On December 3, 2025, the Firm filed an amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of two nonprofit organizations in a case challenging the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  The case, American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, was brought by federal employees, including the American Foreign Service Association, and Oxfam America.

Kaplan Kirsch filed the amicus brief on behalf of ActionAid USA and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, two nonprofits that work globally on human rights and poverty eradication. The brief focuses on USAID’s work and achievements, how it was dismantled, and the impacts on vulnerable populations and the humanitarian aid ecosystem.  Recent research estimates that the loss of USAID funding and services will result in 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million deaths among children younger than 5 years, among other devastating impacts.

The Firm was motivated to assist with this project as part of its long-standing commitment to charitable work and Firm leadership in civic and community-building institutions, and this issue has personally impacted members of the Kaplan Kirsch family.  If you have questions or wish to discuss the brief, please contact Sara Mogharabi, Subash Iyer, John Putnam, or Caitlin McCusker.

We are pleased to share a significant win for our clients, Environmental Defense Fund and Eco-Cycle, who successfully intervened as parties to advocate for Colorado to adopt robust standards to reduce methane from landfills. This new rule, in development for over a year and now codified as Regulation 31, will directly regulate methane from a wide range of municipal solid waste landfills, leading to meaningful pollution reductions and helping Colorado meet its science-based climate goals. Landfills are one of the largest sources of methane, a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. In 2020 alone, landfills in Colorado released 4.5 metric tons of methane, which is more than the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted by 1 million gas-powered cars driven for a year. The landfill regulation will also reduce hazardous and other co-pollutants, like ozone precursor emissions, benefiting vulnerable communities living near these pollution sources.

Following high stakes fact and expert testimony at a hearing in August 2025, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (Commission) paused deliberations until December. During this period, the parties (including our clients), public and private landfill operators, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, and community groups were able to develop a consensus proposal.  The rules, adopted unanimously by the Commission on December 18, 2025, will strengthen monitoring, expand capture and control requirements, phase out outdated flares and push forward new technologies to reduce leaks. These new and innovative tools will serve as a model for other states and the federal government. For example, the rule sets up a nation-leading remote sensing program, using data from satellites and airplanes, to reduce landfill methane emissions.

Eco-Cycle is non-profit social enterprise that launched recycling in Colorado in 1976. Today, Eco-Cycle is one of the nation’s oldest and largest non-profit recyclers.

With over 3 million members, EDF is a global non-profit organization that brings together science, law, economics, and policy to create positive impacts on the environment. It routinely appears before the Commission to help develop and improve climate and air quality regulations in Colorado.

Kaplan Kirsch attorneys have extensive experience practicing before the Commission and representing clients on a range of air quality, climate, and compliance issues in Colorado and other states.

Please reach out to Thomas Bloomfield with any questions or for more information.

Alstom Transportation’s lawsuit challenging the decision of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to grant a Buy America waiver to Brightline West for its purchase of rolling stock from Siemens Mobility was dismissed on December 16, 2025.  The court concluded that Alstom lacked standing, in principal part because any injuries Alstom suffered were caused not by FRA, but by Brightline’s independent decision to contract with Siemens rather than Alstom.  If the court’s decision is not vacated on appeal, its reasoning suggests ways that project sponsors can insulate Buy America waivers from lawsuits challenging them.

The case arose from Brightline’s FRA-funded procurement seeking rolling stock for a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Southern California.  Alstom and Siemens both responded to the procurement and stated that they would need a waiver from Buy America requirements for the trains’ car shells.  On May 1, 2024, after FRA had issued a Notice of Proposed Nonavailability Waiver for either Siemens or Alstom but before FRA published its final waiver, Brightline announced that it had selected Siemens.  FRA published a final notice granting a waiver to Siemens on May 24, 2024, and Brightline and Siemens executed a purchase agreement on May 31.  Alstom brought suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., on July 17, challenging FRA’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Alstom asserted three theories of standing, but the court found each unpersuasive.  First, Alstom asserted that FRA’s decision caused it to lose revenue that it would have received from the contract.  But the court determined that Alstom had not shown that FRA’s decision caused Brightline to award the contract to Siemens.  The court noted that Alstom, unlike Siemens, had not previously produced trains suited to Brightline’s needs; Brightline selected Siemens before FRA announced its decision; and, if FRA had not granted a waiver, Brightline could have rescoped the contract, extended the project schedule, or sought additional proposals.  The court further concluded that Alstom had failed to show that a favorable decision would redress its injury, because it was unclear that, if the Buy America waiver were vacated, Brightline would then choose to contract with Alstom, especially given Siemens’s substantial work thus far.

Alstom’s remaining theories fared no better.  The court rejected Alstom’s claim that FRA’s waiver had altered Alstom’s and Siemens’s competitive status, given the timing of Siemens’s selection relative to the waiver and Alstom’s lack of current competition with Siemens for the project.  The court further rejected Alstom’s theory that it was injured by losing the right to participate in a legally valid procurement process, because such rights only apply to government procurements, and the FRA waiver was finalized after the award was made.  

The court’s reasoning suggests that proposers who lose out on a contract will face difficulty challenging Buy America waivers if the project sponsor can point to independent reasons why the suing proposer was not selected.  Moreover, proposers can make such lawsuits less likely to succeed by awarding contracts before Buy America waivers are finalized.  However, Alstom has appealed to the D.C. Circuit, so the decision may not stand.

If you have questions, please contact Allison Ishihara Fultz, Ayelet Hirschkorn, John Putnam, Subash Iyer, Chuck Spitulnik, Christian Alexander, Casey Morris, or Grant Glovin.

On November 4, 2025, the federal district court in Rhode Island issued a decision with nationwide implications for all recipients of U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) grants. The district court concluded that the “immigration enforcement conditions” imposed earlier this year through DOT grant agreements are unlawful. The court vacated (i.e., invalidated) those grant conditions in all DOT grants, which goes beyond the more limited preliminary injunction the court had issued earlier this year. The decision affects all FAA, FTA, FRA, FHWA, and other DOT grants.  Further appeals are possible, so grant recipients are encouraged to track this case closely and await further guidance from their agency contacts on how DOT will comply.

Earlier this year, DOT took a series of actions to direct grant recipients to cooperate with federal authorities in the enforcement of federal law, including in particular a mandate that they cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the enforcement of federal immigration law.

In May, twenty states and the District of Columbia sued to prevent DOT from imposing those immigration enforcement conditions in grant agreements. See California v. U.S. DOT, No. 25‑cv‑208 (D.R.I.). In June, the Rhode Island district court granted a preliminary injunction, blocking DOT from implementing or enforcing those conditions against the states that sued.

Today, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the states that sued and took further action to make the effect of its ruling nationwide. The court took three specific actions:

• First, the court declared the immigration enforcement condition unlawful because it exceeds DOT’s statutory authority, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and violates the Spending Clause of the Constitution.
• Second, the court ordered the immigration enforcement condition to be “vacated”—or invalidated—from all grant agreements administered by DOT or its modal agencies.
• Third, the court permanently enjoined DOT from implementing or enforcing the immigration enforcement condition against the states that sued or from otherwise attempting to condition federal transportation funding on state cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement.

The district court’s ruling goes into effect immediately. DOT may choose to appeal the decision or seek to stay (i.e., pause) the decision pending appeal. All recipients of any DOT or modal agency grants should closely monitor this case and await further guidance from DOT on how it will comply with the ruling.

If you have questions, contact Tracy Davis, Peter Kirsch or Steve Osit for questions about airport programs, and Allison Ishihara Fultz, Ayelet Hirschkorn, Subash Iyer, or John Putnam for questions about transit programs.

Congratulations to our client, Environmental Defense Fund (“EDF”), who helped to secure a court order mandating that New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) promulgate statewide climate regulations by February 6, 2026, and that such regulations must comply with the landmark 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Act”). The Climate Act requires the state to meet robust, science-based greenhouse gas emission targets: a 40% reduction by 2030 and an 85% reduction by 2050, as compared to 1990 levels.  Over a year past DEC’s deadline, and with less than five years remaining to meet the 2030 limit, DEC had yet to promulgate regulations that would ensure achievement of those limits.

Represented by Kaplan Kirsch, EDF (jointly with Riverkeeper and Save the Sound) submitted an amicus brief in support of petitioners’ claims. Drawing on DEC’s own analyses of its current emissions regulations, the brief demonstrated that New York will fall far short of its 2030 and 2050 emissions limits. The brief also explained how DEC failed to prioritize measures to maximize reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities, which also violates the Climate Act.

In its October 24, 2025 opinion, a New York Supreme Court found it “undisputed that DEC has not issued regulations that comply” with the Climate Act.  Since DEC was “legally-mandated” by the State Legislature to promulgate these regulations, the Court found petitioners entitled to an order requiring DEC to issue “Climate Act-compliant regulations.”  Petitioners included Citizen Action of New York, PUSH Buffalo, Sierra Club, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice.

DEC did draft a regulation to meet the requirements of the Climate Act, and that program was projected to generate $3 billion a year in new investments (including $1 billion in direct rebates to reduce energy costs), create 28,000 jobs by 2030, and secure $7 to $16 billion in health savings per year by improving air quality.  Among other things, the program would help promote public transportation infrastructure to reduce pollution; however, DEC pumped the brakes on that regulation back in January 2025.

If you have questions or wish to discuss the Court’s decision or state climate regulations, please contact Tom Bloomfield, Bill Marsh, or Caroline Jaschke.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (“USDOT”) issued an Interim Final Rule on September 30, 2025 making substantial changes to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) and Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“ACDBE”) programs. The revisions remove the race- and sex-based presumption of disadvantage that has historically been the primary basis for the certification of businesses as DBEs and ACDBEs and revise the regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 23 (ACDBE) and 49 C.F.R. Part 26 (DBE). Going forward, companies desiring to be certified as ACDBEs and DBEs are required, individually, to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they are economically and socially disadvantaged. The Interim Final Rule was issued under a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act that allows for issuance of rules without notice and comment. The anticipated effective date for the Interim Final Rule is tomorrow, October 3, 2025, which is the contemplated publication in the Federal Register.

The revised regulations implement the Administration’s position in support of a proposed consent order in Mid-America Milling LLC v. United States Department of Transportation, E.D. Ky. Case No. 23-cv-00072 that has yet to be issued. While the regulations are similar to the proposed consent order, they make additional changes. In addition, in the preamble to the Interim Final Rule, USDOT stated its intent to ensure that “existing DBEs do not continue to receive any benefits as a result of their certification under the old standards.” The regulations treat DBE and ACDBE requirements alike so, for the discussion here, we will refer to DBEs.

The revised regulations maintain the structure of the existing program but revise it so that certification of DBEs must now be race- and sex-neutral. The existing provisions, which allow for a showing of non-presumptive disadvantage in 49 C.F.R. § 26.67(d) (DBE), have been retained but modified. 49 C.F.R. § 26.67(a) now states:

Non-presumptive Disadvantage. All applicants must demonstrate social and economic disadvantage (SED) affirmatively based on their own experiences and circumstances within American society, and without regard to race or sex.

Unified Certification Programs (“UCP”) are directed to review the certification of all DBEs to determine if they still qualify as DBEs under the new requirements, or whether they should be decertified. The process for this is not specified and, based on the DBE definition, will require an individualized determination including the submission of new information by every DBE. 

Federal grant recipients are instructed to pause implementation of goals under the current program, to set 0% DBE goals on all contracts, and to not enforce goals in existing contracts while the review process is undertaken by UCPs. Goals cannot be set until DBEs are certified by the relevant UCP in compliance with the new requirements.

In addition, DBE programs must be “narrowly tailored to overcome the effects of social and economic disadvantage.” Where the terms “race-based” and “race-neutral” were used, these have been replaced with “DBE-based” and “DBE-neutral.” Grant recipients must adjust their use of contract goals and meet the maximum feasible portion using DBE-neutral means. If a grant recipient can meet its goal using DBE-neutral means, then it should implement its program without setting any contract goals. This may result in the setting of fewer contract goals.

Further requirements are provided in the regulations but there is limited guidance for UCPs. We expect that it will take considerable time for UCPs to develop processes to re-evaluate existing DBEs and to admit new DBEs under the new standards. The new regulations do not make clear how the 0% goals should be implemented, including whether grant recipients must apply other requirements of the DBE and ACDBE regulations that are not tied to goals, such as prompt pay requirements for DBEs and non-DBE subcontractors.

As grant recipients, contractors, and vendors await USDOT’s guidance and criteria to enable compliance with the Interim Final Rule, they should consider taking the following steps:

1. The apparent intent of the Interim Final Rule is that, as of the effective date, there are 0 certified DBEs. 
2. Absent further federal guidance, the DBE program is required but recipients should set a 0% contract goal. Revise IFB/RFP language to comply with the new regs and explain there is no goal for this contract.  
3. On existing contracts, stop enforcing the DBE goals. Do not report to the FAA/FTA.
4. Grant recipients should use the DBE federal contract provisions, and confirm with your ADO/Regional Office contacts that such provisions should reflect the terminology in the Interim Final Rule (i.e., “DBE-neutral/DBE-conscious” language instead of “race-neutral/race conscious”). Practically speaking and until there are DBEs again, the contract provisions only apply to the extent they apply beyond DBEs. For example, the DBE subcontractor termination provision would apply but there are no DBEs to apply it to. The prompt pay/retainage payment requirement still applies because it applies to all subcontractors not just DBEs. The regulations do not require reporting DBE usage information but don’t prohibit collecting it for internal purposes.

Next steps in the short and medium term:

1. Start reviewing for revisions and communicate with your ADO/Regional Office about timing of revisions to your program documents.
2. Communicate with your UCP about its plan to recertify. No doubt they are in chaos but for those recipients that want a program, some pressure might be required.
3. Some UCPs might move forward more quickly than others but there are large numbers that will need to be recertified. The discussion seems to imply that the DBE program doesn’t start again until all existing DBEs have been revised, rather than a sufficient number for setting goals. UCPs range from state DOTs, to local jurisdictions with authority, to consortiums. That is going to be made more complicated by the 2024 revision to the regulations that allowed reciprocal certification. For instance, if a DBE is certified in Colorado, it can take that certification anywhere and the new UCP must accept it absent some evidence that it should not have been certified in the first place. That would apply to recertified DBEs also.

The new regulations have been implemented without soliciting public comment. While much remains uncertain under the new regulations, if you have questions, contact Tracy Davis or Peter Kirsch for questions about airport programs, and Allison Ishihara Fultz, Subash Iyer, or John Putnam for questions about transit programs.

Kaplan Kirsch congratulates its client, the City of San Antonio, on the dismissal of Southwest Airlines’ lawsuit challenging the City’s assignment of gates in the planned new terminal complex at San Antonio International Airport. Southwest’s lawsuit arose from the City’s negotiation of a new Airline Use and Lease Agreement, which supported the City’s plan to build a new Terminal C at the Airport. Just before the new Agreement was to take effect, Southwest sued the City, claiming that the City’s decision to assign Southwest gates in existing Terminal A, rather than new Terminal C, was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, violated the Equal Protection clause, and was barred by promissory estoppel. In his August 29 decision, Judge Rodriguez dismissed all of Southwest’s claims with prejudice and without leave to amend the complaint. 

With respect to Southwest’s preemption claim, Judge Rodriguez held that because the gate assignment was implemented as part of the new Airline Use and Lease Agreement, it was a contractual matter that did not have “force and effect of law,” and thus was not subject to preemption. He also held that the gate assignment decision did not “relate to” airline prices, routes, and services and was exempt from preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act as a reasonable exercise of the City’s proprietary rights and powers.

The decision is one of the most comprehensive judicial discussions of the scope of airport operators’ proprietary rights and powers. Importantly, the decision broadly affirms that airport operators have authority to plan, manage, and operate their terminals, and may consider airlines’ service offerings in exercising that authority. 

Firm partners Eric Pilsk and Steven Osit led the City’s litigation team.  Eric Smith and Sarah Wilbanks led the legal team that negotiated the Airline Use and Lease Agreement and assisted in the litigation. 

Kaplan Kirsch’s managing partner, Bob Randall, has been appointed to the State of Colorado’s Geologic Storage Stewardship Enterprise Board (Board).

On August 27, 2025, the Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) announced the five inaugural members of this new Board and the Enterprise they will support. The newly created Enterprise, housed within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), was established by HB25-1165 to further support effective and safe carbon sequestration in Colorado, and to oversee the long-term monitoring and stewardship of injection facilities. More information about the Board’s responsibilities, its compositional requirements, as well as members’ biographies can be found on the website: ecmc.colorado.gov/CCS-enterprise.

Bob Randall has over 20 years of experience as a natural resources professional, and served as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources from 2016-2019. His current legal practice focuses on public land management, energy development oversight, interagency agreements, and protection of iconic landscapes. Bob’s work in both his private- and public-sector roles has focused on natural resources, particularly regarding energy and mineral development, public lands, water, wildlife, and outdoor recreation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 19, 2025
Denver, CO – Kaplan Kirsch LLP is proud to announce the addition of three highly respected attorneys to their team: Laura Kilgarriff, Vianes Rodriguez, and Paul Caintic. These individuals bring an impressive knowledge of federal and local government experience to the firm. Their collective expertise deepens the firm’s capabilities in environmental law, transportation and aviation policy and security, and public-sector infrastructure work.

“Laura, Vianes, and Paul are exceptional legal talents with practical experience that will greatly benefit our clients,” said Bob Randall, Managing Partner at Kaplan Kirsch. “They bring a rare combination of litigation skill, regulatory fluency, and public-minded purpose that will help our clients in a time of everchanging policy and growing innovation.”

Laura Kilgarriff comes to Kaplan Kirsch after nearly a decade at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), where she served as Assistant Chief Counsel for Security Policy and Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations and Security Standards. Her work shaped federal policy and regulatory frameworks around aviation security, unmanned aircraft systems, and emerging transportation technologies. Laura has worked closely with agencies including DHS, DOT, and the National Security Council and is known for her ability to translate legal complexity into actionable policy.

Vianes Rodriguez brings a unique blend of aviation, tax, and public law experience from his work as in-house counsel at Denver International Airport and as a tax associate at Grant Thornton. As lead attorney for the airport’s $590M concessions program, he negotiated complex commercial transactions and supported critical infrastructure projects. His insights into municipal operations and public-private partnerships strengthen the firm’s airport and public agency practice.

Paul Caintic joins the firm’s Denver office from a large international firm and previously served as an Honors Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Environment & Natural Resources Division. He brings extensive experience litigating major environmental cases under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, NEPA, and CERCLA. Paul has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals and played key roles in precedent-setting environmental litigation.

The arrival of these attorneys reflects Kaplan Kirsch’s continued commitment to serving public- and private-sector clients across the country on some of the most complex challenges in infrastructure, security, environmental compliance, land use, and public policy.

PRESS CONTACT: Heather Baker, hbaker@kaplankirsch.com

Yesterday, FAA released the long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Operations. The proposed rule is the next step in the FAA’s integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the national airspace and is intended to establish a predictable pathway for safe, routine, and scalable UAS operations, including package delivery, agriculture, aerial surveying, recreation, flight testing, civic interests, and other applications.

The rule would establish a regulatory pathway for both recreational and commercial use of large UAS (up to 1,320 lbs.) that meets performance-based airworthiness standards to operate beyond the operator’s visual line of sight. To-date, the FAA has allowed only limited BVLOS or large UAS operations through individualized exemptions and waivers to existing regulations.

Among other proposed flight parameters, UAS operating BVLOS would be required to:

• Fly at or below 400 feet
• Avoid large open-air gatherings (but operations over people are permitted with different requirements based on the overflown population density)
• Obtain FAA approval for the areas where UAS are intend to fly, based on identified operating boundaries, number of daily operations, and specified takeoff, landing, and loading areas
• Obtain a permit or certificate, based on the nature of operations

The proposed rule, jointly issued with TSA, would also impose security measures to mitigate potential risks: (1) ensure certain individuals involved in BVLOS operations undergo a security threat assessment; (2) require package delivery operators to obtain a limited security program from TSA; and, (3) require operators to develop and implement physical security and cybersecurity policies and processes. Notably, certain BVLOS operations would be permitted to carry hazardous materials.

Comments on the proposed rule are due by October 6, 2025. While the proposed rule is a very significant step forward in routinely integrating complex UAS operations into the national airspace, it is important to recognize that the proposed rule, once adopted, would still be followed by a lengthy implementation period that allows stakeholders to develop methods to meet the rule’s performance-based requirements. For example, the rule proposes a new framework for determining airworthiness of UAS, which would require aircraft to satisfy performance-based design, production, and airworthiness requirements through consensus standards accepted or approved by the FAA, including “Detect and Avoid” capability for certain UAS operations. The proposed rule would also establish a framework for the FAA’s regulation of Automated Data Service Providers (ADSPs), which would aggregate and provide air traffic and other information in support of managing UAS operations within the national airspace. 

Impact to State and Local Governments, Transportation, and Critical Infrastructure

The proposed expansion of operations would bring a host of opportunities, as well as potential concerns, for cities, transportation hubs, and critical infrastructure. The FAA anticipates significant safety, societal, and economic benefits, and anticipates that UAS may supplement or replace activities currently accomplished by higher-risk crewed aircraft, surface transportation, or individuals. As the scope and frequency of UAS operations increase, however, communities may also have concerns regarding land use compatibility, noise and other environmental impacts, and other quality of life issues.

Additionally, as UAS use increases across the country, state and local governments, airports, surface transportation hubs, and critical infrastructure owners and operators continue to have unresolved concerns over maintaining the safety, security, and wellbeing of their communities and facilities, as well as their authority to manage UAS flights around certain locations and take action against improper UAS activity.

For example:

• Section 2209 Rulemaking Restricting UAS Flights Around Critical Infrastructure. We are still waiting on the FAA to publish the statutorily-mandated “Section 2209” rule, which would establish procedures for restricting UAS operations near critical infrastructure. Pursuant to the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, FAA was required to establish procedures for applicants to petition the FAA to prohibit or restrict the operation of UAS in close proximity to certain fixed site faculties, to include: (1) critical infrastructure, such as energy production, transmission, and distribution facilities and equipment; (2) oil refineries and chemical facilities; (3) amusement parks; and (4) other locations that warrant such restrictions. Without this rule, UAS operations (including proposed BVLOS operations) are generally permitted around these locations. Under the Act, the procedures were supposed to have been published by January 2017, and the Trump Administration’s Executive Order, Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty (June 6, 2025) adds pressure on the agency to promptly publish a proposed Section 2209 rule.
• UAS Detection and Law Enforcement Response. The proposed rule adds to an existing complex legal framework surrounding UAS operations, including parameters for detection and addressing unauthorized and illicit UAS activity. Note that only certain Federal agencies have authority to conduct counter-UAS activities, which remains unchanged by the proposed rule. Law enforcement, airport sponsors, and transit facility owners and operators should consult federal guidance regarding the laws and regulations that apply to their use of UAS detection and mitigation equipment.

Existing tools available to Federal, state, and local entities will continue to be available for BVLOS operations. For example, UAS flown under the BVLOS rule will be subject to Remote ID requirements, meaning that they must broadcast their location and identification in real time (law enforcement agencies can work with the FAA to correlate Remote ID information with UAS registration information). However, state and local law enforcement authority to address an errant or malicious UAS remains limited. Also, while the FAA poses exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, airspace management, and air traffic control (including UAS operations), state and local governments retain authority over land use planning, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations. For example, state and local governments retain authority to regulate the property that UAS may use for take-off or landing areas. 

Kaplan Kirsch attorneys have significant Federal experience and familiarity with UAS matters, including the draft BVLOS rule, and are available to support entities considering the impact of the proposed rule. In particular, John Putnam and Subash Iyer headed the Office of General Counsel at U.S. DOT, and Laura Kilgarriff was an Assistant Chief Counsel at TSA, where, among other matters, she advised on legal issues related to UAS and Counter-UAS. For additional information, please reach out to John Putnam, Subash Iyer, Laura Kilgarriff, Steve Osit, or any other Firm attorney with whom you normally work.