governmental regulation

An audit by the Transportation Department's inspector general has found that the Federal Aviation Administration is going to miss the September 2015 deadline for integrating drones into the national airspace, The Washington Post reported earlier this week. While Congress legalized drones in 2012, the FAA was supposed to come up with rules by September 30, 2015.

According to a report by New York Times' Adam Liptak, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said from the bench yesterday that the Environmental Protection Agency is "'getting almost everything it wanted'" when the court ruled in favor of the agency's regulation of greenhouse gases. The agency said its regulation of emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes also requires the regulation of emissions from stationary sources like power plants.

Many in the burgeoning drone industry are frustrated by the Federal Aviation Administration's glacial pace in issuing new rules to regulate the use of these lightweight flying devices and regulators' application of old rules to ground the use of drones for newsgathering and other commercial purposes. Gigaom's Jeff John Roberts suggests the FAA should use a permit system like the one used for motor vehicles. The CEO of Airware, a startup that provides hardware and software to drone businesses, told Gigaom "the best way to resolve the ongoing legal conflicts involving drones is to designate separate airspaces for manned and unmanned aircraft, including a buffer zone between them. Doing so, he said in a recent phone interview, would permit a more relaxed set of rules for drones. Specifically, [CEO Jonathan] Downey suggested this might involve a permit system where drone owners could obtain a license after passing a test."

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a draft rule to regulate the carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, the Wall Street Journal reports. The mandate would require plants to cut their emissions by 30 percent by 2030. EPA is taking comment on the measure as well as another measure that would result in an estimated reduction of carbon emissions by 24 percent in 2025.

Even though the Federal Aviation Administration restricts the use of unmanned aircraft for commerical purposes, enforcement is "scattershot," "emboldening even more drone operators," the Wall Street Journal reports. While regulation lags, Matt Waite, the journalism professor who runs a drone-journalism program, told the WSJ that the "'longer it takes to have the rules of the road in place, the more the technology advances and the cheaper it gets, the closer we get to some knucklehead doing something dumb and hurting someone.'"

Another little media law nugget: TV station KATV in Little Rock, Ark., was informed that using a drone to film the aftermath of recent tornadoes was an FAA violation but the station wasn't told to stop using drones, WSJ reports.  "The FAA said it regulates the use of drones, not how news organizations use footage," WSJ further reports.

The U.S. Supreme Court, 6-2, has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to limit interstate pollution, the Washington Post reports. Richard Lazarus, an environmental law professor, told the Post the rule allowing the EPA to regulate pollution sent into downwind states from upwind states is "one of the most significant rules ever" promulgated by the EPA.

The electronic health records industry is "gearing up for a Washington lobbying fight against federal safety regulations," the Boston Globe reports. The Obama administration is going to release plans in the coming months on how information technology in the health industry should be regulated. The issue is "whether the systems should be considered medical devices and, therefore, regulated by the Food and Drug Administration just as a cardiac stent or a pacemaker is regulated," the Globe also reports.

Some say that electronic health records, also known as digital medical records, can lead to prescribing errors or other errors in patient care that harm patients, the Globe further reports.

The National Law Journal's Tony Mauro reports that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be "mostly sympathetic" to the Environmental Protection Agency's climate-change regulation: "Any hope among industry advocates that the U.S. Supreme Court might ban Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases altogether went up in smoke, so to speak, during more than 90 minutes of spirited argument last week. For one thing, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony Kennedy both suggested the court has some obligation not to ignore the court's 2007 precedent Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. That decision said the EPA did have authority to regulate greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles. For another, even Peter Keisler, the lawyer for five sets of private challengers to EPA regulation, acknowledged during the argument Feb. 24 that the EPA's mandate extended to stationary sources under other parts of the Clean Air Act — just not the part at issue in the case being argued."

SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston reports that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appears to favor the Environmental Protection Agency's position in favor of climate-change regulation in the six cases the court heard today: "As is so often the case when the Court is closely divided, the vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy loomed as the critical one, and that vote seemed inclined toward the EPA, though with some doubt.   Although he seemed troubled that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., could call up no prior ruling to support the policy choice the EPA had made on greenhouse gases by industrial plants, Kennedy left the impression that it might not matter."

The EPA's opponents argue that the agency has stretched the Clean Air Act out of shape, Denniston reports.

One of the issues taken up by the court is whether the EPA "'permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouses gases.'” 

The D.C. Circuit, 2-1, has struck down the FCC's rules imposing net neutrality, Gigaom reports. The majority said the FCC has the authority to regulate in the area of Internet traffic, but it can't impose requirements that "'contravene express statutory mandates,"' Gigaom reports.

"The upshot of Tuesday’s ruling is that it could open the door for internet giants like Verizon and Time Warner to cut deals with large content providers — say Disney or Netflix — to ensure that their web content was delivered faster and more reliably than other sites," Gigaom further reports.