Another Drone Bill Seeks ‘Local Control’ Of Unmanned Aircraft

Written by Betsy Lillian - June 19, 2017

Another bill seeking to spread the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) down to the state and
local levels has been proposed.

Introduced by U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis, R-Minn., the Drone Innovation Act, H.R.2930, addresses the
operation of drones flying below 200 feet in altitude and “within the lateral boundaries of a state, local or
tribal government’s jurisdiction.”

Although it recognizes that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “retains control over the national
airspace,” the legislation directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) secretary to “work with
state and local officials to develop a framework for local operation … to encourage innovation and protect
privacy.”

According to a press release from Lewis, the congressman “seeks to balance the principles of local control
and a right to privacy with a need to continue encouraging American innovation in cutting-edge
technology.”

“America continues to lead the world in technological advances. It’s clear to me that drones have a
growing role to play in interstate commerce, and that’s vital to maintaining our economic strength at
home and competitiveness on the world stage,” he says in the release. “The Drone Innovation Act will
promote that spirit of invention by establishing a clear framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft
systems. Importantly, my legislation also lays out clear protections for your right to privacy and gives
local governments the primary responsibility in forming guidelines for how drones can be used in our
communities.”

According to a summary of the bill, the framework developed by the DOT secretary and local officials
would maintain the FAA’s “preemptive authority over existing statutes” but would direct the agency to
“preserve traditional state and local interests.” These include “protecting public safety, personal privacy
and property; managing land use; and restricting nuisances and noise.”

Specifically, the summary states that the framework would do as follows:

“Help harmonize and standardize reasonable time, manner, and place limitations and restrictions across
the nation;
Create an environment that is friendly to innovation and fosters rapid integration of UAS; [and]
Aid states in adopting unmanned traffic management (UTM) and making limitations publicly available
to all users.”

The bill says this policy framework would be published in the Federal Register six months after the
legislation is enacted.

3 The bill argues that local governments should be able to deal with potential drone issues on their own
terms: Specifically, the legislation says they “may find and implement more innovation-friendly policy
x
Would love your
than federal thoughts,
agencies” please
and that comment.
“problems that are merely common to the state, local and tribal
governments will not justify federal action.”
 However, the summary of the bill notes that the act would not interfere with first responders’ drone
operations or prevent the FAA from issuing Temporary Flight Restrictions or from “pursuing action against
unsafe UAS operators.”

In addition, it would not affect drone operations taking place on one’s own property or “right of way,” and
it would “preserve state and federal statutes and common law rights.” However, it would keep the FAA
from “authorizing the operation of an unmanned aircraft in local airspace above a property without
permission of the owner.”

The Drone Innovation Act would also establish pilot programs in which 20-30 state/local/tribal
governments would partner with the DOT secretary to create a report on best practices for other
state/local/tribal governments on their regulation of drones. The report would need to be submitted to
Congress within 18 months of the program’s establishment. Further, the legislation would also ensure that
NASA consults with the pilot program participants in the development of UAS traffic management.

Legislation seeking to empower local authorities to regulate drones is nothing new: Just last week, for
example, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International and 13 other organizations sent a
letter to members of Congress to warn them of “dramatic, unintended consequences” of a similar bill
rolled out last month, the Drone Federalism Act.

Similarly, the Drone Federalism Act would “establish a process for federal, state, local and tribal
governments to work together to manage the use of recreational and commercial drones,” but the UAS
stakeholders opposing the bill argued that a “consistent framework, agreed upon by all parties involved, is
essential for the future regulatory system governing one of the fastest-growing areas in the aerospace
and technology sectors.”

Even back in 2015, California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have created a no-fly zone for
drones 350 feet or fewer above private property in the state. At the Drone World Expo, industry
stakeholders extensively discussed the federal preemption topic at a session entitled “Emerging state
legislation: solution or quagmire?”

This latest legislation, which was introduced on June 16, is co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Julia Brownley, D-
Calif.; Todd Rokita, R-Ind.; and John Garamendi, D-Calif.

In a statement, Brownley remarks, “Congress needs to do more to spur innovation in this exciting new
field of aviation while, at the same time, promoting the safe integration of unmanned systems into the
national airspace. As this process moves forward, it’s important that we explore the proper role of state
and local governments in helping to foster innovation. The pilot program created by the bill would be one
step that can help lead us forward.”

Though many in the drone industry have long been advocating for one set of federal rules governing UAS
operations, rather than a “patchwork” across the nation, Dr. Greg McNeal, co-founder of AirMap and
professor of law and public policy at Pepperdine University, brings up a point: “If the FAA itself thinks
federal preemption doesn’t have a future, the drone industry has to ask itself, ‘What is a reasonable
compromise?’”

In a statement to UAO, McNeal explains that the agency has already “declined to formally and completely
preempt regulations by state and local governments.”

3 “In fact,” he continues, “the FAA appears to be weighing an expanded role for state and local authorities.”

x
Would love
To serve thisyour thoughts,
point, pleaseFAA
McNeal quotes comment.
Administrator Michael Huerta himself, who said at a recent DAC
meeting that there must be more collaboration with state/local authorities in order to get their take on
how they can become more involved with UAS rulemaking.
 “We are open to looking at the question of how we can resolve this … The first thing we need to
understand is what it is what exactly the state and local governments would like to [control] and how can
we find a way to coexist,” Huerta reportedly said.

Pointing back to the Drone Innovation Act, McNeal says, “We now know what state and local governments
are asking for: the right to make reasonable time, manner and place rules.”

In turn, he suggests looking at the newly proposed legislation pragmatically: “We can spend the next
decade in the courts, trying to secure federal preemption while fighting state and local drones rules that
affect all of low-altitude airspace below 400 feet. Or we can consider taking the compromise we’re being
offered today: protections for the FAA’s role in protecting the safety of the national airspace and a ceiling
– in other words, a limit on state and local rules at 200 feet. And that’s only if state and locals decide to
act; many may not.”

So, what would happen if we did adopt the Drone Innovation Act?

“We’d have a legal standard that would allow us to work with states to define reasonable rules,” McNeal
says. “We’d get pilot programs that let us test UTM solutions not just with NASA and the FAA, but also
with states and communities. Above 200 feet, we would secure the federal preemption we’ve long been
advocating for so a right of transit across jurisdictions can be protected. And we could focus our attention
on growing our companies and developing innovative solutions that advance the future of the drone
industry, instead of lawsuits.”

In conclusion, he asks whether the UAS industry should “take a compromise we can live with now” or,
rather, “risk getting a worse deal as community opposition mobilizes across America.” Though it’s “still an
open conversation,” he says, “what’s clear is state and local [authorities] want to have the conversation in
Congress, not in an unrepresentative committee,” referring to the DAC.

0
Article Rating

Copyright Zackin Publications Inc. All Rights Reserved.

3
x
Would love your thoughts, please comment.