s causing a lot of heartburn is the civil remedies provision:

The owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property may initiate a civil action for compensatory damages for violations of this section and may seek injunctive relief to prevent future violations of this section against a person, state agency, or political subdivision that violates paragraph (3)(b). In such action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees from the nonprevailing party based on the actual and reasonable time expended by his or her attorney billed at an appropriate hourly rate and, in cases in which the payment of such a fee is contingent on the outcome, without a multiplier, unless the action is tried to verdict, in which case a multiplier of up to twice the actual value of the time expended may be awarded in the discretion of the trial court.

This sounds scary, and it is. Attorney’s fees typically add up to an amount that is many times an actual damages award for these kind statutory remedies.  Some have suggested that the mere threat of a civil lawsuit poses a major hindrance to the development of commercial drones.  But does it really?

Let’s go back and look at what the statute prohibits: It says that a person

may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image. . . .

So, a plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant had a specific intent to conduct surveillance on the person or property captured in the image. In other words, you’re not liable for capturing images by mistake, or even incidentally. You have to have a specific intent to conduct surveillance.

That is likely to be a very tough standard for a plaintiff to meet. Discerning plaintiff lawyers (and there are many, believe it or not) might decide it’s not worth the trouble.

But keep in mind that (a) there are a lot of hungry lawyers on the street; (b) questions regarding intent are put to juries; and (c) juries have a way of being unpredictable. So, you might have a lot to think about.

If you have concerns about compliance with Florida’s new FUSA, don’t hesitate to drop me a line or give me a call, via the “Contact” page at the top.

UPDATE: Every so often, I need to remind readers that nothing on this blog should be taken as legal advice. My posts are intended to provide the public with general information, and some light academic discussion. If you need legal advice, please call a lawyer.

Has the FAA Claimed Jurisdiction Over Indoor Airspace?

Words have consequences.

Recently, I reported on remarks from a panel of experts on sUAS integration at the AUVSI expo in Atlanta. One of the more interesting comments came from the FAA’s director of sUAS integration, James Williams, who said that navigable airspace is wherever an aircraft can safely operate. And because Congress chose to define sUAS as “aircraft” in the FMRA, anywhere a small drone could fly safely is, therefore, navigable airspace.

The FAA uses this tautology to justify its claim of jurisdiction over all airspace, from the ground up, regardless of whether a discrete area is surrounded by trees or buildings that would make navigation impossible for a manned aircraft. But the weakness in this argument becomes apparent when taken to its logical conclusion, that the FAA may also claim jurisdiction over indoor airspace.

I have heard from a number of commercial operators who have been hired to conduct inspections inside of large warehouses, for example.  We also know, based on public comments, that Amazon has been testing its PrimeAir drones in the U.S. in enclosed spaces. Obviously, these are spaces where drones can safely operate.

So, why hasn’t the FAA claimed jurisdiction over indoor airspace?

The obvious answer is that indoor operations do not threaten the national airspace system (“NAS”) (we discussed the scope of the NAS here and here). But that just begs the soundness of the FAA’s reasoning.  The criteria should not be whether a drone can safely operate in a given area, but whether operating in a given area poses any kind of danger to the NAS.

We understand that the FAA has a difficult job to do.  But that’s no excuse for engaging in administrative overreach.