Bill Overview
Title: Drone Act of 2022
Description: This bill creates a federal statutory framework to criminalize various conduct involving the misuse of drones. Among its provisions, the bill generally prohibits the operation of a drone that poses an imminent safety hazard to vessels or motor vehicles; weaponization of a drone (e.g., attaching a firearm or explosive); and operation of a drone that interferes with a law enforcement, emergency response, or military operation or activity of the federal government or of a state, local, or tribal government.
Sponsors: Rep. Gallagher, Mike [R-WI-8]
Target Audience
Population: People Using Drones or Affected by Their Use
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The bill impacts people who professionally use drones, such as drone operators involved in filming, surveying, or package delivery, as they must ensure compliance with new regulations.
- Recreational drone users who might inadvertently or intentionally break these new rules will be impacted as they may face new criminal liabilities.
- Law enforcement and emergency responders will be impacted as this bill could assist them in managing airspace and preventing interference during operations.
Reasoning
- The policy is likely to primarily affect professional drone users due to the new compliance requirements for legitimate and possibly covert operations. It's important to include both commercial users (e.g., delivery services) and enthusiasts (e.g., recreational pilots within legal bounds) who may misuse drones unintentionally or out of ignorance.
- Additionally, law enforcement and emergency response personnel could benefit, as the policy might simplify managing airspace interference.
- A few recreational users who strictly adhere to laws might remain unaffected, representing a lower impact of the policy on them. Including these varied perspectives ensures a balanced view.
- Considering the budget constraint, the policy might require targeted enforcement, focusing initially on areas with high drone usage or previous safety incidents.
Simulated Interviews
Delivery Drone Operator (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new regulations ensure safety which is critical for our operations, but complying with extra guidelines could be initially tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Filmmaker (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional rules could limit creative freedom, but I recognize the necessity for safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Austin, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Drone Act might impose initial costs, but it ensures a safer and more predictable market space long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, I worry the new rules could jeopardize our research projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Recreational Drone User (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy won't change much for me, as I already follow all guidelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Law Enforcement Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will help us prevent drone interference, reducing risks in operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Urban Planner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Drone Act supports safer city environments but might slow down project implementations initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Surveillance Drone Operator (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new law adds layers to our job but ensures better public safety, which I find necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Drone Racing Hobbyist (Denver, CO)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think specific racing events might face new scrutiny, leading us to further emphasize safety measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Public Safety Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly enhance public safety by limiting drone misuse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $55000000)
Key Considerations
- The technological capacity and resource allocation of federal agencies to enforce the new drone regulations effectively.
- Balancing regulation and innovation in the drone sector to prevent stifling industry growth.
- Public perception and acceptance of increased regulations and potential legal ramifications for hobbyists and professional drone users.