Regulating Unmanned Aviation and Transferring Risk
On Aug. 29, 2016, the FAA implemented Part 107. The rule created a regulatory framework for the civil and commercial operations of small UAS, weighing 55 pounds or less. Generally, Part 107 requires operators to fly under 400 feet, within visual line of sight and only during daylight hours. Under this process, drone pilots are issued a Remote Pilot Certification and each drone is registered with the FAA, writes Gary Reshefsky.
July 24, 2017 at 11:21 AM
4 minute read
In the last year, the federal government has responded to the emerging commercial industry of Unmanned Aviation by issuing new regulations. A drone is operated for commercial purposes whenever the operator is being paid to utilize the drone or it is used in furtherance of a business. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sought to address the widespread use of this technology by creating a path for commercial drone operators to obtain certification under a process known as the Small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) rule or (Part 107). On Aug. 29, 2016, the FAA implemented Part 107. The rule created a regulatory framework for the civil and commercial operations of small UAS, weighing 55 pounds or less. Generally, Part 107 requires operators to fly under 400 feet, within visual line of sight and only during daylight hours. Under this process, drone pilots are issued a Remote Pilot Certification and each drone is registered with the FAA. One of the requirements of Part 107 is that the drone pilot completes an online knowledge course and passes an exam. Part 107 also created a process for operators to obtain exemptions to its rules if the operator can prove mitigating factors to support the exemption. To date, more than 900 of these exemptions have been granted, with the vast majority permitting night time operations of drones.
The FAA has a separate set of regulations for hobbyist drone operators. On May 19, it was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals that hobbyist operators are not required to be registered. This decision, however, does not affect commercial drone operators.
Prior to Part 107, commercial drone operation was only legal through a tedious process known as Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) 333 Exemptions. Since the introduction of Part 107, more than 30,000 Part 107 certifications have been issued. Operators in Florida have obtained the second most certifications in the United States, just behind California.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBack-To-Back Hurricanes' Impact on Florida Legal Work Will Go Beyond Usual Suspects
5 minute readHolland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute readHurricane Helene Likely To Roil Florida's Already Imperiled Insurance Market
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250