Drone Act Hands Local Governments Power Over the Lowest 200 Feet of Airspace

The newly proposed Drone Integration and Zoning Act is a big deal because it completely redefines who controls the sky, especially the airspace right above our heads. Essentially, this legislation carves out the lowest 200 feet of airspace—what it calls the "immediate reaches of airspace"—and removes it from the FAA’s primary regulatory control when it comes to civil drone operations (SEC. 3). For everyone juggling work and life, this means two things: clearer rules for future drone delivery, and a lot more power for your local city council or Tribal government to decide where, when, and how low drones can fly over your neighborhood.

The 200-Foot Line in the Sand

Think of the sky as a four-lane highway: The FAA has always managed all four lanes. This Act changes that by giving local authorities the keys to the lowest lane (0 to 200 feet). The FAA must now update its rules to designate the airspace between 200 feet and 400 feet as exclusively for civil unmanned aircraft systems, meaning commercial and recreational drones will fly there under federal rules (SEC. 3). But below 200 feet, the power shifts dramatically. State, local, and Tribal governments can now issue “reasonable restrictions” on drone operations, covering everything from noise and public safety to personal privacy and managing land use (SEC. 4).

This is huge for property owners. The FAA Administrator is explicitly prohibited from authorizing a drone to fly in the immediate airspace above private property without the owner’s permission. Furthermore, the FAA can’t authorize flights that come within 50 feet of the top of any structure over 200 feet tall without permission either (SEC. 4). If you live in an apartment building or own a home, this bill provides a clear federal backing for your right to say “no” to low-flying drone traffic over your property, giving teeth to local privacy concerns.

Local Zoning Meets Drone Delivery

For anyone running a business that might use drones—or just waiting for that drone delivery to show up—the Act sets up new rules for takeoff and landing spots. Local governments retain their full authority to regulate where these “Unmanned Aircraft Take-off and Landing Zones” can be built, essentially treating them like any other zoning issue (SEC. 5). However, local governments can’t use this power to unfairly discriminate against or effectively ban commercial drone operators. If a commercial operator applies for a zone, the local government must make a decision on the complete application within 60 days, and if they deny it, they must provide a detailed written explanation with suggestions on how to fix the application (SEC. 5).

This 60-day deadline is a double-edged sword. It forces local governments to act quickly, which is great for businesses trying to roll out new services. But it puts pressure on planning departments that might need more time to assess the impact of a new drone hub on traffic, noise, and local infrastructure. If a local government drags its feet or makes a final decision that violates these rules, the operator can take them to court, and the court is required to hear the case quickly (SEC. 5).

Streamlining Commercial Flights (If They Stay Local)

In a win for smaller logistics companies and local delivery services, the Act reduces federal regulatory hurdles for the commercial carriage of property, particularly for operations that stay within a single state (intrastate commerce). If a state authorizes a drone operator to move property within its borders, those operations won't be subject to certain federal air transportation rules (SEC. 7). This simplifies things immensely for a company trying to set up a regional delivery network, as they only need to satisfy state-level requirements, which the Act mandates must be kept minimal and streamlined.

However, this focus on local control means that if you live in a state whose government is hesitant about drone technology, the rollout of commercial drone services could be significantly slower than in a neighboring, more progressive state. The whole system now hinges on local and state willingness to authorize operations and zone landing spots.

The FAA’s New Safety Homework

Finally, the Act imposes new mandatory requirements on the FAA regarding drone safety standards (SEC. 10). Before the FAA can adopt any new risk-based safety standard for small drones, they must perform a cost-benefit analysis and certify that the benefits significantly outweigh the costs for manufacturers and consumers. They also must determine that the standard is absolutely necessary for safe operation within the Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) system. This is a check on federal overreach, ensuring that new safety rules aren't adopted simply because they sound good, but only if they are proven to be cost-effective and essential for integrating these aircraft into the national airspace.