unmanned aircraft systems practice handbook

mckennalong.com

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Practice Handbook

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Commercial Operations ...................................................................................................................1

FAA Rulemaking .............................................................................................................................3

Rulemaking for UAS in the European Union ..................................................................................8

Federal Preemption of State & Local Regulation ..........................................................................11

State Regulation .............................................................................................................................13

Summary of State Regulations Impacting UAS Technology ........................................................15

Export Controls..............................................................................................................................25

Insurance ........................................................................................................................................29

Tort Liability..................................................................................................................................32

Privacy ...........................................................................................................................................35

Homeland Security.........................................................................................................................39

Status of FAA UAS Test Sites.......................................................................................................42

Section 333 Checklist The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012....................................49

Appendix:

1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Comprehensive Plan

2. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Excerpts

3. FAA Busting Myths About the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft

4. FAA Fact Sheet—Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

5. FAA v. Pirker Decisional Order

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

1

UAS FACT SHEET

The Distinction Between Permitted Hobbyist UAS Activityand Prohibited Commercial UAS Activity

The FAA has made clear that all commercial UAS operations are prohibited unless theoperator obtains a Certificate of Authorization (COA) or approval under Section 333 of the FAAModernization and Reform Act of 2012. This has led to the mistaken impression that if a UASflight is made without a business purpose and no money changes hands, then it is permitted.This is incorrect. The FAA has made clear that only hobbyists flying for recreational purposescan take advantage of the safe harbor, and even non-profit organizations are prohibited fromoperating their UASs without a COA, despite the fact that the flights are performed by volunteersand no profit is made. See Texas Equusearch v. FAA, Docket No. 14-1061 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

What Activities are permitted?

The only UAS operations that can be carried out without FAA approval are flightsfollowing the guidelines of Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57. This set of guidelines,published in 1981, originally applied to “modelers” flying “model aircraft” and sets thefollowing operating standards:

o Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated areas. Theselected site should be away from noise-sensitive areas such as parks, schools,hospitals, churches, etc.

o Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until the aircraft issuccessfully flight tested and proven airworthy.

o Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraftwithin 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facilityis located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.

o Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. Useobservers to help if possible.

o Do not hesitate to ask for assistance from any airport traffic control tower or flightservice station concerning compliance with these standards.

In 2007, the FAA issued Notice No. 07-01, “Unmanned Aircraft Operations in theNational Airspace System,” Docket No. FAA-2006-25714, 72 Fed. Reg. 6689-6690, February13, 2007. In the Notice, the FAA stated that:

The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might beflying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating underthe authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thusspecifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

The question of who qualifies as a hobbyist eligible to operate without further FAAauthorization was clarified by Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.Pursuant to that Section, the FAA is prohibited from regulating any person who operates a UASfor “hobby or recreational purposes.” In order to qualify for this safe harbor:


2

The UAS must be flown “strictly for hobby or recreational use;” The UAS must be operated in accordance with a community-based set of guidelines; The UAS must weigh under 55 pounds unless otherwise certified; The UAS must be operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to

other aircraft; The UAS operator must provide notice to air traffic controllers if it is operated within 5

miles of an airport; The UAS must be flown within visual line of sight.

Therefore, the FAA’s position is that any use of a UAS that does not qualify as a hobbyor recreational use is prohibited without a valid COA or Section 333 authorization.


3

UAS FACT SHEET

FAA Rulemaking

Issues:

The FAA has not yet proposed any final rule for notice and comment related to theintegration of commercial UAS into the National Airspace (NAS). There are a number ofpotential strategies for taking proactive steps now, both to shape the rulemaking process,and to expedite the approval process for commercial UAS operations.

Current Status:

Rulemaking for small UAS: The FAA is expected to publish a final rule on small UAS(“sUAS”) for operations within Visual Line-of-Sight (“VLOS”) this year. The notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM) has been delayed, but Jim Williams, the head of the UASIntegration Office has recently stated that the FAA hopes to issue the draft rule by the endof 2014. He also indicated that the process of soliciting comments and preparing a finalrule could take another 18 months. The sUAS rule is intended to initiate the phasing in ofcommercial UAS operations, and pave the way for further rulemaking to integrate larger,more complex UAS into the NAS.

Certification under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012(FMRA): The FAA has indicated it is preparing to begin granting certifications forcertain types of low risk commercial UAS Operations. The FAA has identifiedagriculture, filmmaking, pipeline inspection, and smokestack inspection as its targets forthe initial certifications. The FAA has stated that it intends to use the § 333 process as ameans to learn more from industry about how to integrate UAS into the NAS. JimWilliams has publicly stated that the FAA may publish the first proposal for § 333certification for public comment before it is issued. As a result, the first § 333certifications may involve some form of interim, quasi-rulemaking process.

Existing procedures for providing UAS with access to airspace: Proposed UASoperations are currently handled on a case-by-case basis through applications forCertificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) (public operations). Applicants seekingapproval for civil operations must obtain both a COA and a Special AirworthinessCertificate. The FAA’s internal policies and standards for evaluating such applicationsare set forth in FAA Notice N 8900.227.1 Approval for UAS Operations conducted onbehalf of government entities follows a slightly different procedure, and only a COA isneeded.

Additional anticipated rulemaking: In the near future, the FAA is also expected toupdate its notice of policy in Docket No. FAA-2006-25714 concerning UAS operationsin the NAS. By the 3rd Quarter of 2014, the FAA is required to publish a NPRM toimplement the recommendations of the UAS Comprehensive Plan required by FMRA.

1 FAA Notice N 8900.227 became effective on July 30, 2013, and has a one-year cancellation date of July 30, 2014.It replaced FAA Notice N 8900.207, which had only been in effect for approximately 6 months. This suggests theFAA anticipates relatively frequent updates based on lessons learned.


4

See § 332(a)(1) and (b). The outside date for safe integration of civil UAS into the NASis September 30, 2015. See § 332(a)(3).

Discussion:

Although the sUAS NPRM has not yet been published, it is already clear that the FAAtreats UAS as “aircraft,” such that UAS will need to either comply with existingrequirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), including 14 CFR Part 91 orconvince the FAA that there is an alternate means of compliance that adequatelypreserves public safety.

At least in the short term, § 333 certification applicants will likely have to address thesame issues that factor into the current COA approval process. In general, the FAA willbe more likely to grant certification to applicants who can demonstrate that the UASand/or the proposed type of UAS operation will not pose a safety risk to other aircraft orpersons on the ground.

The FAA has already identified a number of areas where establishing compliance withthe FARs will be challenging in the context of UAS operations, such as sense and avoidrequirements, pilot in command and sterile cockpit training, lost link procedures,maintenance procedures, and the manner in which ATC communications will be handled.

Many of the key concerns that will factor into the § 333 approval process are readilypredictable, based on the established, existing regulations and policies governing mannedaircraft, the manner in which UAS operations have been handled to date, and therecommendations that the sUAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee has submitted to theFAA. Accordingly, there is no reason to delay moving forward with initial preparationsfor seeking certification under § 333.

The content of the FAA’s sUAS NPRM is likewise fairly predictable, so that it is feasibleto preemptively draft preliminary comments for use in the rulemaking process, based onthe anticipated content of the proposed rule.

References

UAS Roadmap UAS Comprehensive Plan FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, §§ 332 and 333 FAA Notice of Policy, Docket No. FAA-2006-25714 FAA Notice N 8900.227 and its predecessor FAA Notice N 8900.207 Recommendations of sUAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee 14 CFR Part 91

Action Items

Evaluate and identify potential UAS operations that are likely to qualify for certificationunder § 333.

o Prepare (and ultimately submit) certification requests that will place specific types ofUAS, UAS applications, and/or UAS technologies squarely before the FAA for


5

vetting, thereby shaping the direction of FAA rulemaking and streamlining theprocess for future, similar requests.

o Identify additional industries that could benefit from the § 333 certification process.These would be any applications that have similar characteristics to the four alreadyidentified by the FAA: agriculture, filmmaking, pipeline/powerline inspection,smokestack inspection.

Preemptively commence preparation of position papers and/or comments on key issuesthat will likely be addressed in the sUAS NPRM.

o Share input with the FAA directly.o Once the actual sUAS NPRM is issued, update and revise comments to the extent

necessary, and submit final version(s) as part of the formal rulemaking process.


6

Attachment A

General Background on UAS Rulemaking

Regulatory goals:

to promote safe and efficient integration of UAS into national airspace (NAS) withoutreducing existing capacity, decreasing safety, negatively impacting current operations, orplacing airspace users or persons and property on the ground at increased risk.

Key players:

UAS Integration Office: an office created by the FAA to facilitate integration of UASinto NAS (under the leadership of Jim Williams)

UAS Rulemaking Committee (ARC): a committee chartered by the FAA to helpresolve issues and provide direction for UAS operational criteria

RTCA Special Committee 203 (SC-203): RTCA, Inc. is a private, not-for-profitcorporation that functions as a Federal Advisory Committee. SC-203 was established in2004 to assist in ensuring safe, efficient, and compatible operation of UAS in the NAS

ASTM F 38 UAS Standards Committee: ASTM has been chartered to developtechnical consensus standards required to implement the forthcoming sUAS rule. Thecommittee is chaired by Ted Wierzbanowski, director of UAS airspace integration atAeroVironment, Inc. in Monrovia, CA.

Key areas of focus in regulating UAS:

The FAA will develop regulations, policy, procedures, guidance material, standards, andtraining requirements in the following key areas:

o UAS Equipment (aircraft, control station, datalink): type certification, designspecifications, airworthiness certification requirements, Minimum Aviation SystemPerformance Standards

o UAS Personnel (pilot in command, flight crew, others necessary for safe flight, suchas visual observers): certification, training, and medical requirements

o UAS Operations: Operational requirements, Air Traffic Interoperability, GroundBased Sense and Avoid, Airborne Sense and Avoid, Control and Communications

The rulemaking process for Public and Civil UAS will be informed by (1) data collectedfrom the UAS test range program; (2) experience with the current COA approval process;(3) experience derived from integrating small UAS (“ sUAS”) into the NAS, and (4)experience derived from the process of issuing certification under § 333.

The FAA will coordinate with other departments and agencies regarding policy concernsin areas such as privacy and national security. Privacy policies developed by UAS testsites will “inform” the dialogue on privacy issues. The FAA maintains, however, that itsmission does not include developing or enforcing policies pertaining to privacy or civilliberties.


7

Other issues affecting the rulemaking process:

o Spectrum status: ensuring availability of spectrum for non-military UAS operationso Technological challenges: R&D is required for development of technologies that will

enable UAS to comply with requirements for safe and reliable operation in NAS, suchas sense and avoid/collision avoidance solutions. Further research is also needed inthe areas of control and communications, and human factors.

o Harmonization with international standards: The United States is a member of theInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which has published guidancematerial for UAS to facilitate integration of UAS into airspace in a consistent manner,and to ensure global interoperability and regulatory compatibility to the extentpossible. See ICAO Circular 328; UAS Roadmap, § 1.4.2.

Timeline/ Stages of UAS integration:

The FAA contemplates a transition that initially “accommodates” UAS on an ad hocbasis, and later “integrates” UAS under uniform standards that address issues unique toUAS, but draw upon and apply existing standards to the extent possible. Ultimately, theFAA plans to reach a stage of “evolution” in which all the necessary regulatoryprocedures, standards, policies, and guidance are in place, and the regulatory processcontinues to adjust to new technologies and changes in the aviation system. The FAAhas issued a roadmap for UAS integration that is aligned with congressional mandatesunder the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-95. While theroadmap sets forth a five-year plan, it also contemplates a broader timeline for all of thetasks and regulatory processes associated with complete integration. While exact datesare frequently subject to revision, most regulatory goals and objectives fall into atimeframe category such as near-term (within the next five years), mid-term (within thenext five to ten years) or long-term (ten years or more, or specifically between 2022 and2026).


8

UAS FACT SHEET

Rulemaking for UAS in the European Union

Issues:

The EU is moving forward with its own roadmap for UAS integration. Although similarto the FAA’s roadmap, this separate political and regulatory undertaking will likelyproduce different rules. UAS manufacturers and operators need to track developments inthe EU and take advantage of opportunities to shape the process.

Current Status:

Areas to be Covered by European Commission Standards: On April 8, 2014, theEuropean Commission (“EC”) proposed new standards to regulate civil drones, whichthey term RPAS – “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems.” The new standards will coversafety, security, privacy, data protection, insurance and liability.

Safety: EU regulations will be based on the principle that RPAS must provide anequivalent level of safety to manned aviation operations, without requiring any change toair traffic control procedures or any new equipment for existing aircraft. RPAS will haveto comply with the communication, navigation and surveillance requirements for theclass of airspace in which they operate. RPAS must be airworthy, the operators must becertificated, and the pilots licensed.

Privacy: Data collected by RPAS must comply with applicable data protection rules andthe Charter for Fundamental Rights of the EU. Enforcement is left to the member states.

Security: The European Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”) will develop securityrequirements and then propose specific legal obligations for air traffic control, operators,telecom service providers, and other relevant actors, which will be enforced by themember states.

Liability and Insurance: The EC will assess the need to amend the current rules to takeinto account RPAS.

Next Steps: By the end of 2014, the EC is to produce an impact assessment thatexamines the best options to address these areas of concern. The Commission’sexpectation is that a legislative proposal will follow, to be approved by Member Statesand the European Parliament.

Current operations of UAS: RPAS (under 150 kg.) are being operated in Visual Lineof Sight (VLOS – within range of the pilot’s sight) and Extended Visual Line of Sight(EVLOS – which uses human observers to track the RPAS beyond the pilot’s sight)based on national rules that are not harmonized or recognized across borders. The CzechRepublic, France, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden and the United Kingdom alreadyhave rules in place, which are slated to yield to EU-wide regulations in 2016.

No Section 333 Equivalent: The EU currently does not have a certification process forlow risk industry operations as exists under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization andReform Act of 2012.


9

The EU Roadmap for UAS Integration: In June 2013, the European Commission’sRPAS Steering Group issued a roadmap for the integration of civil drones in Europeanairspace by 2016, with complete integration in 15 years.

Transition from National Rules: Under the EU Roadmap, EASA is to proceed withregulations under its current mandate while varying national authorities continue torulemake. EU-wide rules will transition to replace the national rules. The validity ofpreviously issued licenses and certificates will be recognized.

Roadmap for UAS Integration issued by the European RPAS Steering Group June2013:

Current: VLOS (RPA under 150 kg, already being operated)

2014 – 2018: VLOS and EVLOS for light RPA are daily occurrence BVLOS(Beyond Visual Line of Sight) start operations VFR on case bycase basis

2018: Issue rules for accommodation of RPAS into non-segregatedairspace, including certifications of aircraft and pilot licenses

2019 – 2023: licensed remote pilots, under certified RPAS operations, wouldoperate approved/autonomous RPAS under IFR in almost allairspace classes

Initial VFR RPAS operations start

VLOS and EVLOS RPAS operations will be fully integrated in civilaviation operations

BVLOS operations expanded

2023: Partial integration of RPAS into civil aviation

2024 – 2028: RPAS operate in most non-segregated airspace mixing withmanned aviation

2028: Full integration of RPAS in non-segregated airspace

Discussion:

Model aircraft not covered: Model aircraft are not covered by the roadmap, and arestill left subject to the varying rules of the member states. Model aircraft are defined asunmanned aircraft that are used for competition, recreational or sport purposes.

Small UAS exempt from certification requirements: Aircraft certification is notrequired for RPAS less than 25 kg. operated outside congested areas.

Autonomous aircraft not covered: The roadmap does not address fully autonomousaircraft. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the process of integrating fully autonomousaircraft into EU airspace will be more prolonged than that of RPAS.

Issues to address: The EC has identified technological gaps in:


10

o Integration into ATC and Airspace Environmentso Verification and Validationo Data communications links including spectrum issueso Detect and Avoid systems and operational procedureso Security issueso Operational contingency procedures and systemso Surface operation including takeoff and landing

References:

Roadmap for the integration of civil Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Systems into theEuropean Aviation System - Final Report from the European RPAS Steering Group June2013

Annex 1: A Regulatory Approach for the Integration of Civil RPAS into the EuropeanAviation System 2013

Key players:

o JARUS (Joint Authority for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems) – group of expertsfrom the National Aviation Authorities and the European Aviation Safety Agency torecommend a single set of technical, safety and operational requirements for thecertification and safe integration of UAS into airspace and aerodromes

o EUROCONTROL (European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation) –coordinates and plans ATC for Europe, and is a member of the RPAS Steering Group

o EASA – Europe’s version of the FAA, and a key regulator and member of RPASSteering Group

o EUROCAE (European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment) – member ofRPAS Steering Group

o ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference) – member of RPAS Steering Groupo EDA (European Defence Agency) – member of RPAS Steering Groupo ESA (European Space Agency) – member of RPAS Steering Groupo ASD (European Aerospace and Defence Manufacturers) – member of RPAS Steering

Groupo UVS International – non-profit association representing manufacturers of unmanned

vehicle systemso EREA (Association of European Research Establishments for Aeronautics) – member

of RPAS Steering Groupo ECA (European Cockpit Association) – represents European pilots from 37 European

states at the EU level, and member of RPAS Steering Group

Action Items:

Follow key regulatory developments in individual member states and develop positionpapers and/or comments on key issues.

Follow EASA’s rulemaking and develop position papers and/or comments on key issues. Follow the introduction of legislative proposals by the EC and subsequent action by the

European Parliament.


11

UAS FACT SHEET

Federal Preemption of State & Local Regulation

Issue:

At least seven states already have enacted legislation which, subject to certain exceptions,prohibits or restricts use of UASs to photograph individuals or private property. Whilethese statutes are focused primarily on privacy concerns, many other states areconsidering UAS legislation, which potentially could prohibit, restrict, or otherwiseregulate sale, distribution, use, or operation of UASs for other purposes.

Does federal law preempt state and local regulation of sale, distribution, use, or operationof UASs?

Current Status:

There currently are no federal statutes or regulations that expressly preempt state or localregulation of UAS sale, distribution, use, or operation. Aviation safety-related case lawmay support implied preemption of state or local UAS regulation.

Discussion & References:

There is no express statutory preemption of state or local regulation of UASs. TheAirline Deregulation Act’s preemption provision is limited to state and local regulation of“a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 417143 (emphasis added).Most UAS operators or users are not, and would not want to be regulated as, air carriers,which are defined as common carriers of passengers or property for compensation.Further, it is unclear whether § 41813 would extend to UASs used to carry cargo.

There is a body of case law holding that federal law occupies the field of air safetyregulation, thus impliedly preempting state and local law. See, e.g., City of Burbank v.Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973); Abdullah v. American Airlines, 181 F.3d363 (3rd Cir. 1999). These and other cases may support arguments that federal lawimpliedly preempts state or local UAS regulation that directly or indirectly is related toaviation safety. But filing multiple declaratory judgment/injunctive actions around thenation to challenge individual state or local UAS-related enactments on preemptiongrounds would be costly and time-consuming, and the results would be unpredictable.

Action Items:

A more certain and cost-effective solution would be for FAA to promulgate an expresspreemption regulation. The preemption regulation would expressly bar states and localgovernments from imposing any requirement, prohibition, or restriction relating to sale,distribution, use, or operation of a UAS. Such a regulation would be within FAA’sauthority under § 332 of the FAA Modernization & Reform Act of 2012 to achieve a“comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraftsystems into the national airspace system.” The preemption regulation would be inFAA’s and the public’s, as well as industry’s, interest.


12

It is critical for the UAS industry to urge FAA now (i.e., before a notice of proposedrulemaking is issued), to promulgate a preemption regulation. The industry shouldprovide FAA with the text of a proposed preemption regulation and a written discussionpresenting the reasons why it should be included in the proposed rulemaking.


13

UAS FACT SHEET

State Regulation

Issue:

States are advancing their own legislation to regulate the use of UAS technology,commonly referred to in legislation as “drones.” The purpose of this document is toprovide a brief overview of existing and proposed state-based legislation. For acomprehensive analysis of each state please refer to the attached “Summary of StateRegulations Impacting UAS Technology.”

Current Status:

The single most identifiable theme in all the state based legislation requires lawenforcement to obtain a warrant prior to using drone technology to investigate criminalactivity. States that have drone regulations generally recognize exceptions that coverimminent harms, destruction of evidence, or other exigent circumstances. While somestates are more advanced in outlining a governance structure for the handling of data (i.e.,retention and third party use) some states are just starting to contemplate regulations inthis area and yet others have not yet proposed any legislation.

Enacted Legislation:

Since early 2013, 16 states have enacted legislation concerning drones. Of those 16, 12states passed laws governing the ways in which drones may be used within their state and4 states passed law appropriating funds to drone research. Except for legislationappropriating funds, all of the legislation imposes limitations on the situations in which alaw enforcement agency may use a drone.

Florida (SB 92), Idaho (SB 1134), Illinois (SB 1587), Indiana (HB 1009), Montana (SB0196), Oregon (HB 2710), Tennessee (SB 0796), Texas (HB 912), Utah (SB 167) andWisconsin (SB 196) all require that the agency seeking to use the drone first obtain aprobable cause warrant, subject to certain exceptions. Florida’s “Freedom fromUnwarranted Surveillance Act” permits law enforcement agencies to use drones tocounter a risk of terrorist attack or in particular situations where “swift action” isnecessary to prevent death, serious property damage, a suspect’s escape, or thedestruction of evidence. Texas’s HB 912 identifies a number of exceptions to the UASwarrant requirement, such as the use for investigating the scene of a human fatality,searching for a missing person and conducting high-risk tactical operation that poses athreat to human life.

Utah (SB 167), Texas (HB 9012), Illinois (SB 1587), North Carolina (SB 402) andOregon (HB 2710) provide for reporting and registration requirements for governmentuse of UAS. Utah’s SB 167 requires that certain information be made publically availablein regular reports, such as the number of times law enforcement deployed a drone or thenumber of times a public agency other than law enforcement used a drone. Texas’s HB912 requires law enforcement agencies in communities with a population of more than150,000 to issue reports, which are made available to the public, on their UAS use every


14

two years. Oregon’s HB 2710 mandates that public entities using UAS register them withthe state Department of Aviation, and include in their registration information regardingfrequency of use and purpose of use.

Proposed Legislation:

In 2014 alone, legislation regarding drones has been introduced in 36 states. Many of theproposed laws contain a probable cause warrant requirement, subject to exceptionssimilar to those enumerated in the enacted legislation of other states. Proposals inGeorgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, amongst others, include a ban onthe weaponization of drones. Particularly for proposals in 2014, many of the lawsinclude specific procedures for the retention of information collected by drones, andsome address concerns regarding agency access to information collected by third-partydrones.


There is no question that states are taking different approaches to regulating drones.Some states, like Nevada for example, are attempting to portray themselves as pro-innovation for drone technology by allocating millions of dollars to fund research anddevelopment for programs while striking a balance on regulations pertaining to privacyand personal liberty. Other states, like Illinois are taking a more aggressive approach toregulate data retention policies. And, finally there are other states, like Mississippi andNew Mexico that have neither proposed nor enacted any drone-related legislation.

Action Items:

The immediate action item is to remain connected with state-based legislative activity.Clients that have an interest in a particular state should feel free to contact us. WhileMcKenna Long & Aldridge does not have a physical presence in every state, ourGovernment Relations team members maintain networks with local teams in every statein the nation. There is an obvious trend that some states have a more developedunderstanding of the potential applications of drone technology and are now formulatingregulations. Companies that may utilize drone technologies, even if not directlythemselves, should be take a proactive stance to establish favorable regulations.


15

UAS FACT SHEET

Summary of State Regulations Impacting UAS technology

State Citation Proposed Enacted Privacy? Notes

Alabam a S B 240 x SB 240: U AS cannotbeusedtoharasslegalhuntingactivity

Alaska HB 209S B 1365 AAC 92.080

x HB 209: W arrantrequirem entforU AS usebylaw enforcem ent,subjecttoexceptions;P rohibitsw eaponizationofU ASSB 136: R equirem entsforadm issibility ofevidencegatheredby U AS5 AAC 92.080: BansusingU AS tohunt

Arizona HB 2538 x HB 2538: W arrantrequirem entforU AS usebylaw enforcem ent,subjecttoexceptions;dealsw ithuseofevidenceobtainedby U AS

Arkansas

California AB 1327S B 15AB 2306AB 1524

x AB 1327: P rohibitspublicagenciesfrom usingU AS exceptforlaw enforcem entw ithaproperw arrantSB 15: M akesitillegaltosecretly recordprivatecom m unications;prohibitsw eaponizeddronesAB 2306: Broadensprivacy protectionsbutdoesnotspecifically m entionU AS thoughintendedtoincludeAB 1524: DefinesU AS

Colorado

Connecticut HB 5217“ AnActConcerningU seofU nm annedAircraft”

x HB 5217: W arrantrequirem entforU AS usebylaw enforcem ent,subjecttoexceptions;P rohibitsw eaponizationofU AS

Delaw are

Florida Fla.S tat.§ 934.50 (“ T heFreedom from

x X (lawenforcem ent)

Fla. Stat. § 934.50: W arrantrequirem entforU AS useby law enforcem ent,excepttocounter


16


U nw arrantedS urveillanceAct” )

ahighriskofterrororsw iftactionnecessary topreventdeath,preventseriousproperty lossorsearchform issingpersons,am ongotherenum erateduses

Georgia S B 200HB 560

HB 846

x HB 560: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entuseofU ASSB 200: L im itssurveillanceuseofU AS byprivatepersonsandlaw enforcem entHB 846: L im itsuseofinform ationgatheredbyU AS

Haw aii S B 1221 (Enacted)S B 2608 (P roposed)

S B 783 (P roposed)HB 2627(P roposed)HB 1775 (P roposed)S B 2150 “ Freedomfrom U nw arrantedS urveillanceAct”(P roposed)

x x SB 1221: Appropriates$350,000 forestablishm entofaprogram tostudy theuseofU AS pilotprogram sincom m unity colleges.SB 2608: R estrictsU AS by law enforcem entandprohibitsU AS useby non-law enforcem entagenciesforsurveillanceSB 783: R estrictsU AS useandsetsrequirem entsforacquiringU ASHB 2627: P rocedureforintegratingU AS useintoairspaceHB 1775: R estrictsrem otely operatedvehiclesuseincollectionofevidenceSB 2150: R estrictspublicagency useofU AS andinform ationgatheredfrom U AS ,subjecttoexceptions

Idaho IdahoCode§ 21-213 (S B 1134)

x x (lawenforcem ent)

Idaho Code § 21-213: W arrantrequirem entforlaw enforcem entuseofU AS ,exceptonem ergency responseforpublicsafety;allow sU AS useform appingandresourcem anagem ent;createsacivilcauseofactionw ithstatutory dam agesforviolationofU ASregulations


17


Illinois 725 Ill.Com p.S tat.§ 167/1-167/35(“ T heFreedom fromDroneS urveillanceAct” )720 Ill.Com p.S tat.

§ 4/48-3 (HB 1652)S B 2937 (P roposed,

senttogovernor6/6/2014)

x x X (lawenforcem ent)

725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 167/1-167/35: U AS canbeusedby law enforcem entw ithw arrant,ortocounterterroristattack,preventim m inentharm ,searchform issingpersons;createsreportingstructurefordroneuseby stateagenciesandestablishesgovernanceproceduresfordataretention.720 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 4/48-3: U AS cannotbeusedtoharasslegalhunting/fishingactivitySB 2937: Am endsFreedom from DroneS urveillanceActsothatlaw enforcem entagency cannotuseorgetinform ationfrom thirdparty U AS use

Indiana Ind.Code§§ 34-30-2-146.4;35-31.5-2-110.5;35-31.5-2-111.5;35-31.5-2-112.5;35-31.5-2-143.3;35-31.5-2-143.5;35-31.5-2-144;35-31.5-2-175.5;35-31.5-2-186;35-31.5-2-273.8;35-31.5-2-337.5;35-31.5-2-342.3;35-31.5-2-343.5;35-31.5-2-343.7;35-31.5-2-343.8;35-33-5-2;35-33-5-8;35-33-5-9;35-33-5-10;35-33-5-11;35-33-5-12;35-33-5-13;35-33-

x x X (lawenforcem ent)

Ind. Code §§ 34-30, 35-31.5, 35-33, 35-38, 35-46 (HB 1009): P rohibitsU AS useforw arrantlesssearches,w ithexceptionssuchassubstantiallikelihoodofterroristattack,searchandrescueoperations,andforuseinenvironm entalandgeographicalstudies.SB 336: L icensingrequirem entsforU AS use


18


5-14;35-38-2.5-3;35-46-8.5 (HB 1009)S B 336 (P roposed)

Iow a Iow aCode§§321.492B;808.15(HF2289)HF410 (P roposed)S F276 (P roposed)S F2157/2314(P roposed)

x x x (lawenforcem ent)

Iowa Code §§ 321.492B; 808.15: U AS cannotbeusedfortrafficenforcem ent;lim itsuseofinform ationgatheredby U AS w ithoutw arrant;allow sform onitoringofcrow dsatevents;createspublicdisclosurerulesfordatauseandretention;allow sforuseofU AS fordispersalofliquidorgasesuponproperty subjecttoconsentrequirem entsHF 410 & SF 276: L aw enforcem entcannotuseU AS priorto7/1/2015 subjecttoexceptionsSF 2157/2314: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem ent,subjecttoexceptions

Kansas HB 2394HB 2683S B 409

x HB 2394: P rohibitslaw enforcem entU AS use,subjecttocertainexceptionsHB 2683: L im itsgovernm entuseofU AS andrestrictsuseofinform ationgatheredby U ASSB 409: U AS cannotbew eaponized;R estrictspublicagency U AS use

Kentucky HB 342 x HB 342: P ublicagency cannotuseU AS togatherevidencesubjecttocertainexceptions

L ouisiana HB 1029 (S enttoGovernorforsignature)

x HB 1029: Crim eofunlaw fuluseofU AS asintentionalU AS usetoconductsurveillancew ithoutconsent,doesnotapply togovernm entuse

M aine

M aryland 2013 L aw sofM aryland,Ch.423S B 926 (P roposed)

HB 847 (P roposed)HB 785 (P roposed)

x x 2013 Laws of Maryland, Ch. 423: Appropriates$500,000 forU AS testsite;norestrictionsonuseSB 926: R estrictsgovernm entU AS usesubjecttoexceptions


19


HB 847: R estrictsgovernm entU AS usesubjecttoexceptionsHB 785: W arrantrequirem entforagency U ASuse,subjecttocertainexceptions

M assachusetts S B 1664/HB 1357 x SB 1664/HB 1357: U AS cannotbew eaponized;W arrantrequirem entforagency use,subjecttoexceptions;technology restrictions

M ichigan HB 4455HB 4456

x HB 4455: W arrantrequirem entsubjecttoexceptionsHB 4456: S entencingforviolationsofHB 4455

M innesota S F2687S F2037HF2552HF1620HF2553

HF990S F485S F1506HF1994

x SF 2687: R estrictsU AS useby law enforcem entSF 2037: P rohibitsU AS useby law enforcem entincertainsituationsHF 2552: R estrictsU AS useby law enforcem entHF 2553: Governm entandlaw enforcem entw arrantrequirem entforU AS useHF 990: R egulatesU AS useby individualsandagencies,providescrim inalpenaltiesform isuseSF 485: R estrictsU AS usetogatherevidenceSF 1506: U AS useby law enforcem enttogatherevidencelim itedandprivateuseprohibitedHF 1994: W arrantrequirem entforU AS useunlessim m inentdanger

M ississippi

M issouri HB 1204 “ P reservingFreedom FromU nw arrantedS urveillanceAct”

x HB 1204: W arrantrequirem entforU AS usebylaw enforcem entsubjecttocertainexceptions

M ontana M ont.CodeAnn.§46-5-1


Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-1: W arrantrequirem entforU AS useby law enforcem entsubjecttoexceptions;P rovidesforprivateuseofU AS


20


N ebraska L B 412 “ Freedomfrom U nw arrantedS urveillanceAct”

x LB 412: P rohibitsU AS useby law enforcem entexceptincertaincircum stances

N evada AB 507 x AB 507: Appropriates$4,000,000 forU AS testfacility,butrem ainssubjecttoFAA approval

N ew Ham pshire HB 1620HB 1361HB 1566HB 619

x HB 1620: R egulatesU AS useby governm entagenciesandindividualsHB 1361: P rohibitsagency useofU AS toobtainevidenceunlessauthorizedincertaincircum stancesHB 1566: W arrantrequirem entsHB 619: R estrictsU AS useinphotographingresidences

N ew Jersey A1039A2147A534

x A1039: P rocedureforlaw enforcem ent/agencyU AS useA2147: U AS useregulatedforlaw enforcem entandfiredepartm entsandprivateindividualsA534: P rohibitsU AS useby law enforcem ent

N ew M exico

N ew York S 07639 “ P ersonalP rivacy P rotectionAct”S 04839A8091A6370S 04537A6244

x S07639: R estrictsprivateandpublicU AS useS04839: R egulatesU AS useby stateagenciesinrelationtocivilrightsA8091: Am endspenallaw forU AS useinunlaw fulsurveillanceA6370: L im itsU AS usew ithinN YS04537: Am endsthecivilrightslaw ,inrelationtoim posinglim itationsontheuseofdronesw ithinthestateA6244: P rovidesprotectionsfrom U ASsurveillance

N orthCarolina N .C.S ess.L aw s2013-360


N.C. Sess. Laws 2013-360: P rohibitsuseofU ASpriortoJuly 1,2015 by stateagenciesunless


21


S tateCIO grantsanexception;establishesrequirem entsforpublicdisclosureofU AS useby S tateandim plem entsagovernancestrategyforU AS use

N orthDakota N .D.Cent.Code§§54-60;54-65;4-14.1-02;4-14.1-03;4-44-03;17-02-05;54-18-21;54-44.7-03;57-43.1-03 (S B2018)

x N.D. Cent. Code §§ 54-60; 54-65; 4-14.1-02; 4-14.1-03; 4-44-03; 17-02-05; 54-18-21; 54-44.7-03;57-43.1-03: Appropriates$5,000,000 forU AS testsitesubjecttoselectionby FAA asatestfacility;norestrictionsonuse

O hio HB 207HB 364S B 189

x HB 207: L im itstheuseofdronesby lawenforcem entagenciesandprohibitthedefenseofsovereignim m unity w ithregardtoaprohibiteduseofdronesHB 364: U AS usew ithinstateSB 189: U AS usew ithinstate

O klahom a HB 3039HB 1556HB 1795S B 2043

x HB 3039: CreatesU nm annedAerialS ystem sActandeffectivedateHB 1556: P rohibitslaw enforcem entagenciesfrom operatingU AS w ithoutaw arrantexceptinem ergencies;prohibitsw eaponizationofU ASHB 1795: CreatesU nm annedAerialS ystem sActandeffectivedateSB 2043: R estrictslaw enforcem entuseofdrones

O regon O re.R ev.S t.§837.310;837.320;837.335;837.340O re.R ev.S t.§837.380


Ore. Rev. St. § 837.310; 837.320; 837.335;837.340: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entU AS use,createsguidelinesforvalidity ofw arrants;allow sforsearchandrescueuseofU AS ;establishescivilpenalties,feesandregistrationrequirem entsandpreventsuseofw eaponizedU AS


22


Ore. Rev. St. § 837.380: R estrictsflyingU AS atheightoflessthan400 feetoverresidence

P ennsylvania S B 875HB 2158HB 961S B 1332/1334

x SB 875: R estrictslaw enforcem entuseofU ASexceptinem ergencies;U AS cannotbew eaponizedHB 2158: R estrictsU AS useinw iretapping/eavesdroppingHB 961: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entU AS use

R hodeIsland S 2362H 7170

x S2362: W arrantrequirem entfor lawenforcem entU AS useH7170: P rocedureforlocalagency acquisitionofU AS

S outhCarolina H3514H3415S 0395

x H3514: R estrictspublicU AS useforpurposeofgatheringinform ationH3415: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entU AS use,subjecttoexceptionsS0395: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entorstateagency U AS use

S outhDakota

T ennessee T .C.A.§ 39-13-609 (“ Freedom fromU nw arrantedS urveillanceAct” );T .C.A.§§ 39-13-602;39-13-603;39-13-604;39-13-605;39-13-606;39-13-607;39-13-608;39-14-405 (S B 1892);T .C.A.§§ 70-4-30;,70-4-302 (S B 1777);S B2438/HB2391

x x x (lawenforcem ent)

T.C.A. § 39-13-609: P rohibitsU AS useby lawenforcem entsubjecttoexceptionslikeusetopreventanim m inentterroristattack;createsacivilcauseofactionforunauthorizedusebygovernm entT.C.A. §§ 39-13-602, § 39-13-603, § 39-13-604,§ 39-13-605, § 39-13-606, § 39-13-607, § 39-13-608, §39-14-405: Createscrim eofusingU AS tocaptureim age/conductsurveillanceT.C.A. §§ 70-4-301, 70-4-302: U AS cannotbeusedtoharasslegalhuntingactivitySB2438/HB2391: Createstaskforcetostudycom m ercialU AS use


23


(P roposed)

T exas T ex.Gov’tCode§423 (“ T exasP rivacyAct” )


Tex. Gov’t Code § 423: P rohibitsuseofaU AStotakeim agesofpersonsorpropertiesandenum eratesm ultipleexceptionstothisrulesuchascertainprivate/com m ercialactivitiesandcertainlaw enforcem entuses.

U tah U tahCodeAnn.§§63G-18-101;63G-18-102;63G-18-103;63G-18-104;63G-18-105 (S B167” Governm entU seofU nm annedAerialVehiclesAct” )


Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G-18-101, 63G-18-102,63G-18-103, 63G-18-104, 63G-18-105:Establishesprovisionsfortheappropriateuseofunm annedaerialvehiclesby governm ententitiesincludingcreationofgovernancestructurefordataretention,reportingonuseofU AS

Verm ont HB0540/S 0169 x HB0540/S0169: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entuseofU AS ,subjecttoexceptions

Virginia Va.CodeAnn.§19.2-56.3 (S B1331/HB 2012)


Va. Code Ann. §19.2-56.3 (SB 1331/HB 2012):P lacesm oratorium ondroneusageinVirginiauntilJuly 2015,exceptforanam beralert,silveralert,bluealert,searchandrescueoperation,orfortrainingpurposes

W ashington HB 1771/S B 5782HB2178S B6172

x HB 1771/SB 5782: P rovidestandardsforU ASuseby stateandlocaljurisdictions;U AS userequiresw arrantHB2178: R estrictstechnologiesthatcanbeusedonU AS ,butdoesnotapply topublicagency useSB6172: P rovidestandardsforU AS useby stateandlocaljurisdictions

W estVirginia HB 2732 “ FreedomFrom U nw arrantedS urveillanceAct”

x HB 2732: P rohibitsU AS useby lawenforcem enttogatherevidencesubjecttoexceptionssuchasw arrantorriskofterrorattack


24


W isconsin W is.S tat. §§ 114.04;173.55;941.292;942.10;972.113(S B196)


Wis. Stat.§§ 114.04, 173.55, 941.292, 942.10,972.113 (SB196): W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entU AS use

W yom ing HB 105 x HB 105: W arrantrequirem entforlawenforcem entU AS use

**Enacted legislation is bolded in the notes section.

** Pending legislation is italicized in the notes section.

This chart is updated only through June 16, 2014.

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

25

UAS Fact Sheet

Export Controls

Issue:

While defense budgets in the United States may be shrinking, international demand forunmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is strong and growing. Exporting UAVs for both commercialand military uses is a potentially lucrative business for United States companies. But the stakesare high. There is ample competition in the marketplace from foreign UAV manufacturers.United States manufacturers must grapple with a complex web of export regulations whenpursuing markets abroad. To complicate matters further, those regulations are in the midst of afundamental overhaul and have changed significantly in just the past twelve months.

Background:

United States export controls are primarily (thought not exclusively) administered by twoagencies: the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) within the Department of State andthe Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) within the Department of Commerce. DDTCadministers and enforces the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and has exportjurisdiction over munitions items, technology and services listed on the United States MunitionsList (USML). BIS enforces the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which controlscivilian and "dual-use" items enumerated on the Commerce Control List (CCL). Under exportcontrol reform, jurisdiction over certain less sensitive military items has also recently beentransferred to BIS. Significantly, technology, technical data, software, and services relating toexport-controlled items (whether under the ITAR or EAR) are also controlled.

A central objective of export control reform has been to reorder the USML and CCL toimpose controls on items that are reasonably correlated to their capabilities and significance toU.S. national security and foreign policy. The most sensitive technology relating to our coremilitary capabilities will remain controlled by the DDTC and require licenses to mostdestinations. Less sensitive items (including some military items) will move to the CCL, wherethey may benefit from relaxed licensing requirements, depending on the destination and end use.

As export control reform progresses amid rapidly evolving UAV technology andapplications, a major question for UAV manufacturers will be whether the rules strike anappropriate balance that permits robust trade of U.S.-origin items while protecting our mostvaluable technological and military assets.

ITAR-Controlled UAVs

UAVs and related items controlled by the DDTC are listed primarily in USML CategoryVIII. The following is an abbreviated list of ITAR-controlled UAVs and related items:

The following UAVs and other aircraft:

o Unarmed military UAVs

o Armed unmanned UAVs


26

o Target drones

o Optionally piloted vehicles (OPVs)

Ship-based launching and recovery equipment specifically designed for the above aircraftand land-based variants thereof

Inertial navigation systems (INS), aided or hybrid INS, inertial measurement units, andattitude and heading reference systems specially designed for the above aircraft

UAV launching systems

UAV flight control systems with swarming capability

The foregoing items, as well as related technology, software and services, generallyrequire export licenses from DDTC. In addition, if the aircraft in question have a range of 300km or greater, they and their associated items are subject to additional controls under the MissileTechnology Control Regime (MTCR). The MTCR is a multilateral partnership among 34countries to limit the proliferation of missile technology capable of delivering warheads orWMD. All license applications for MTCR items are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by aninteragency group with specific responsibility for such items. UAVs, OPVs or drones capable ofdelivering a payload of 500 kg or more with a range of 300 km or greater are granted exportlicenses only rarely. Vehicles with a range of 300 km or greater (but with payloads less than 500kg), or items like launch, navigation, or flight control systems for such vehicles, are grantedexport licenses more frequently; however, they are still subject to a stringent, case-by-casereview process. This review process can be lengthy.

One can question whether the above categories achieve the desired goal of subjectingtruly sensitive military items to the ITAR while allowing other items to move to the EAR. Forinstance:

The term "military" is undefined, leaving potential uncertainty as to what is meant by (forinstance) an "unarmed military UAV."

Swarming can be used in both military and civilian applications; nonetheless, UAVswarming capability renders a control system ITAR controlled.

The USML does not list civilian, unarmed UAVs, but it controls all OPVs, regardless ofwhether they are civilian or military.

UAV launching systems are listed on the USML without expressly distinguishingwhether the associated UAV is a military item.

EAR-Controlled UAVs

UAVs that do not meet the control parameters of the USML are still subject to exportcontrols under the CCL. The CCL controls the following UAVs and UAV-related items,including certain related software and technology (again, this is an abbreviated list):

Non-military UAVs and unmanned airships (dirigibles) with:

o An autonomous flight control and navigation capability (e.g., an autopilot with anInertial Navigation System); or


27

o Capability of controlled flight out of the direct visual range involving a humanoperator (e.g., televisual remote control)

In addition, complete UAVs meeting the above criteria that eitherincorporate or are designed or modified to incorporate an aerosoldispensing system/mechanism with a capacity greater than 20 liters arecontrolled on the CCL.

UAV engines meeting specified performance parameters

Certain associated systems, equipment and components of CCL-controlled UAVs, suchas:

o remote control equipment

o certain autonomous flight or navigation control systems

o equipment to convert a manned aircraft to a controlled UAV

o certain engines designed to propel UAVs at above an altitude of 50,000 feet

Certain associated systems, equipment and components of military UAVs, such as:

o Certain apparatus and devices for the handling, control, activation and non-ship-based launching of ≥ 300 km UAVs

o Radar altimeters designed or modified for use in ≥ 300 km, ≥ 500 kg UAVs

o Hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical, or electromechanical flight controlsystems (including fly-by-wire systems) and attitude control equipment designedor modified for ≥ 300 km, ≥ 500 kg UAVs

In general, the EAR has less restrictive licensing requirements than the ITAR.Depending on the capabilities of the item, the intended destination, and end use, a license fromBIS may not be required. In addition, exports of items under the EAR may take advantage of anumber of license exceptions that are not available under the ITAR.

Most EAR-controlled UAVs, however, are unlikely to benefit from such less restrictivelicensing requirements. Most UAV items controlled on the CCL are subject to licensingrequirements to most destinations. Furthermore, EAR-controlled UAVs and components aresubject to MTCR range/payload constraints just as with ITAR-controlled UAVs. UAVs withaerosol dispersal capabilities are also subject to those MTCR licensing requirements. Items onthe CCL that are controlled for MTCR reasons generally are not eligible for the EAR's licenseexceptions. Finally, the EAR prohibits exporting any item to China and most countries in theMiddle East – including Israel – knowing that it will be used in connection with a UAV having arange greater than 300 km.

As with the ITAR, UAV manufacturers may question whether some CCL-listed UAVsshould be controlled as they are under the present rules. MTCR restrictions arise from amultilateral accord, not the rulemaking of U.S. agencies. Nevertheless, UAVs with a rangegreater than 300 km can have clear civilian purposes such as weather or traffic monitoring. Cropdusting or cloud seeding UAVs also have obvious civilian applications. The controls applicableto these types of UAVs may be viewed by some as unduly restrictive in light of the items' non-military uses.


28

Moving Forward:

United States UAV manufacturers must be aware of the complex rules governing exportof their products so that they can pursue business opportunities abroad in a compliant manner.At the same time, UAV manufacturers may wish to see further change in the relatively stringentcontrols that apply to their products – many of which are civilian and commercial in nature and,furthermore, face stiff competition from foreign manufacturers.

The ITAR rules and portions of the EAR rules pertaining to UAVs are relatively new.Nonetheless, United States manufacturers of UAVs can and should engage in dialogue with theregulatory agencies so that their concerns are known. Both DDTC and BIS have formal industryadvisory committees that provide guidance to those agencies on future regulations.

Materials for Further Reading:

Export Control Reform Homepage: http://export.gov/ecr/index.asp

United States Munitions List: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=22:1.0.1.13.58

Commerce Control List Category 9: http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/doc_download/864-category-9-propulsion-systems-space-vehicles-and-related-equipment

Commerce Country Chart: http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/doc_view/14-commerce-country-chart

MTCR Overview:https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2011/oct/Sean%20Monogue.pptx

Defense Trade Advisory Group Commercial UAV Working Group January 2014 Presentation:http://pmddtc.state.gov/dtag/documents/plenary_Jan2014_Tasking3.pdf


29

UAS FACT SHEET

Insurance

Issues:

Will insurance be available for small commercial UAS operators, such as photographersand small inspection services?

Given the potential for a UAS to bring down an aircraft, will liability policy limits be solow that they do not provide reasonable protection for small UAS operators?

What insurance coverage will be available to a UAS manufacturer, operator, and ownerwhen the UAS crashes and seriously injures someone, such as a pro athlete at a sportingevent?

Will UAS insurance cover data risk and cyber exposure? Will there be insurance coverage to protect operators from privacy lawsuits?

Current Status:

Currently, the FAA prohibits all commercial use of UASs in the United States, except forlimited commercial use over the Arctic Ocean and in Alaska.

The FAA has indicated that it will be granting certifications under Section 333 of theFAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 for certain low risk commercial useoperations, such as agriculture, filmmaking, pipeline inspection, and smokestackinspection.

The FAA estimates that within five years after regulations are in place, there will beapproximately 7,500 commercial UASs operating in the United States.

While risks are currently unknown, it is possible to extrapolate loss experience from theaviation industry as well as the military use of UASs, particularly the U.S. Air Force.

A recent study indicated that U.S. Air Force unmanned aircraft mishaps from 2004through 2013 show a high incidence of hardware failures (e.g., engine systems, electrical,and propeller) and pilot error. See “Risk, Product Liability Trends, Triggers, andInsurance in Commercial Aerial Robots,” by David K. Beyer, Donna A. Dulo, Gale A.Townsley, and Stephen S. Wu, April 5, 2014.

Insurance underwriters are beginning to offer UAS insurance coverage in the U.S. andabroad.

AIG’s new Unmanned Aircraft Insurance policy provides coverage for physical damage,third party liability, and war, hi-jacking, and terrorism. The policy is expressly for theexposures faced by remotely piloted, semi-autonomous, and fully autonomous aircraft.There is no exclusion for loss arising from electronic malfunctions and failure ofelectronic components, accessories, and power equipment.

European underwriters, such as the Kiln Group (a Lloyd’s of London underwriter), alsohave addressed some of the unique issues related to UASs and focus on (1) third partyliability (for operators, manufacturers, and distributors); (2) physical loss and damage tothe UAS; and (3) transit coverage for loss or damage to the UAS while in transit to/fromthe operating environment or manufacturer.


30

Discussion:

UAS risks include aviation safety, privacy, and cybersecurity. Individuals looking tolimit such risks will include UAS owners, operators, designers, manufacturers,component manufacturers, and distributors.

As UAS operational data develops, underwriters will be able to use that data to price risksmore accurately.

Commercial UAS owners and operators should consider liability coverage for propertydamage, personal injury, and third party coverage for damages arising out of privacyintrusions and communication failures.

A UAS owner or operator should consider data liability coverage for claims arising out ofthe storage or transmission of confidential information (e.g., unfair competition,deceptive trade practices).

In determining the type of UAS coverage, insurers will look at, among other things, theUAS specifications, including its weight, range, and payload, and the maximum flightduration and top speed. They will consider the intended uses of the UAS, how long themake and model operated has been flying, whether it has “auto-land” or “return to home”capability, whether it will be operating over populated areas, and its storage and usagepolicies.

Underwriters also will consider the UAS operator’s training, years of experience withaerial vehicles, and licensing. Applications may focus on whether the applicant hascompleted a formal ground and flight school course and whether the applicant has aformal safety program in place. They also may look at the identity of the aircraftmaintenance provider.

Underwriters are likely to exclude from coverage criminal acts, intentional acts, and forcemajeure.

Both aviation and cyber insurance underwriters will likely be involved because they willneed to take into account aircraft safety and data security issues.

Consider significant costs to companies who are not insured: investigation, supportinglitigation, product redesign, regulatory investigation/penalty, criminal investigation/fines.

References:

“UAS In The National Airspace: Aerial Goldmine or Legal Landmine?” by Donna A.Dulo, published in the June 2014 edition of Unmanned Systems, published by theAssociation for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

“Risk, Product Liability Trends, Triggers, and Insurance in Commercial Aerial Robots,”by David K. Beyer, Donna A. Dulo, Gale A. Townsley, and Stephen S. Wu, April 5,2014

Unmanned Aircraft – Insurance from AIG in the US Insurance Coverage for Commercial Drones: Sky’s the Limit – Property Casualty 360 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association – Kiln Light UAS Policy


31

Action Items:

Always inquire with your current insurer whether UAS coverage can be added as part ofan existing policy.

Ensure that vendors have insurance, agree to indemnify you, and add you as an additionalinsured on their policies.

These are emerging technologies and it is important to check for exclusions in these newpolicies.


32

UAS FACT SHEET

Tort Liability

Issues:

Short of a federal preemption regulation that preempts all state tort law claims, are therestrategies other than insurance that can help minimize or eliminate tort liability to UASmanufacturers, owners, and operators?

Who will ultimately be responsible in the event of an accident or incident? Is flying a UAS an ultra-hazardous activity? Are there ways to limit liability in the event a UAS is involved in a terrorist attack?

Current Status:

Currently, the FAA prohibits all commercial use of UASs in the United States, except forlimited commercial use over the Arctic Ocean and in Alaska.

The FAA has indicated that it will be granting certifications under Section 333 of theFAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 for certain low risk commercial useoperations, such as agriculture, filmmaking, pipeline inspection, and smokestackinspection.

The FAA recently noted that it is considering giving permission to several filmmakingcompanies to use UASs for aerial photography.

While there are no published decisions in the United States arising out of UAS accidents,there have been a few accidents in the past few years involving civil UASs in the US andabroad.

o One recent incident in March involved a near collision between a US Airwaysexpress jet and a UAS in Florida. The near collision was near 2300 feet andapproximately 5 miles from the Tallahassee airport. No damage was done to the jet,but if a collision had occurred, the results could have been catastrophic.

o Last month, an unknown pilot crashed a UAS into downtown St. Louis’s tallest officebuilding on May 5, 2014. The Phantom Quadcopter 2 was lying on a 30th floorbalcony of the Metropolitan Square building. The FAA turned the case over to locallaw enforcement until more information is available.

o In April, a triathlete in Australia allegedly sustained head injuries when the UASfilming the race fell to the ground and hit the triathlete in the head.

o In August 2013, a UAS carrying a camera crashed into the crowd at a bull runningevent taking place at the Virginia Motorsports Park. Several people sustained minorinjuries and were treated on the scene.

Discussion:

The FAA estimates that within five years after regulations are in place, there will beapproximately 7,500 commercial UASs operating in the United States.

Plaintiffs may file a number of potential claims against UAS designers, manufacturers,operators, and owners. They will seek compensatory and punitive damages.


33

o The most significant area of litigation will be claims that a UAS crashed intosomeone or something and that the accident caused bodily injury or property damage.Plaintiffs will argue negligent design and manufacture of the UAS, negligentoperation, training, and maintenance, strict liability claims that the UAS is defective,breach of warranty claims, failure to warn claims, and business interruption claims.

o UAS operators also may face privacy suits, and companies may face litigation if theyuse information (e.g., images) collected by the UAS for commercial purposes. Insuch cases, Plaintiffs will file claims for unfair competition and deceptive tradepractices.

With these emerging technologies, UAS manufacturers and operators will be treated asexperts and held to the highest standard of care.

Mere compliance with the federal regulatory scheme will not eliminate tort exposure. Atmost, it will demonstrate that a UAS manufacturer or operator was acting reasonably.

Potential immunities from suit for UAS manufacturers and operators include theGovernment Contractor Defense, the Contract Specification Defense, the ComponentParts Defense, and the State of the Art Defense.

It is also important to negotiate substantial indemnities and ensure that customers cansatisfy such indemnities in the event of any lawsuit.

o For federal government contracts, Public Law 85-804 provides that certain federalagencies, including DoD and DHS, will indemnify UAS manufacturers for losses ifthe UAS was performing “unusually hazardous activities” at the time of the incident.

To protect such products or services in the event of a terrorist attack, the U.S. Safety Actserves as the most potent protection designed to eliminate enterprise-threatening liabilityfor a tort suit arising out of acts of terrorism in the U.S. or abroad.

Depending on the use of the UAS, operators may be able to obtain waivers of liability.These waivers may or may not be enforceable based on state law.

It is possible to limit liability and even shift it to a vendor or customer if the terms andconditions of the UAS contracts are properly prepared and followed, including excludingliability for consequential damages (e.g., lost profits).

References:

“UAS In The National Airspace: Aerial Goldmine or Legal Landmine?” by Donna A.Dulo, June 2014 edition of Unmanned Systems, published by the Association forUnmanned Vehicle Systems International

UAS Roadmap UAS Comprehensive Plan “Risk, Product Liability Trends, Triggers, and Insurance in Commercial Aerial Robots,”

by David K. Beyer, Donna A. Dulo, Gale A. Townsley, and Stephen S. Wu, April 5,2014

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, §§ 332 and 333


34

Action Items:

Proactively build in clauses into federal and state government contracts and commercialcontracts to ensure that UAS products are reviewed and approved and that state of the artand best practices are followed.

Work to ensure Safety Act registration for UAS technologies used for any securitypurposes.

Discuss appropriate indemnification provisions. Consider methods to limit liability through terms and conditions. Discuss options for government indemnification for ultra-hazardous activities. Implement a Safety Management System (“SMS”), design training and recurrency

programs, prepare preflight and response checklists, and establish incident/accidentinvestigation procedures.


35

UAS FACT SHEET

Privacy

Issues:

While UASs have been used for military applications overseas and search and rescueoperations for some time, public perception of “drones” on U.S. soil is evolvingparticularly given a public debate about privacy.

UASs have numerous existing and potential beneficial uses but some have expressedconcern that their widespread use could lead to abuses in photographing, monitoring, andtracking of people and property.

Government use raises Fourth Amendment concerns while commercial use of UASscould involve use by marketing firms, paparazzi, and private investigators forsurveillance.

Data collection, retention and dissemination are also concerns if particular UASspassively or actively collect data of a personal nature that then could get into the wronghands and be misused.

Bans and other restrictions on UASs from gathering information also raise FirstAmendment concerns for newsgathering organizations.

Current Status:

The FAA has issued privacy requirements for UAS test sites. Otherwise, the FAA hasnot regulated the privacy implications, and there has been vociferous debate aboutwhether FAA should be regulating in this area. The FAA generally focuses on safety.

Existing state tort law could apply to UAS privacy disputes. Some states also haveenacted UAS-specific laws addressing UAS privacy issues.

Commentators have noted that (1) state criminal trespass, stalking, harassment, orconsumer protection laws and (2) federal wiretapping and eavesdropping laws mightapply, but there has not yet been litigation.

There have not yet been any cases testing whether surveillance by a UAS could constitutea search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Discussion:

Commercial Use – Federal and State Regulatory Issues

o Federal regulation

Impact of safety regulations. Generally, the FAA does not regulate privacy.Some FAA safety regulations, however, may indirectly have an impact on privacyissues. The following are a couple of examples:

Line of “visual” sight requirement. See, e.g., FMRA § 334(c)(2)(C). Thefocus of this requirement is safety (due to potential loss of communicationbetween the UAS and operator or flying in same airspace with other aircraft),


36

but it could have privacy impacts because it affects the legality of flyingUASs behind fences, around houses, in windows, etc. out of sight of theoperator.

14 CFR § 91.13(a). The pilot must maintain an ability to land safely. It alsois illegal to operate in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger life orproperty of another. These requirements could have privacy impacts becausethey limit flying too close to people and structures.

FAA privacy requirements for UAS test sites. On November 7, 2013, the FAAissued privacy requirements for UAS test sites after receiving and responding topublic comments on its draft version. See 78 Fed. Reg. 68360 (Nov. 14, 2013).They set various privacy-related requirements for UAS test site operators andpartners and confirm the applicability of existing state law standards. Failure tocomply with these requirements can result in revocation of status.

Other federal law such as wiretapping and eavesdropping law. When the Googlecar taking pictures of homes and businesses for the street view feature startedcollecting wifi information, Google came under scrutiny from the FTC and FCC(as well as state attorney generals). Similar data collection issues may arise withsome UAS uses, and whether these laws could apply may be hotly debated.

o State Law

State UAS-specific regulation. At least seven states already have enacted UASlegislation which, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits or restricts use of UASsby law enforcement or private parties to conduct surveillance of individuals orprivate property. As of 6/12/2014, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Oregon,Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin have such laws. Some govern privacy issuesassociated with government use, private use, or both. Louisiana is among statesthat have pending legislation on these issues.

State tort law. Some have argued that UAS specific regulation related to privacyis not necessary because existing state tort law should address any concerns. Forexample, state law governs trespass, nuisance, and invasion of privacy. In thiscontext, invasion of privacy torts such as intrusion upon seclusion and publicationof private facts are likely to be the most relevant. The First Amendment is apotential defense if such claims are brought against newsgathering individuals orentities.

Other state law. Depending on the UAS use (or misuse) at issue, commentatorshave noted that application of criminal trespass statutes, state consumer protectionlaws, and stalking and harassment statutes maybe considered.

Governmental Use and the Fourth Amendment

o Local, state and federal authorities are using or have proposed using UASs in lawenforcement applications. The question then arises whether a warrantlesssurveillance by a UAS constitutes an illegal search for purposes of the FourthAmendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has periodically evaluated whether varioussurveillance techniques violate the Fourth Amendment (e.g., EPA overflights,


37

helicopter overflights, use of thermal imaging, and installation of GPS tracking).UAS usage could soon become the subject of a Fourth Amendment case.

o Whether a warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment involves an analysis of:(1) Whether the person being searched has a subjective expectation of privacy; and(2) Whether that expectation is reasonable to society in general.

o Key issues in a Fourth Amendment assessment of the reasonable expectation ofprivacy include:

(1) There is less likely to be a Fourth Amendment violation if technology isgenerally available to the public. One view is that the sensor technologies,imaging systems, and data collection capabilities of UASs are not unique to UASsas such systems could be installed on manned aircraft, utility poles, cell phonetowers, and tall buildings. Others view this as a new frontier.

(2) Whether the UAS activity is in public navigable air space or lower in a house,near a house, in a yard, low over a street, etc.

(3) Whether the UAS is seeing what someone could see with the naked eye orusing more sophisticated imaging technology.

o Some states are enacting specific laws governing UAS use by law enforcement.Standards tend to differ depending on whether there is an emergency situation such asa terrorist attack or if the proposed use is more routine and a warrant is required.

References:

FAA privacy requirements for UAS test sites: 78 Fed. Reg. 68360 (Nov. 14, 2013). John Villasenor, Observations from Above: Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Privacy, 36

Harvard J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 457 (2013). EPIC’s domestic drone website: http://epic.org/privacy/drones/ ACLU’s Blog of Rights on Domestic Drones: https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-

drones Tracking state UAS privacy laws

o Domestic Drone Information Center (for some state privacy laws):http://www.nacdl.org/domesticdrones/

Action Items:

Identify ways to improve public knowledge of the benefits of UASs Monitor state by state developments on privacy law governing UAS use in each state and

understand the implications for doing business in the various states Users and operators of UASs should integrate into their operating procedures privacy-

type guidelines consistent with any applicable state laws

o If an organization is responsible for pilots, training for pilots should include a privacysegment.


38

Develop privacy guidelines and best practices for each relevant UAS use to addresspublic privacy concerns

Consider state privacy regulation that would facilitate UAS industry growth


39

UAS Fact Sheet

Homeland Security

Issue:

Increasingly, UAS are used as means of addressing homeland security concerns. UAShave been used domestically for enhanced border security, training programs, and insupport of local and state law enforcement agencies, amongst other purposes.

What role do UAS play in furthering the homeland security objectives of the Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS) and other governmental agencies? What regulationscurrently govern the utilization of UAS in domestic airspace for homeland securitypurposes?

Current Status:

DHS, through Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), has used UAS as a law enforcementprogram for border security since 2005. UAS use by CBP has been framed as furtheringanti-terrorism efforts by seeking to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegalactivity primarily along the US/Mexican border. CBP also uses its UAVs to conductsurveillance for other agencies or local and state officials upon request. Seven state-levelnational guards currently have UAS units, which operate in response to orders by stategovernors and occasionally with direct Pentagon support for domestic missions. TheDepartment of Defense (DOD) uses UAS units domestically to test new systems, trainoperators, and conduct continental United States-based missions. Furthermore, DODUAS units are used to conduct Homeland Defense and, when approved by the Secretaryof Defense, for Defense Support of Civil Authorities.

The FAA is primarily responsible for regulation of UAS use domestically. The FAApresently has mechanisms for providing individual approval for UAS use for homelandsecurity concerns, and has released a preliminary roadmap for future UAS regulationbased on its obligations under The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.Currently, the FAA provides drone operating permits on a case-by-case basis for publicsafety purposes, including firefighting, border security and police work. About 80agencies currently hold such permits.


CBP operates its UAS units under the FAA’s Certificate of Authorization Process(COA). COAs are in effect for two years, and define the airspace (altitude, latitude, andlongitude) along the border and outside of urban areas. COA defined airspace for CBP’sUAS activity is within 100 miles of the border for the northern border, and along andwithin 25 to 60 miles of the border for the southern border, exclusive of urban areas. Asof 2014, CBP’s fleet of UAS units was composed of 10 UAS units, which are allstationed at military bases. Based on CBP’s Strategic Air and Marine Plan of 2010, thegoal is to establish a 24-drone fleet by 2016. In CBP’s 2010 Report to Congress, it raisedthe possibility of eventually equipping its drones with nonlethal weapons to immobilizepeople and vehicles trying to cross the border illegally. However, more recently CBP has


40

stated that it has no plans to arm its unmanned aircraft systems with nonlethal weapons orweapons of any kind.

CBP conducts surveillance for other federal agencies using UAS units, including but notlimited to, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Federal Bureau ofInvestigations (FBI), US Coast Guard, DOD, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the USMarshals. Requests for UAS support from other agencies are directed at Office ofIntelligence and Investigative Liaison (OIIL). The requests are reviewed under a standardprocess that considers the requesting agencies’ authorities to receive the sought afterinformation, CBP’s authority to lend assistance, and CBP’s ability to integrate theinformation collected into its own mission. However, a 2012 Office of Inspector General(OIG) of the DHS Report found CBP’s processes for the submission andprioritization/review of UAS requests to be inadequate. CBP may provide the otheragency with a direct video feed or with a downloaded video recording of the operation.Typical investigative missions for other agencies include overhead observation ofpreviously identified persons, specified locations, and particular conveyances forenhanced situational awareness and increased officer safety. For example, CBP’s UASunit could conduct surveillance over a building to inform ground units of the generallayout of the building or provide location of vehicles and people outside building.Additionally, a CBP UAS could be used to provide ICE with surveillance over asuspected smuggler’s tunnel.

CBP can use UAS units to support state and local law enforcement officials, uponrequest. A local or state request for UAS support typically come in emergency situations,such as circumstances when officer safety is implicated and in which aerial surveillanceis necessary or terrain would be too difficult for law enforcement personnel to navigate.Requests for support are addressed in mostly the same way as requests from federalagencies. Access to video taken may be provided to the local or state official either at aDHS or CBP facility, or by temporarily granting direct access to the official.

Based on documents produced by the CBP in response to a FOIA suit, between 2010-2012 the CBP flew its UAS on behalf of these other agencies and state or local officialsapproximately 700 times. The documents further indicate that CBP has used Vehicle andDismount Exploitation Radar (VADER) sensor (which can detect the presence of peoplefrom as high as 25,000 feet) at least 30 times for other agencies in 2012.

DHS, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), established theUrban Areas Security Initiative Grants program, which provides funding aimed toaddress unique needs of “high-threat, high-density urban areas.” These grants have beengiven to Montgomery County and Arlington, Texas, and Miami in order to purchase UASunits.

A congressional amendment to FY2003 DOD Authorization Act mandated that theSecretary of Defense issue a report on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for the supportof homeland security missions. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of2004 required Homeland Security Secretary to design a pilot program that wouldexamine the use of UAS units for border surveillance. FY2008 ConsolidatedAppropriations Act required DHS to explore the use of UAS units for surveillancemissions over water in addition to the border.

§1075of HR3304 National Defense Authorization Act FY2014 required the Secretary ofDefense, Secretary of Homeland Security and Administrator of FAA to develop and


41

implement a plan to review the potential of joint testing and evaluation of UAS units withother appropriate departments and agencies that can serve dual purpose of providingcapabilities to the DOD and domestically to strengthen international border security. §1087 of HR3304 National Defense Authorization Act FY2014 , the Secretary ofTransportation (DOT), the FAA Administrator, and the Administrator of the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to jointly report to Congress with respectto the testing and assessment of, and improvements to, unmanned aircraft systems.Requires a separate report from the DOD Secretary on resource requirements necessaryto meet the milestones for such systems’ integration as described in the five-yearroadmap under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.

DOD’s UAS operations conducted in NAS are authorized under COA from FAA; andunder the conditions laid out in a 2007 DOD-FAA Memorandum of AgreementConcerning the Operation of Department of Defense Unmanned Aircraft Systems in theNational Airspace System (providing for increased access for DOD UAS in the NAS for“domestic operations, including the war on terror.”) DOD Directive No. 3025.18provides that the Secretary of Defense is authorized to permit DOD UAS units to be usedfor Defense Support of Civil Authorities in emergency situations or upon expressdirection by the president, provided that the UAS units are not armed.


42

UAS FACT SHEET

Status of FAA UAS Test Sites

General Information Concerning FAA Test Site Program:

Six test sites are being created to allow the FAA to gather the data necessary to integrateUASs into the national airspace. The program was established pursuant to the FAAModernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 332. The FAA’s test site selection criteriarequired any test site operator to:

comply with federal, state and other laws protecting an individual’s right to privacy; have publicly available policies and a written plan for data use and retention; and conduct an annual review of privacy practices that allow for public comment.

The goal for the program was to establish the six test sites in diverse operatingenvironments and climatic conditions. The test sites are operated by six non-federal entities andoverseen by the FAA. The six test sites contain over 20 test ranges in 10 different climaticzones.

In addition to the test sites, on May 27, 2014, the FAA issued a draft solicitation for thecreation of an FAA Center for Excellence for Unmanned Systems that is expected to become anintegral part of the agency’s UAS research efforts. The Center is expected to help coordinate thework of the six UAS test centers to avoid redundant research projects and facilitate informationsharing and collection. The Center will issue federal matching grants for university/industryresearch projects directed to detect-and-avoid technology, control and communications,compatibility with air traffic control operations and training and certification of UAS pilots andother crew members. The FAA’s draft solicitation for the center for excellence will be open forcomment through June 29, 2014, with a final solicitation issued sometime in August. Thespecifics of how the center for excellence will interact with the six test sites will be finalizedafter the Center’s teams are selected.


43

FAA TEST FACILITY #1:

Northern Plains UAS Test Site at the University of North Dakota

OPERATOR:

North Dakota Department of Commerce

LOCATION:

Grand Forks, North Dakota. Initial flights will be conducted over North Dakota StateUniversity’s Carrington Extension Center located in Carrington, North Dakota. Thesecond set of missions will fly over Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, Devils Lake,North Dakota.

OPERATIONAL:

May 5, 2014

PRIMARY TESTING OBJECTIVE:

The test site is devoted to conducting precision agriculture research studies. The UASswill be used to demonstrate UAS capabilities for soil testing and crop status.

SECONDARY TESTING OBJECTIVES:

Collection of safety related operational data needed for UAS integration. The site willfocus on the development of the data needed for UAS certification and maintenancestandards. In addition, the maintenance data collected during site operations will supporta prototype database for UAS maintenance and repair.

CONTACTS:

Paul LucyDirector, Economic Development and Finance DivisionNorth Dakota Department of Commerce1600 East Century Ave., Suite 2Bismarck, ND 58503Phone: (701) 328-5300email: [email protected]


44

FAA TEST FACILITY #2

Pan Pacific UAS Test Range

OPERATOR:

University of Alaska.

LOCATION:

Fairbanks, Alaska with additional test ranges in Oregon and Hawaii.

OPERATIONAL:

May 5, 2014.


The primary work of the test range is to conduct wildlife surveys. The project is todemonstrate whether UAS can be used to accurately locate, identify and count large wildanimals such as caribou, reindeer, musk ox and bear.


Collection of safety-related operational data needed for UAS integration. The primarytest site is 5 miles from the Fairbanks International Airport and work will be done todevelop procedures to coordinate UAS operations with air traffic controllers. The FAAanticipates that the Alaska flights will generate data on the frequency and types ofcontacts needed between UAS operators and controllers as a prelude to flights at thesister UAS facilities in Oregon and Hawaii.

CONTACTS:

Rosanne BaileyPan Pacific UAS Test Range Complex Director and Deputy Director, ACUASIUniversity of Alaska903 Koyukuk Drive, P.O. Box 757320Fairbanks, AK 99775Phone: (907) 455-2104Email: [email protected]


45


Nevada

OPERATOR:

State of Nevada, with operations overseen by Nevada Institute for Autonomous Systems(NIAS).

LOCATION:

The Nevada testing sites are located in Fallon Municipal Airport, Boulder City MunicipalAirport, Desert Rock Airport, and Stead Airport.

OPERATIONAL:

June 9, 2014.


The primary work of the test center will be the development of UAS standards foroperations as well as certification requirements. Initial test flights have been authorizedto use UAS to monitor disaster response exercises.


Collection of information on interaction between UAS operations and civilian air trafficcontrol. The tests will also collect data on how UAS operations will be integrated intothe FAA’s NextGen air traffic control initiatives.

CONTACTS:

Jennifer CooperCommunications DirectorGovernor’s Office of Economic DevelopmentGrant Sawyer Building555 East Washington, Suite 5400Las Vegas, NV 89101Phone: (702) 486-2700Email: [email protected]


46


New York’s Griffiss International Airport.

OPERATOR:

Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance (NUAIR).

LOCATION:

NUAIR will operate the test sites at the Griffiss International Airport in Rome, NewYork, and at Joint Base Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

OPERATIONAL:

Date to be announced.


The primary goal of testing will be to develop sense-and-avoid technology and todetermine how UASs can be integrated into the congested northeast US airspace.


The collection of data necessary for the FAA develop its safety and oversight programsover UAS operations as well as validation and verification processes.

CONTACTS:

Andrea BianchiProgram Manager, NUAIR Alliance592 Hangar RoadSuite 200Rome, NY 13441Phone: (315) 470-1835email: [email protected]


47

FAA TEST FACILITY #5

Texas UAS Test Site

OPERATOR:

Texas A&M University

LOCATION:

The University’s UAS Command and Control Center at the Coastal Bend BusinessInnovation Center in Corpus Christi will manage 11 Texas test ranges.

OPERATIONAL:

June 20, 2014.


The test site’s projects include using UASs to help preserve and restore ocean wetlands,meteorological research, and law enforcement support missions. These missions willhelp advance detect and avoid technologies and establish safety system requirements forUAS vehicles.


Collection of data needed to develop protocols and procedures for airworthiness testingand human factors issues arising from UAS control-station layout, as well as commandand control and link technologies.

CONTACTS:

Gloria GallardoDirector, Communications and Public Affairs6300 Ocean DriveCorpus Christi, TX 78412Phone: (361) 825-2427Email: [email protected]


48


Virginia Test Site

OPERATOR:

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)

LOCATION:

Multiple locations planned in Virginia and New Jersey

OPERATIONAL:

Date to be Announced


Testing UAS failure modes and systems for successfully terminating flight in the event ofa system failure.


Data collection to help evaluate operational and technical risk areas from UAS operation.

CONTACTS:

Mr. Jon GreeneAssociate DirectorICTAS BuildingStanger Street (0193)Blacksburg, VA 24061Phone: (540) 231-8566Email: [email protected]


49

UAS FACT SHEET

Section 333 ChecklistThe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

Scope of Application

o Use of UASo Aircrafto Pilot/Operator

Exemptions (14 CFR 11.61 et seq.)

o 14 CFR Part 21—Airworthiness Certificateo 14 CFR § 45.23, 91.9, 91.203

Aircraft Marking Registration Document/Flight Manuals

o 14 CFR § 61.113, 91.109

Pilot in command Flight Instruction Initial training and qualification

o 14 CFR § 91.7, 91.103

Airworthiness Pre-flight

o 14 CFR § 91.119, 91.121

Minimum safe altitude Altimeter settings

o 14 CFR § 91.151

Final requirements for VFR flight

o 14 CFR § 91.203(a)(b)

Aircraft registration and certification

o 14 CFR § 91.405 et seq.

Maintenance and maintenance inspections

Privacy Issues


50

Freedom of Information Attachments to FAA Submission

o Aircraft manuals/informationo Pilot informationo Operating Handbooko Preflight checklisto Emergency procedures

APPENDIX

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP is an international law firm with more than 575 attorneys and public policy advisors in 15 offices and 13 markets. The firm is uniquely positioned at the intersection of law, business and government, representing clients in the areas of complex litigation, corporate law, energy, environment, finance, government contracts, health care, infrastructure, insurance, intellectual property, private client services, public policy, real estate, and technology. For more information, visit mckennalong.com.

For more information, contact:

Raymond BiaginiPartner

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006

T: 202.496.7687 l [email protected]

Mark DombroffPartner

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1676 International Drive, Penthouse McLean, VA 22102


Dane JaquesPartner

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1676 International Drive, Penthouse McLean, VA 22102


Frederic LevyPartner

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006


Albany l Atlanta l Brussels l Denver l Los Angeles l Miami l New York l Northern Virginia l Orange County l Rancho Santa Fe l San Diego l San Francisco l Seoul l Washington, DC

unmanned aircraft systems practice handbook

Documents