1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Off to the Races: The FAA Initiates Informal Drone Rulemaking

Off to the Races: The FAA Initiates Informal Drone Rulemaking

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.14.19

Yesterday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) posted in the Federal Register the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People and the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The substance and implications of the draft rules were explored in previous client alerts and can be accessed here and here. Comments to both notices are due April 15, 2019.

The FAA also issued an interim final rule requiring small drone owners to display their FAA-issued registration number on the exterior of the aircraft. This is a change from the current rule, which only requires that the number be readily accessible and readable at a close distance. Under the new rule, owners will no longer have the flexibility to place the number in an enclosed compartment on the device, a practice which “presents an imminent risk of harm to first responders,” according to the rule. The rule is effective February 25, 2019, without the usual notice and comment period. This immediate implementation further underscores the Government’s concern over the unique security risks posed by small drones. Interested parties should submit comments by March 15, 2019, as the rule may be amended based on comments received.

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26

ASBCA Denies Government Motion to Dismiss, Providing Key Guidance on Contractor Claim Standards Post-ECC International

In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer. ...