Robohub.org
 

Emerging patchwork of regulation of UAS operations near critical infrastructure

by
22 November 2016



share this:
Drone in flight. Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Drone in flight. Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Over the last couple of years, we have seen an increase in state regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). A recent report published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) titled “A Guide to State Laws Impacting UAS/UAV Operations” identifies the restriction of operations near critical infrastructure among the leading trends in state regulation of UAS. Notwithstanding the emergence of state regulation in this field, the enactment of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act, 2016 (the “Act”), indicates that Congress intends to vest the authority to protect critical infrastructure from UAS with the FAA. In light of this development, states that have enacted laws or are considering regulating in this field, should consult with the FAA in order to promote a unified national framework that addresses local concerns.

States that have enacted legislation restricting UAS operations near critical infrastructure include Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee. The approaches to the restrictions, as well as the definitions of critical infrastructure, vary among the jurisdictions.  Oregon’s law generally prohibits intentionally or knowingly engaging in UAS operations over critical infrastructure at or below 400 feet AGL It also prohibits allowing a UAS to make contact with critical infrastructure. There are various exceptions from the general overflight restriction, including for operations conducted by: a public body, the federal government, a law enforcement agency, the owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility, and for commercial operations conducted in compliance with FAA authorization.

Oklahoma’s law carries similar restrictions and exceptions as Oregon with minor variances, and additionally, prohibits allowing a UAS to come close enough to critical infrastructure to cause a disturbance. Oklahoma also creates civil liability for damage to property, the environment, and human health. Louisiana takes a different approach, prohibiting UAS flight near “targeted facilities” for purposes of surveillance or gathering evidence. Targeted facilities include schools and correctional institutions. And Tennessee prohibits the operation of UAS within 250 feet of the perimeter of critical infrastructure facilities for purposes of surveillance, collection of evidence, or capturing photos or video recordings.  As these examples indicate, there is discrepancy in the approaches adopted by states to protect critical infrastructure from UAS.

In the interest of promoting compliance and efficient management of airspace, a uniform national framework implemented by the FAA in accordance with Section 2209 of the Act should be used to displace state regulation of UAS operations near critical infrastructure.

Section 2209 directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a process to enable applicants to petition the FAA Administrator to “prohibit or restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close proximity to a fixed site facility.” Section 2209 outlines the following criteria that the FAA may consider in determining whether to grant or deny an application for designation of a fixed site facility: (i) aviation safety, (ii) protection of persons and property on the ground, (iii) national security, or (iv) homeland security.  For an analysis of Section 2209, please see my previous post entitled “Protecting Infrastructure and Innovation under Section 2209”.

In the coming months, as the FAA establishes a process for designating fixed site facilities, states that have enacted regulations concerning UAS operations near critical infrastructure should review Section 2209 and consult with the FAA.



tags: , , , , , ,


Diana Marina Cooper is Vice President of Legal and Policy Affairs at PrecisionHawk.
Diana Marina Cooper is Vice President of Legal and Policy Affairs at PrecisionHawk.





Related posts :



Meet the Oystamaran

Working directly with oyster farmers, MIT students are developing a robot that can flip heavy, floating bags of oysters, helping the shellfish to grow and stay healthy.
08 December 2021, by

Exploring ROS2 with a wheeled robot – #4 – Obstacle avoidance

In this post you’ll learn how to program a robot to avoid obstacles using ROS2 and C++. Up to the end of the post, the Dolly robot moves autonomously in a scene with many obstacles, simulated using Gazebo 11.
06 December 2021, by

Team builds first living robots that can reproduce

AI-designed Xenobots reveal entirely new form of biological self-replication—promising for regenerative medicine.
02 December 2021, by

Exploring ROS2 using wheeled Robot – #3 – Moving the robot

In this post you’ll learn how to publish to a ROS2 topic using ROS2 C++. We are moving the robot Dolly robot, simulated using Gazebo 11.
30 November 2021, by

An inventory of robotics roadmaps to better inform policy and investment

Silicon Valley Robotics in partnership with the Industrial Activities Board of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society, is compiling an up to date resource list of various robotics, AIS and AI roadmaps, national or otherwise.
29 November 2021, by

Robots can be companions, caregivers, collaborators — and social influencers

People are hardwired to respond socially to technology that presents itself as even vaguely social. While this may sound like the beginnings of a Black Mirror episode, this tendency is precisely what allows us to enjoy social interactions with robots and place them in caregiver, collaborator or companion roles.
26 November 2021, by





©2021 - ROBOTS Association


 












©2021 - ROBOTS Association