| Action | Take-Off and Landing Unmanned Aircraft on Land Owned by a Political Subdivision or Locality |
| Stage | Emergency/NOIRA |
| Comment Period | Ended on 10/13/2021 |
 |
2 comments
Small UAV Coalition comments
The Small UAV Coalition submits the following comments on the above-captioned rule, which is intended to implement HB 742, codified at Virginia Code 15.2-926.3, into Title 24 of the Virginia Administrative Code.
General comments
Virginia should be applauded for its leadership in the development of the drone industry
The Coalition wishes to acknowledge that the Commonwealth of Virginia was early to recognize the economic and consumer benefits of drones and by prohibiting the creation of a patchwork of varying and inconsistent local regulations in its 2018 law preempting local regulation of drones. As a result, Virginia became a leader in drone research and development and investment.
Virginia’s rule is generally consistent with the constitutional and statutory allocation of responsibility.
As a general matter, the Coalition supports subsection 24VAC5-20-440(A)(1) that no political subdivision may prohibit the take-off or landing of an unmanned aircraft by a commercial operator in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.
This provision is consistent with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, which was an exercise by Congress of its delegated power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has plenary authority over aircraft operations, including unmanned aircraft operations, in the nation’s airspace. See State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet, Office of FAA Chief Counsel (Dec. 17, 2015), and cases cited therein. Accordingly, any State or local regulation of aircraft must serve important State and local interests, be narrowly tailored to serve such interests, and not discriminate against, or cause an undue burden on, interstate commerce.
The Coalition also supports subsection 24VAC5-20-440(B), which excludes the vehicular travel portions of public highways and streets from take-off and landing areas subject to political subdivision regulation. We further recommend that this provision be expanded to include rights of ways adjacent to the public highways and streets.
Four provisions in the Virginia rule are subject to federal preemption unless revised
The provisions in 24VAC5-20-420 that raise concerns under this constitutional rubric are:
The Coalition believes these provisions should be revised or limited, as recommended below, to avoid any undue burden on interstate commerce and any conflict with Federal Aviation Regulations.
Specific comments
Section 24VAC5-20-420 Political Subdivision Powers
The regulation may provide for times when take-offs and landings are allowed, which shall apply specifically to each designated property or a class of such properties that share the same specific zoning designation and use.
The regulation of times for take-offs and landings should not apply across-the-board to all public property in a political subdivision but should be tailored to each specifically designated property or a category of properties. Any locality-wide time restriction will be overbroad and could interfere with interstate commerce.
We continue to be concerned with the first paragraph of subsection (C) for two reasons:
First, a commercial operator should not be required to show the purpose of the operation. Apart from the fact that a commercial operator should be presumed to takeoff or land in furtherance of its business and for no other reason, the purpose of a flight has no bearing on public safety or natural resources.
Second, this language empowers political subdivisions to evaluate the safety of the UAS operation, and to deny permission unless the operator provides a safety demonstration sufficient for the locality. As we have stated in comments submitted on previous drafts of this rule, the safety of UAS operators and operations is solely the responsibility of the FAA. Political subdivisions do not have the experience, expertise, or resources to evaluate safety risks or mitigations of such risks, nor should they be expected to, as this is the FAA’s responsibility. At most, a political subdivision may require compliance with and a commitment to comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations.
The FAA’s recognition of the local role in regulating the take-off and landing of aircraft -- both manned and unmanned -- is an acknowledgment of a local jurisdiction’s police powers, but such powers do not include aviation safety regulation; that responsibility rests with the FAA. Accordingly, the Coalition recommends the Department of Aviation consult with the FAA, and in the absence of the FAA’s approval of this language, the three showings in the first paragraph of subsection (C) should be deleted.
The Coalition supports a clarification that granting a permit should be a ministerial act; political subdivisions should not vested with authority to deny a permit for any reason other than the operator is unwilling to certify that it is in compliance with FAA regulations, lest the discretion to grant a permit intrude on the FAA’s authority over UAS and UAS operators. The Coalition recommends this limiting text to reflect this principle.[1]
To obtain a permit, the applicant may be required only to provide the name, address, phone number, and FAA remote pilot certificate number for the pilot in command under the permit, and to affirm that the applicant is fully compliant with applicable FAA regulations, and the conditions and limitations of any certificate, waiver, or exemption thereunder.
We support the requirement in the second paragraph of subsection (C) that any prohibition should be based upon a finding that takeoffs and landings on that property pose a “specific and significant risk” to public safety or natural resources. We also support requiring a map of this property in “electronic, computable, machine readable, and transmissible form.”
We recommend that the rule require any prohibition be narrowly tailored to the risk identified to public safety or natural resources, both as to the local property area designated and the times during which take-offs and landings will be prohibited. This additional requirement will help ensure that any prohibition will not place an undue burden on, or discriminate against, interstate commerce.
Subsection (D) allows a political subdivision to require a safety showing for a UAS weighing 55 pounds or more to conduct a take-off or landing at a specifically designated area. This language suffers from the same legal infirmity in subsection (C). The FAA has authorized the operation of UAS weighing more than 55 pounds by exemption under 49 U.S.C. 44807 (and previously under section 333 of Public Law 112-95 (2012)), and the Coalition recommends that no distinction based on weight should be made in this rule. A political subdivision should only be allowed to require compliance with applicable FAA regulations – 14 C.F.R. Part 107 for commercial drones weighing not more than 55 lbs., including any waiver granted under Part 107, section 44807 exemption for any operation of a drone weighing more than 55 lbs., and airworthiness and air carrier certification.
At a certain weight, UAS may need an airport runway to conduct take-offs and landings; in such cases, the operations should not be governed by this rule.
No permit may be required except for take-offs and landings at a specifically designated local government property.
By prohibiting the requirement of a permit for take-off and landing drones in areas designated for UAS use, subsection (E) implicitly allows a political subdivision to require a permit to conduct a take-off or landing from a particular local government property. The revised language makes this limitation explicit.
Section 24VAC5-20-430 Procedure for adopting an ordinance or regulation
This language would remove any ambiguity on whether this section bestows on a political subdivision any authority in addition to the authority provided in section 24VAC5-20-420.
The political subdivision must also submit to the department its findings of need for public safety or protection of specific natural resources. If the regulation is modified in a material way as a result of the review by the department, the political subdivision must advertise the revised regulation in its entirety.
A locality may regulate the take-off and landing of unmanned aircraft on property owned by the locality by ordinance or regulation.
The first sentence is duplicative of the first sentence of the subsection (A) and can therefore be deleted. It also may be misread as granting broad regulation authority if not limited explicitly to take-offs and landings.
Section 24VAC5-20-440 Exceptions
As we read this exception, no political subdivision may prohibit the take-off or landing of a UAS by a commercial operator in compliance with FAA regulation, even on local government property designated under 24VAC5-20-420. The locality may require a permit to do so, and the commercial operator may not be able to take-off or land at certain times, but no political subdivision may by ordinance or regulation prohibit the take-off and landing of a drone by a commercial operator in compliance with FAA rules. However, the Coalition is concerned that a locality may use the permit process effectively to prohibit take-off or landing, even if not set forth in an ordinance or regulation. Accordingly, we recommend that subsection (A) be revised to state:
No ordinance or regulation may prohibit, and no exercise of the permitting process may effectively prohibit:
No political subdivision’s local regulation enacted pursuant to the authority in this chapter shall apply to take-offs and landings on the vehicular travel portions of public highways and streets, including rights of way adjacent to such public highways and streets.
Section 24VAC5-20-450 Federal laws and regulations
Consistent with the congressional delegation of authority to regulate aviation authority to the FAA , this section should also address local government restrictions as well as allowances. We suggest adding the words “or restrict” as set forth below.
Nothing in this chapter shall allow or restrict any use of unmanned aircraft in any manner inconsistent with the federal laws and regulations, including Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Gregory S. Walden
Aviation Counsel
Small UAV Coalition
1990 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
202-496-7436
Take-Off and Landing Unmanned Aircraft on Land Owned
by a Political Subdivision or Locality of the Commonwealth
August 27, 2021 Emergency Text
Comments of Wing Aviation LLC
Wing Aviation submits the following comments on the above-captioned rule, which is intended to implement HB 742, codified at Virginia Code 15.2-926.3, into Title 24 of the Virginia Administrative Code.
Wing commends Virginia for its work in positioning itself as an early leader in the promotion and adoption of emerging technologies such as drones, or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). As a general matter, Wing encourages the Commonwealth to ensure that any local regulation promotes a vibrant and innovative UAS industry in the Commonwealth and supports access to the airspace for drone enthusiasts. We therefore request that DOAV actively embrace its role, as laid out in HB 742, of overseeing and reviewing any and all regulations put forward under this legislation by political subdivisions to ensure they do not cause undue burden to drone operations, avoid a complicated and burdensome patchwork of different rules between localities, and support ongoing UAS innovation in the Commonwealth. Absent rigorous DOAV oversight and guidance, a proliferation of harmful, confusing or poorly-written local regulations could stifle the development of the industry and jeopardize Virginia’s place as a leader in the development of autonomous technology.
Wing supports numerous provisions within the rule that specifically aim to further the goals stated above. Specifically, Wing strongly supports subsection 24VAC5-20-440(A)(1), which reinforces the right of commercial operators to operate in compliance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, and subsection 24VAC5-20-440(B), which excludes the vehicular travel portions of public highways and streets from take-off and landing areas subject to political subdivision regulation.
Below please find comments and suggestions on specific provisions within the above-captioned rule.
24VAC5-20-410 Definitions for Part VIII
24VAC5-20-410 defines political subdivision to mean: "(i) a locality, (ii) a school division, or (iii) any park authority, jail authority or airport authority that has the power to enact or promulgate ordinances, or regulations having the force or effect of law.”
Wing believes this regulation should align its definition of ‘political subdivision’ with what currently exists in Virginia code, or simply be limited to counties, cities, and towns within the Commonwealth.
The current definition would grant numerous subdivisions within a county, city or town the authority to promulgate regulations dealing with limitations on UAS operations. These entities may not have the resources or expertise to develop UAS rules or conduct UAS risk assessments as described in the bill. This broad definition could lead to a complicated, inconsistent, or confusing patchwork of restrictions that would run counter to Virginia’s overarching principle of encouraging the growth of the drone industry and the safe integration of UAS into the airspace.
For this reason, the definition of political subdivision should be narrowed to localities (counties, cities and towns) or simply reference the existing definition of political subdivisions found at Code of Virginia, § 8.01-385 (3)(iii).
24VAC5-20-420 Political subdivision powers
Subsection (C)
Wing has concerns regarding language in subsection (C) of 24VAC5-200420, Political subdivision powers, which reads in part that a political subdivision:
“...may designate specific properties of increased concern for public safety or risk to natural resources where an operator seeking to use the property must show the purpose of the take-off and landing, what steps the operator will take to limit risk to the public or to natural resources, and information to demonstrate that the take-off and landing can be carried out safely. On such properties, the regulation may deny permission to take-off or land unmanned aircraft, unless the operator can demonstrate the safety of the take-off and landing, based on the information provided.”
Concerning the purpose of the take-off and landing, a commercial operator should not be required to provide such a showing. If a commercial operator is conducting its operations under the terms for which it has been approved by the FAA, the purpose of that operation itself should not have relevance to any risk to public safety or natural resources.
In addition, subsection (C) appears to grant political subdivisions the authority to make safety determinations about UAS operations. Operational safety is the exclusive purview of the FAA, which has the requisite expertise to properly assess risks and mitigations from a safety perspective. Overlapping and/or contradictory safety requirements could pose a safety challenge, and inhibit UAS innovation and operations in the Commonwealth. In addition, operational risk assessments may be highly complex, and applications/notifications are unlikely to be properly processed by a political subdivision.
For these reasons, Wing believes the language referencing political subdivisions making safety determinations should be eliminated or altered to acknowledge FAA’s role and curtail the role of political subdivisions in safety-based assessments.
Subsection (D)
Subsection (D) states: “For unmanned aircraft with a takeoff weight of 55 pounds or more, the regulations may require the operator to provide information prior to any take-off or landing, demonstrating the safety of the take-off and landing.”
As stated above, operational safety is the exclusive purview of the FAA, which has the requisite expertise to properly assess risks and mitigations from a safety perspective. Overlapping and/or contradictory safety requirements could pose a safety challenge, and inhibit UAS innovation and operations in the Commonwealth. In addition, operational risk assessments may be highly complex, and applications/notifications are unlikely to be properly processed by a political subdivision.
For these reasons, Wing believes subsection (D) should be eliminated or altered to acknowledge FAA’s role and curtail the role of political subdivisions in safety-based assessments.