U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE VII— AVIATION PROGRAMS › Part PART A— AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY › Subpart subpart iii— safety › Chapter CHAPTER 448— UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

49 U.S.C. § 2210

OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)In General.—Any application process established under [former] section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 [Pub. L. 112–95] ([former] 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) shall allow for a person to apply to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system, for purposes of conducting an activity described in subsection (b)—“(1) beyond the visual line of sight of the individual operating the unmanned aircraft system; and“(2) during the day or at night.“(b)Activities Described.—The activities described in this subsection are—“(1) activities for which manned aircraft may be used to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, including—“(A) activities to ensure compliance with Federal or State regulatory, permit, or other requirements, including to conduct surveys associated with applications for permits for new pipeline or pipeline systems construction or maintenance or rehabilitation of existing pipelines or pipeline systems; and“(B) activities relating to ensuring compliance with—“(i) parts 192 and 195 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; and“(ii) the requirements of any Federal, State, or local governmental or regulatory body, or industry best practice, pertaining to the construction, ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of covered facilities;“(2) activities to inspect, repair, construct, maintain, or protect covered facilities, including for the purpose of responding to a pipeline, pipeline system, or electric energy infrastructure incident; and“(3) activities in response to or in preparation for a natural disaster, manmade disaster, severe weather event, or other incident beyond the control of the applicant that may cause material damage to a covered facility.“(c)Definitions.—In this section, the following definitions apply:“(1)Covered facility.—The term ‘covered facility’ means—“(A) a pipeline or pipeline system;“(B) an electric energy generation, transmission, or distribution facility (including a renewable electric energy facility);“(C) an oil or gas production, refining, or processing facility; or“(D) any other critical infrastructure facility.“(2)Critical infrastructure.—The term ‘critical infrastructure’ has the meaning given that term in section 2339D of title 18, United States Code.“(d)Deadlines.—“(1)Certification to congress.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [July 15, 2016], the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress [Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives] a certification that a process has been established to facilitate applications for unmanned aircraft systems operations described in this section.“(2)Failure to meet certification deadline.—If the Administrator cannot provide a certification under paragraph (1), the Administrator, not later than 180 days after the deadline specified in paragraph (1), shall update the process under [former] section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 [Pub. L. 112–95] ([former] 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) to facilitate applications for unmanned aircraft systems operations described in this section.“(e)Exemptions.—In addition to the operations described in this section, the Administrator may authorize, exempt, or otherwise allow other unmanned aircraft systems operations under [former] section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ([former] 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) that are conducted beyond the visual line of sight of the individual operating the unmanned aircraft system or during the day or at night.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1983–2015 · leading case: New York Airlines, Inc. v. Dukes Cnty., 623 F. Supp. 1435 (D. Mass. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New York Airlines, Inc. v. Dukes Cnty., 623 F. Supp. 1435 (D. Mass. 1985). · cites it 9× “§ 1983 to the extent they are based upon 49 U.S.C. § 2210 (a); and the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc. v. Cnty. of Pitkin, 674 F. Supp. 312 (D. Colo. 1987). · cites it 6× “The third claim is based upon the allegation that the fees and rentals being imposed by the County are discriminatory and therefore deprive the Airlines of their rights under 49 U.S.C. § 2210 . The Airlines charge that this alleged discriminatory violation of their rights under…”
W. Air Lines, Inc. v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 817 F.2d 222 (2d Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 1305 , which limits local authority to regulate airlines’ “rates, routes or services;” 1 49 U.S.C. § 2210 (a), which requires an airport proprietor receiving federal funds to make its facilities available on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis; 2 and 49 U.”
Hillman Flying Serv., Inc. v. City of Roanoke, 652 F. Supp. 1142 (W.D. Va. 1987). · cites it 4× “49 U.S.C. § 2210 (a). Count VI and VII are grounded in state statutes and allege violations of the Virginia’s Antitrust Act, Va.”
Indianapolis Airport Auth. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 733 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “), now 49 U.S.C. § 2210 (a)(1), *1266 which requires that airports receiving federal subsidies — such as the Indianapolis airport — be “available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination____” It is unclear whether this act was intended to be…”
Ne. Jet Ctr., Ltd. v. Lehigh-Northampton Airport Auth., 767 F. Supp. 672 (E.D. Pa. 1991). · cites it 2× “As noted above, 49 U.S.C. § 2210 merely provides that the Secretary of Transportation must receive written ‘assurances’ from an airport that certain standards and requirements will be met before federal funds may be advanced for an airport development project.”
Arrow Airways, Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 749 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir. 1985). · cites it 6× “PECK, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants, a group of airport tenants comprised of fixed base operators, aircraft dealers, carriers, charter operators and airlines, filed suit in June, 1983 alleging that the rents, fees and charges at Miami International Airport were excessive to…”
Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v. E. Airlines, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 247 (W.D.N.Y. 1987). · cites it 3× “The defenses and counterclaims at issue are based on the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 ( 49 U.S.C. § 2210 ); the Anti-Head Tax Act ( 49 U.”
Midway Airlines, Inc. v. Cnty. of Westchester, 584 F. Supp. 436 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). · cites it 2× “Midway’s complaint alleges defendants have (1) failed to make Westchester County Airport "available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination,” in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 2210 (a) (West Supp. 1983) (superseding 49 U.”
Interface Grp., Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 631 F. Supp. 483 (D. Mass. 1986). · cites it 3× “§ 1513 , and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C. § 2210 . Lastly, Interface seeks damages and injunctive relief under Mass.”
Nicholson Air v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Allegany Cnty., 706 A.2d 124 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998). “8 Because appellant does not have a private right of action under 49 U.S.C. § 2210 , its claims regarding its air carrier service are without merit.”
W. Air Lines v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ, 658 F. Supp. 952 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “§ 1305 (a)(1) [“Section 1305(a)(1)”]; the Airport & Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. § 2210 [“Section 2210”]; and the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.