en en id en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en es en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en
Last week, a new audit report was released regarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) unmanned aircraft system (UAS or drone) waiver process. According to the audit, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has found room for improvement. In particular, the FAA’s timeliness in response to waiver requests could improve.
The audit was conducted between May 2017 and September 2018, focusing on the FAA’s methods of approving waivers under the Small UAS Part 107 regulations and conducting risk-based oversight of remote pilots with waivers. In the OIG’s summary of findings, it says that the FAA has “established processes for reviewing and granting waivers but has experienced difficulties in obtaining sufficient information, managing the volume of requests and communicating with applicants, particularly in explaining reasons for denying requests.”
While the OIG did point out that the FAA has improved its guidance and processes for UAS Part 107 waivers, the growing demand for UAS operations will only create more difficulty with review timeliness and responsiveness. In turn, this could increase the risk that operators may simply continue to bypass established processes and operate drones without FAA approval.
That possibility leads to the OIG’s assessment of the FAA’s risk-based oversight system, which states that the FAA’s “ability to perform meaningful risk-based surveillance is hindered by limited access to detailed UAS operator, FAA inspection and risk data. As a result, [the] FAA does not have assurance of operators’ compliance with regulations, is not well-positioned to develop an oversight strategy, and is missing opportunities to gather information that will help shape rulemaking and policies.”
Therefore, the OIG provided the following recommendations:
Assess the workforce tasked with reviewing waiver and authorization requests to determine if Air Traffic Organization (ATO) staffing is adequate, and take appropriate action as needed.
Assess the performance of the ATO’s non-automated airspace waiver request process to determine if volume and timeliness goals would improve the process, and if so, implement these goals.
Implement performance metrics for the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) to evaluate its effect on application processing volume and timeliness, and take appropriate action as needed.
Create internal controls to improve consistency in standard template responses used to correspond with applicants regarding requests for information.
Update National Flight Standards Work Program Guidelines to require field offices to perform inspections on a sample of commercial drone operators in their area for a two-year period (designed to increase available inspection data for creating a risk profile of UAS).
Develop a baseline risk assessment profile of small commercial drone operators to inform inspector surveillance planning decisions, as well as procedures to periodically update this profile.
Issue guidance to field offices on how to obtain FAA information on waiver- and/or authorization-holding UAS operators (designed to help inform their inspection planning).
Provide clarifying guidance to UAS operators regarding the small UAS rule’s provision relating to operations in the areas above people.
The FAA plans to complete all of these items by August 31, 2019, except for recommendation number five; the FAA says it does not agree “with the need to conduct an additional two years’ worth of sample inspections to accumulate inspection data.” However, it did agree to implement “new items for UAS oversight during fiscal year 2019 and include [those] items in its National Work Program Guidelines by August 31, 2019” which the OIG says meets the intent of this recommendation.
Tags: ederal Aviation Administration, FAA, OIG, part 107, UAS
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the Business Litigation Group and the Data Privacy and Security Team. She concentrates her practice on privacy and security compliance under both state and federal regulations and advising clients on website and mobile app privacy and…
Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the Business Litigation Group and the Data Privacy and Security Team. She concentrates her practice on privacy and security compliance under both state and federal regulations and advising clients on website and mobile app privacy and security compliance. Kathryn helps clients review, revise and implement necessary policies and procedures under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). She also provides clients with the information needed to effectively and efficiently handle potential and confirmed data breaches while providing insight into federal regulations and requirements for notification and an assessment under state breach notification laws. Prior to joining the firm, Kathryn was an associate at Nixon Peabody. She earned her J.D., cum laude, from Roger Williams University School of Law and her B.A., magna cum laude, from Stonehill College. She is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Read her full rc.com bio here.
Read more about Kathryn Rattigan
Show more Show less
Virginia Tech Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership to Lead FAA UTM Field Test
FAA Issues Task Order for UTM Project at Griffiss International Airport
Remote ID Ruling For FAA in RaceDayQuads Suit
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter
Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Facebook
View Our Linkedin Profile View Our Linkedin Profile
Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider
Follow us on Twitter Follow Us on Facebook View Our Linkedin Profile RSS
Robinson+Cole is a law firm serving regional, national and global clients from nine offices throughout the Northeast. Our Data Privacy + Security Team brings together lawyers from the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology, Commercial Litigation, and E-Commerce Groups.
Topics Select Category Artificial Intelligence Autonomous Machines Autonomous Systems Autonomous Vehicles Blockchain Cannabis CCPA Children’s Privacy Coronavirus Cybersecurity Data Breach Data Privacy Data Security Digital Assets Drone Privacy Drones e-Discovery Enforcement + Litigation Events Geolocation Guest Posts Health Information Privacy HIPAA and Health Information Information Governance Insurance Coverage International Privacy Laws Internet of Things Mergers & Acquisitions New + Now Privacy Tips Public-Private Partnerships with Cyber Security Safe Harbor Social Media State Laws Relating to Data Telehealth Telephone Consumer Protection Act Uncategorized Virtual Currency Websites
Archives Select Month September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015