Small Craft UAS Bill is at the White House and did you know there is a night flying exemption now?

[Jussaguy]

It's going down. Did anyone even know that the FAA finalized an exemption for 333s that allow night flying? Sort of ironically, the first night 333 exemption was issued to a Canada based company with US offices (was issued April 18th). Also, that article I posted in the "how to make money" thread that veered off-topic(ish) makes a lot more sense now. There is a lot going on and for business owners with 333s and I believe those without are still able to be heard but there isn't much time.

The small aircraft UAS bill is at The White House and is soon to be voted on. It's my understanding that the FAA has made all their recommendations but if there is something you don't like, find out how to have your voice heard (business owners) as this is the time. There will be no changes for at least a couple years (and since there is no strong opposition on either side, it's a rare bi-partisan agreement and congress loves to pretend they work well together so I believe whatever is in front of them will pass).

I think it's all gonna be a lot better actually but still, some things make no sense if you read the summaries over. Not sure if the entire bill is public or not since it hasn't been voted on. I believe it is. It should be if not.

Even by the standards of the exciting and ever-changing landscape of unmanned aerial system (UAS) or drone law, the month of April was eventful. In April, we observed in at least one case the Federal Aviation Administration significantly relax its commercial UAS operational restrictions, as well as an enormous step forward in the rule making process for what many hope will be final regulations regarding the commercial operation of all small UAS in the national airspace.

Nighttime commercial UAS operations now permitted by FAA

Just recently, the Federal Aviation Administration very quietly made a precedential policy shift in issuing the first Section 333 exemption permitting the commercial operation of UAS during night. On April 18, 2016, the FAA issued exemption No. 16341, which will permit the US unit of Toronto-based Industrial Skyworks, Inc. to perform commercial UAS operations during the night for building and roof inspection.

A busy month in the world of small UAS law and rule making | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm

 

[MapMaker53]

Does anyone have the link for submitting comments on this pending legislation?

 

[ianwood]

To be clear, the bill is part of the FAA reauthorization. It has passed through the Senate but not the House. The only White House involvement at this point is for regulatory consultation.

 

[Jussaguy]

Does anyone have the link for submitting comments on this pending legislation?

I believe it would be the OIRA?

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

It might also be wise to tell you state senators your thoughts. If they aren't going to do anything, their office might let you know what you can do.

Trust me, I know from experience, that a group of people can make differences in regional areas but this is the FAA and it covers all air regardless of state. It's the same as murder, its constitutionally illegal so no state can make it legal. It's almost as if the FAA has been written into the constitution because the states can't opt out of it at all for any reason. However, I believe there are some rules within the bill that can be augmented by the state, just not the general spirit of it.

 

[Jussaguy]

To be clear, the bill is part of the FAA reauthorization. It has passed through the Senate but not the House. The only White House involvement at this point is for regulatory consultation.

Wait, you just said the words it passed through the Senate but not the House (a necessary thing for an act to become law as I'm sure you know) but the only involvement of the white house at this point is for consultation.

Did you forget the first sentence while typing the second? JK but it still has to pass the House and it will and there by the sounds of it, it's very beneficial for everyone but it's still not too late to get your words in there. A lot of the workings of this bill have been purposefully done quietly like the night exemption. Did ANYONE know about that. It's been in a month since the first one was given out.

 

[BigAl07]

I believe it would be the OIRA?

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

It might also be wise to tell you state senators your thoughts. If they aren't going to do anything, their office might let you know what you can do.

Somewhere along the way some information has been sent out in error. Not by you Jussaguy but some publication recently posted "click here to send OIRA your comments" or something like that. I submitted my comments to OIRA a couple of weeks ago and here is their reply (word for word):

"Thank you for your inquiry to the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC). We are responsible for compiling and publishing information about Federal regulatory activities and for information support services to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget. You can become acquainted with our work by visiting our website at http://www.reginfo.gov/.
Regrettably our office does not handle processing or collecting public comments for rulemaking actions. We recommend contacting the agency (Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration) directly for further instructions on where to submit public comments for Proposed Rule, RIN 2120-AJ60 "Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems". Also, public comments can be submitted via Regulations.gov during the open public comment period.

Thank you for your feedback and have a great day."

 

[ianwood]

Wait, you just said the words it passed through the Senate but not the House (a necessary thing for an act to become law as I'm sure you know) but the only involvement of the white house at this point is for consultation.

Did you forget the first sentence while typing the second? JK but it still has to pass the House and it will and there by the sounds of it, it's very beneficial for everyone but it's still not too late to get your words in there.

My post is perfectly clear.

A lot of the workings of this bill have been purposefully done quietly like the night exemption. Did ANYONE know about that. It's been in a month since the first one was given out.

The 333 night exemption has nothing to do with the bill in Congress.

 

[Reed L]

I'm always writing my senator for some reason or another, and you can find out who your representatives are here - Find Your Representative · House.gov

 

[CenLA]

I read above the 95-2 Senate passage in an online pub (Business Insider?) that the FAA Reauthorization bill prohibits states from making laws with respect to altitude or travel direction (like across private property) but have not found that in the lengthy text. Can anyone point out where it says that?

 

[ianwood]

I read above the 95-2 Senate passage in an online pub (Business Insider?) that the FAA Reauthorization bill prohibits states from making laws with respect to altitude or travel direction (like across private property) but have not found that in the lengthy text. Can anyone point out where it says that?

Not sure where it is but it is called "express preemption". Feinstein tried to have it removed and failed.

 

[Jussaguy]

To be clear, the bill is part of the FAA reauthorization. It has passed through the Senate but not the House. The only White House involvement at this point is for regulatory consultation.

Far be it from me to want to engage you but how is it that the only White House involvement is for "regulatory consultation" when by your own admission it has yet to be voted on by The House?

I am asking, not questioning.

As for it having nothing to do with the Modetnzation Act and therefore 333, you are correct. Indirectly it does as presumably the "Small UAS Bill" or whatever they are calling it this month will affect the need for one, in theory anyway.

Small UAS rule heads to White House OIRA for final review

The long-awaited small UAS rule may be coming sooner than many had anticipated. In late April, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) received FAA’s Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which sets forth the FAA’s proposed rules and requirements for the non-hobby or non-recreational (read: commercial) operation of UAS weighing less than 55 pounds. While OIRA review is procedurally limited to 90 days pursuant to executive order, it can often occur within half that time.

Those reading should take note of this short review period because the OIRA review process offers industry stakeholders or interested parties their last chance to provide input prior to a final rule being issued. Indeed, it is OIRA’s policy to “meet with any party interested in discussing issues,” including “small businesses or other business or industry interests.”

With the multitude of issues involved in UAS integration and the commercial operation of UAS in the domestic airspace, industry stakeholders are advised to take part in this important step in the final rule making process.

 

[BigAl07]

The House is not the same as The White House


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jussaguy]

The House is not the same as The White House


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose Congress is not part of the White House. I didn't mean The House (meaning the White House). I took plenty of poly-sci classes a bunch of years ago and I have a basic understanding of how the government is supposed to work and I suppose upon a rethinking, the House and Senate are not The White House the same way The Pentagon isn't. I am willing to defer to that. Irrelevant semantic conversation though, and while I appreciate the correction the fact remains that The House still hasn't voted it into law and therefore the article that I posted in the OP is saying "if ya got something to say, hurry on up" which was the purpose of this thread and is still a fact, regardless.

Thanks.

 

[10X]

I suppose Congress is not part of the White House.

Correct. Congress is not part of the White House.

 

[BigAl07]

I suppose Congress is not part of the White House. I didn't mean The House (meaning the White House). I took plenty of poly-sci classes a bunch of years ago and I have a basic understanding of how the government is supposed to work and I suppose upon a rethinking, the House and Senate are not The White House the same way The Pentagon isn't. I am willing to defer to that. Irrelevant semantic conversation though, and while I appreciate the correction the fact remains that The House still hasn't voted it into law and therefore the article that I posted in the OP is saying "if ya got something to say, hurry on up" which was the purpose of this thread and is still a fact, regardless.

Thanks.

I'm pretty sure the opportunity for comment has come and gone. Since we can all agree that it's currently sitting with OIRA yet OIRA plainly said:

"Regrettably our office does not handle processing or collecting public comments for rulemaking actions. We recommend contacting the agency (Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration) directly for further instructions on where to submit public comments for Proposed Rule, RIN 2120-AJ60 "Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems". Also, public comments can be submitted via Regulations.gov during the open public comment period."

The Open Public Comment Period has expired unless it gets kicked back, revised and re-posted for comment again. If someone can locate a valid way to submit comment to them about this now please offer that information here so we can all utilize it.

 

[Jussaguy]

I'm pretty sure the opportunity for comment has come and gone. Since we can all agree that it's currently sitting with OIRA yet OIRA plainly said:

"Regrettably our office does not handle processing or collecting public comments for rulemaking actions. We recommend contacting the agency (Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration) directly for further instructions on where to submit public comments for Proposed Rule, RIN 2120-AJ60 "Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems". Also, public comments can be submitted via Regulations.gov during the open public comment period."

The Open Public Comment Period has expired unless it gets kicked back, revised and re-posted for comment again. If someone can locate a valid way to submit comment to them about this now please offer that information here so we can all utilize it.

Well read the biography of the two people that wrote that article in the OP. They are lawyers for sure but not all lawyers are snake oil salesmen. Those two guys are very specialized civil and governmental litigators with a speciality in UAS and the emerging laws and even if you think that there desire is strictly money driven, they are only trying to make the field open to more people because more money from them.

No offense, but in a situation where there are two people telling me something, I weigh the desires of the two and the experience and knowledge and unless you can beat that bio of their's, I'm going to say that they aren't wasting their time drafting a well written op-ed saying basically "hurry up, there is still time to be heard" so I don't think based on that, that the time to be heard is over.

You may very well be right but what credentials do you have that would override what they are saying?

I don't mean to sound rude while asking that, it just sounds that way.

 

[BigAl07]

Well read the biography of the two people that wrote that article in the OP. They are lawyers for sure but not all lawyers are snake oil salesmen. Those two guys are very specialized civil and governmental litigators with a speciality in UAS and the emerging laws and even if you think that there desire is strictly money driven, they are only trying to make the field open to more people because more money from them.

No offense, but in a situation where there are two people telling me something, I weigh the desires of the two and the experience and knowledge and unless you can beat that bio of their's, I'm going to say that they aren't wasting their time drafting a well written op-ed saying basically "hurry up, there is still time to be heard" so I don't think based on that, that the time to be heard is over.

You may very well be right but what credentials do you have that would override what they are saying?

I don't mean to sound rude while asking that, it just sounds that way.

Dude are you serious? I only offered up my reply about what happened when I personally contacted OIRA and posted word for word what their email reply to me was. I wasn't trying to discredit anyone and merely stated that if someone did have a valid way to make a comment on the Proposed Rule to share that information because the suggested method is a dead end road.

Let's take this one step further and actually look it up for you since you don't want to do any of the real work yourself. Go to www.regulations.gov and in the search field type
"Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems"
or click on this link so you don't get confused looking for it:
Regulations.gov

Now feel free to read the whole thing but what's important is the DATE at which comments are accepted. This was posted on Feb 24t 2016. NPRM are usually open for Public Comment for 60 days. That would be around April 24th 2016. In the upper right hand corner (just below the comment now button) that acceptance date reads "Due Apr 24 2015, at 11:59 PM ET" which means the comment period ends midnight 4/24/2016 which has come and gone.

Going by that information the opportunity for Public Comment closed roughly 21/2 weeks ago. While it's entirely possible you can still "submit" comment that's purely because the Public Docket Office is slammed with backlog of work and the docket is being updated up to 30 days AFTER an item has opened or closed. Your comments are merely going into a Black Hole because that train has already left the building. The comment period was 2/24/2016 - 4/24/2016 at which time it was moved for review and interpretation by other offices (namely OIRA).

Forget about it. You apparently don't fully read what people type to you and it's become a waste of time to even attempt to have an intelligent discussion with you. No matter what we type to you, at the end of the day you're going to wiggle it around until you think you're correct regardless of the conversation.

I wish you good luck and SAFE flights.

Allen

 

[Jussaguy]

Dude are you serious? I only offered up my reply about what happened when I personally contacted OIRA and posted word for word what their email reply to me was. I wasn't trying to discredit anyone and merely stated that if someone did have a valid way to make a comment on the Proposed Rule to share that information because the suggested method is a dead end road.

Let's take this one step further and actually look it up for you since you don't want to do any of the real work yourself. Go to www.regulations.gov and in the search field type
"Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems"
or click on this link so you don't get confused looking for it:
Regulations.gov

Now feel free to read the whole thing but what's important is the DATE at which comments are accepted. This was posted on Feb 24t 2016. NPRM are usually open for Public Comment for 60 days. That would be around April 24th 2016. In the upper right hand corner (just below the comment now button) that acceptance date reads "Due Apr 24 2015, at 11:59 PM ET" which means the comment period ends midnight 4/24/2016 which has come and gone.

Going by that information the opportunity for Public Comment closed roughly 21/2 weeks ago. While it's entirely possible you can still "submit" comment that's purely because the Public Docket Office is slammed with backlog of work and the docket is being updated up to 30 days AFTER an item has opened or closed. Your comments are merely going into a Black Hole because that train has already left the building. The comment period was 2/24/2016 - 4/24/2016 at which time it was moved for review and interpretation by other offices (namely OIRA).

Forget about it. You apparently don't fully read what people type to you and it's become a waste of time to even attempt to have an intelligent discussion with you. No matter what we type to you, at the end of the day you're going to wiggle it around until you think you're correct regardless of the conversation.

I wish you good luck and SAFE flights.

Allen

Whoa dude. I fully read everything. I was just responding to what you wrote. I didn't think you were trying to discredit anything.

The conversation was fine. Take a chill. Something got lost in translation there.

I never even stated an opinion or "think I'm right". I just reported an interesting article that my lawyer brother sent me and made my responses as I saw fit. I didn't even really offer an opinion other than "I don't think it's too late based on what I'm reading" and my conviction was less than strong so I have no idea what you're on about.

I have no idea what it is about this forum and it is unique to THIS forum but even when I walk on egg shells someone blows up eventually.

It's completely strange. Your comment to me was out of line, out of context and fairly rude. Your off the wall comments to me have no baring on anything that happened here.

Chill out.

PS - I read your whole response and since the article I posted was dated the 10th, the two lawyers that drafted that comment I'll take as a stronger word than your thoughts even backed up by what your interpreting you've read. That doesn't mean I'm right, it's just the fact. I said it as kindly as possible. Sorry that you don't like it. No offense intended. I figured we were adults able to handle differing opinions without going nutty.

 

[BarryWilson]

It's going down. Did anyone even know that the FAA finalized an exemption for 333s that allow night flying? Sort of ironically, the first night 333 exemption was issued to a Canada based company with US offices (was issued April 18th). Also, that article I posted in the "how to make money" thread that veered off-topic(ish) makes a lot more sense now. There is a lot going on and for business owners with 333s and I believe those without are still able to be heard but there isn't much time.

The small aircraft UAS bill is at The White House and is soon to be voted on. It's my understanding that the FAA has made all their recommendations but if there is something you don't like, find out how to have your voice heard (business owners) as this is the time. There will be no changes for at least a couple years (and since there is no strong opposition on either side, it's a rare bi-partisan agreement and congress loves to pretend they work well together so I believe whatever is in front of them will pass).

I think it's all gonna be a lot better actually but still, some things make no sense if you read the summaries over. Not sure if the entire bill is public or not since it hasn't been voted on. I believe it is. It should be if not.


A busy month in the world of small UAS law and rule making | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm

Moo

I suppose Congress is not part of the White House. I didn't mean The House (meaning the White House). I took plenty of poly-sci classes a bunch of years ago and I have a basic understanding of how the government is supposed to work and I suppose upon a rethinking, the House and Senate are not The White House the same way The Pentagon isn't. I am willing to defer to that. Irrelevant semantic conversation though, and while I appreciate the correction the fact remains that The House still hasn't voted it into law and therefore the article that I posted in the OP is saying "if ya got something to say, hurry on up" which was the purpose of this thread and is still a fact, regardless.

Thanks.

Just for refresher bills go to the House of Representatives first, then once approved go to the Senate. If not approved by the Senate it returns to the House for revisions. Once approved again it goes back to the Senate. If approve in the Senate it then goes to the White House (physical location) and on to the President to be vetoed or signed into law.

 

[BarryWilson]

This is where Part 107 Pilots will benefit. We can already file for exemptions where a recreational pilot can't file for individual waivers. Exceptions are for AMA Clubs. Starting in April and in some 300 (representing 500) Airports in the U.S. Part 107 Pilots will be able to file ectronic flight plans to include waivers of BVLOS, Altitude, Night Flights, Over crowds without the lengthy 90 day waiver processes. Local control towers will be able to grant case by case flights and waivers with sufficient documentation in your flight plans. More permanent exemptions would still require the 333 exemption process.