Robohub.org
 

Protecting infrastructure and innovation, under Section 2209 of the FAA extension

by
25 October 2016



share this:
Drone flying over a field.

Drone flying over a field.

On July 15, 2016, Congress enacted the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act (the “Act”), which among other things, 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.” Congress tasked the FAA with establishing a process for designating fixed site facilities no later than 180 days from the date of enactment. Below is an outline of the key problematic provisions in Section 2209 and a proposed path forward for establishing a process that meets the Congressional directive while not unnecessarily restricting industry.  

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. Subsection 2209 (b)(1)(C) further provides that only the following facilities may be considered for designation:

(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.

Subsection 2209 (b)(1)(C) attempts to restrict the types of locations that would be subject to designation, however, certain portions of the text undermine that goal. Categories (i) and (ii) are generally reasonable as they outline a list of infrastructure and facilities that by their nature may create an environment that could increase the risk profile of UAS operations from a facility safety, national security or homeland security perspective. However, since subsection (i) does not offer a closed definition of “critical infrastructure”, it could be construed too broadly. The FAA should clarify the types of facilities that are considered critical infrastructure by providing a closed definition. This clarification would help applicants understand whether their facility could be considered for designation and it would reduce the administrative burden of processing applications for facilities that the FAA does not consider to fall under the definition.

Category (iii) – amusement parks – appears out of place in relation to the first two categories. Amusement parks do not appear to raise special concerns from an aviation safety, national security or homeland security perspective. Nor do they typically raise unique concerns in terms of potential damage to property or persons in the same way that critical infrastructure or chemical facilities do. The risks to property or persons for UAS operations taking place near amusement parks are generally covered under Part 107 through provisions such as the restriction on flight over people who are not a part of the operation.

Finally, category (iv) “other locations that warrant such restrictions” is very broad and opens the door to expanding the list of fixed site facilities well beyond the types of locations that the drafters intended to protect. A broad construction will not only unnecessarily restrict the industry, it will also run the risk of leading to uneven results for applicants seeking to protect their facilities. The FAA should establish a closed list of other types of locations that may be considered for designation.

Section 2209 incorporates a savings clause which states that: “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 framework established by the FAA to implement Section 2209 should incorporate a waiver process in line with that provided in Part 107 that will allow applicants to fly in proximity to fixed site facilities if they show that they can mitigate the risks of the operation to an acceptable level.

The process set up by the FAA should also acknowledge that operators may go directly to any designated fixed site facility to seek permission from the owner to operate UAS over the facility. Incorporating this mechanism will serve to minimize the administrative burden on the FAA in granting waivers from the general restriction on flying UAS in proximity to designated sites.

Lastly, the applications for designation should be publicly posted in the Federal Register so that the FAA may consider public comments prior to making a determination whether to grant or deny applications.



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 :



Robotics Today latest talks – Raia Hadsell (DeepMind), Koushil Sreenath (UC Berkeley) and Antonio Bicchi (Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia)

Robotics Today held three more online talks since we published the one from Amanda Prorok (Learning to Communicate in Multi-Agent Systems). In this post we bring you the last talks that Robotics Today (currently on hiatus) uploaded to their YouTube channel: Raia Hadsell from DeepMind talking about ‘Scalable Robot Learning in Rich Environments’, Koushil Sreenath from UC Berkeley talking about ‘Safety-Critical Control for Dynamic Robots’, and Antonio Bicchi from the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia talking about ‘Planning and Learning Interaction with Variable Impedance’.
21 October 2021, by and

Sense Think Act Pocast: Erik Schluntz

In this episode, Audrow Nash interviews Erik Schluntz, co-founder and CTO of Cobalt Robotics, which makes a security guard robot. Erik speaks about how their robot handles elevators, how they have hum...
19 October 2021, by and

A robot that finds lost items

Researchers at MIT have created RFusion, a robotic arm with a camera and radio frequency (RF) antenna attached to its gripper, that fuses signals from the antenna with visual input from the camera to locate and retrieve an item, even if the item is buried under a pile and completely out of view.
18 October 2021, by

Robohub gets a fresh look

If you visited Robohub this week, you may have spotted a big change: how this blog looks now! On Tuesday (coinciding with Ada Lovelace Day and our ‘50 women in robotics that you need to know about‘ by chance), Robohub got a massive modernisation on its look by our technical director Ioannis K. Erripis and his team.
17 October 2021, by
ep.

339

podcast

High Capacity Ride Sharing, with Alex Wallar

In this episode, our interviewer Lilly speaks to Alex Wallar, co-founder and CTO of The Routing Company. Wallar shares his background in multi-robot path-planning and optimization, and his research on scheduling and routing algorithms for high-capacity ride-sharing. They discuss how The Routing Company helps cities meet the needs of their people, the technical ins and outs of their dispatcher and assignment system, and the importance of public transit to cities and their economics.
12 October 2021, by

50 women in robotics you need to know about 2021

It’s Ada Lovelace Day and once again we’re delighted to introduce you to “50 women in robotics you need to know about”! From the Afghanistan Girls Robotics Team to K.G.Engelhardt who in 1989 ...
12 October 2021, by and





©2021 - ROBOTS Association


 












©2021 - ROBOTS Association