(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States. This part also applies to the eligibility of civil small unmanned aircraft systems to operate over human beings in the United States.
(b) This part does not apply to the following:
(1) Air carrier operations;
(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44809;
(3) Any operation that the holder of an exemption under section 333 of Public Law 112-95 or 49 U.S.C. 44807 elects to conduct pursuant to the exemption, unless otherwise specified in the exemption; or
(4) Any operation that a person elects to conduct under part 91 of this chapter with a small unmanned aircraft system that has been issued an airworthiness certificate.
[Amdt. 107-8, 86 FR 4381, Jan. 15, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 892 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “24 (citing 14 C.F.R. § 107.1 (b)(1) ). EPIC responds that the FAA fails to offer a definition of "air carrier operations" or show that the delivery services in question meet any such definition.”
Moncur v. City of Los Angeles, 68 Cal. App. 3d 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).
“5690 ; 14 C.F.R. § 107.1 et seq.) We need not dwell at length on the vexing but now fairly settled problem of interference with private rights which our California Supreme Court found in airport searches and seizures.”
United States v. Jeffrey Scott Freeland, 562 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1977).
“14 C.F.R. § 107.1 (e). Contrary to the suggestion in the district court’s opinion, we do not believe that all searches of passengers’ luggage at airports are invariably subject to the proscription of the Fourth Amendment.”
Orr v. Pac. Sw. Airlines, 208 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
“The portion of the corridor on the exit side of the screening apparatus was a “sterile area” ( 14 C.F.R. § 107.1 ) where both the District as “airport operator” and participating air carriers had security responsibilities.”
People v. Heimel, 812 P.2d 1177 (Colo. 1991).
“The federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974 require all airport operators to institute and maintain an approved security program and to prohibit any person from entering a “sterile” area — that is, “an area to which access is…”
People v. Kluga, 32 Cal. App. 3d 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “" (14 C.F.R. 107.1, ¶ (e), 37 Fed. Reg. 25934 .”
People v. Waring, 174 A.D.2d 16 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).
“, 14 CFR 107.1 et seq.; see also, 14 CFR 121.”
Singer v. City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.D.C. 2017).
“" 14 C.F.R. § 107.1 (a). The rule requires, inter alia , that anyone controlling a small unmanned aircraft system register with the FAA, id.”
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. FAA (D.C. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “24 (citing 14 C.F.R. § 107.1 (b)(1)). EPIC responds that the FAA fails to offer a definition of “air carrier operations” or show that the delivery services in question meet any such definition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.