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: Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: People who operate or use drones commercially or recreationally
Estimated Size: 800000
- The population targeted by the bill includes all individuals and entities that utilize or operate drones since they need to comply with the new regulations.
- The increasing adoption of drones for both commercial and recreational purposes suggests that a significant number of individuals worldwide are impacted.
- Specific groups include hobbyists, commercial operators, and industries like delivery, agriculture, surveillance, and filmmaking.
- With regard to global drone market dynamics: commercial (e.g., delivery and surveillance) and hobbyist communities (both growing sectors) are directly relevant.
- The bill also affects regulatory bodies and enforcement agencies that monitor and ensure compliance with drone operations.
Reasoning
- The simulated interviews need to reflect the diversity of the drone-operating population, including individuals who use drones for varied purposes such as recreation, agriculture, deliveries, and filmmaking.
- We must consider that the policy impacts distinct sectors differently; for example, a hobbyist might have a different perspective than a commercial operator due to operational scale and regulatory impacts.
- Given the budget constraints, we need to estimate the policy's reach and intensity of enforcement, influencing the wellbeing scores post-policy.
- Registered drone users are estimated at around 860,000, primarily recreational, thus affecting the commonness rating of different user types in our simulations.
- Given the policy's focus on the U.S., we should concentrate on highlighting the implications for U.S.-based users, including law enforcement interactions.
Simulated Interviews
Drone Filmmaker (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a commercial drone user, regulation is important to ensure safety.
- The concern is mainly about how these regulations will be enforced and if they will affect filming permits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Farmer (Fargo, ND)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Drone laws might impact how quickly I can adopt new drone technologies.
- Keeping fields out of restricted zones will be a constant challenge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Hobbyist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a hobbyist, I hope the new regulations don't hinder recreational flying.
- Safety is crucial, but rules must remain reasonable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Police Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations are necessary to manage misuse of drones in sensitive operations.
- It might increase our workload temporarily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Drone Delivery Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of safety, but restricted zones need precise definitions.
- Efficiency in delivery routes could be affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Tech Startup Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This regulation could drive innovation in traffic management solutions.
- There is potential for an increased market for compliance technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand safety concerns, but I hope I can continue my hobby without unnecessary hassle.
- Drones provide me relaxation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
News Reporter (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We rely on drones for unique viewpoints in reporting; regulations could affect quickly getting footage.
- Safety is crucial, so we support clear guidelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Environmental monitoring with drones is key; new policy should not hinder conservation projects.
- I'm optimistic about maintaining responsible drone use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Sales Coordinator (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations might affect sales if they're too restrictive.
- We're focused on educating customers about responsible drone use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32040000, High: $75920000)
Year 5: $58300000 (Low: $34500000, High: $81900000)
Year 10: $64800000 (Low: $38400000, High: $91000000)
Year 100: $105000000 (Low: $62500000, High: $147000000)
Key Considerations
- Establishing comprehensive monitoring systems for drones will be challenging but necessary for the bill's success.
- Training law enforcement and regulatory bodies on new provisions will require time and resources.
- Ensuring that the penalties and deterrents are effective enough to reduce the misuse of drones.