National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2025 and Drones

drone-legislation-capitol-building

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2025 became law on 12/23/2024.

It says a lot, but I’m going to focus only on the important portions for drones.

Summary

DJI and Autel drones could be added to the covered list by a national security agency determination. If nothing is done, ALL of them shall be added automatically after 1 year after the enactment of the 2025 NDAA.

If you have a DJI or Autel drone, unless the FCC takes action to revoke the FCC certificate of your drone, you can still keep flying it. If DJI and Autel are added, the FCC believes they have the authority to revoke already existing FCC certifications. If revoked, this would make it illegal for the operator to operate the wireless radio transmitter without FCC approval.  It would also be illegal to sell an unlicensed wireless radio transmitter. Operators and sellers would both have issues.

If listed, there will most likely not be new or updated DJI or Autel equipment to be sold on the market because the manufacturers will not be able to obtain FCC certifications for the wireless transmitters.  DJI’s blog post backs this up, “This means that DJI would be prevented from launching new products in the U.S. market through no fault of its own, but simply because no agency chose to take on the work of studying our products.” It would be illegal to sell or operate unlicensed radio transmission equipment in the United States without approval.

Before you say, “This doesn’t impact me because I don’t fly a DJI or Autel drone[.]”……. I don’t know how far-reaching DJI and Autel have done technology sharing or licensing agreements involving other aircraft and equipment. This applies to “any entity to which the named entity has a technology sharing or licensing agreement[.]” “The term technology sharing agreement means an agreement where a named entity licenses their technology to a company directly or through an intermediary manufacturer.”

Actual Text

I emboldened the important portions.

SEC. 1709. ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ENTITIES.
(a) Evaluation of Communications Services and Equipment to Covered List.–

(1) In general.–Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, an appropriate national security agency shall determine if any of the following communications or videosurveillance equipment or services pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons:

(A) Communications or video surveillance equipment produced by Shenzhen Da-Jiang Innovations Sciences and Technologies Company Limited (commonly known as “DJI Technologies”).

(B) Communications or video surveillance equipment produced by Autel Robotics.

(C) With respect to an entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B) (referred to in this subparagraph as a “named entity”)–

(i) any subsidiary, affiliate, or partner of the named entity;

(ii) any entity in a joint venture with the named entity; or

(iii) any entity to which the named entity has a technology sharing or licensing agreement.

(D) Communications or video surveillance services, including software, provided by an entity described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) or using equipment described in such subparagraphs.

(2) Addition to covered list.–If the appropriate national security agency does not make a determination as required by paragraph (1) within one year after the enactment of this Act [it was enacted 12/23/2024], the Commission shall add all communications equipment and services listed in paragraph (1) to the covered list.

(b) Inclusion of Certain Communications Services and Equipment to Covered List.–

(1) Determinations.–Not later than 30 days after an appropriate national security agency determines that any of the communications equipment or services specified in subsection (a)(1) present an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons–

(A) the Commission shall place such communications equipment or services on the covered list; and

(B) the appropriate national security agency shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on their determination which shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.

(2) Other determinations.–Not later than 30 days after an appropriate national security agency determines that any of the communications equipment or services specified in subsection (a)(1) do not present an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons–

(A) that agency shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on their determinations, which shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a
classified annex; and

(B) within 180 days following the determination, all other appropriate national security agencies shall review the determination and shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on their determinations, which shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.

(c) Definitions.–In this section:

(1) The term “appropriate national security agency” has the same meaning as the term in section 9 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1608)).

[Jonathan’s addition….47 U.S.C. 1608(s) says, “Appropriate national security agency
The term “appropriate national security agency” means—
(A)the Department of Homeland Security;
(B)the Department of Defense;
(C)the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
(D)the National Security Agency; and
(E)the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”]

(2) The term “Commission” means the Federal Communications Commission.
(3) The term “covered list” means the list of covered communications equipment or services published by the Commission under section 2(a) of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act.
(4) The term “appropriate congressional committees” means–

(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Select Committee on Intelligence in the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the House of Representatives

(5) The term “technology sharing agreement” means an agreement where a named entity licenses their technology to a company directly or through an intermediary manufacturer.

(d) Savings Clause.–Nothing herein shall be construed to override or affect the uses permitted by sections 1823 through 1832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Public Law 118-31) and sections 936 and 1032 of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Public Law 118-63), including the duration thereof. If the Commission places communications equipment or services on the covered list pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section, the appropriate national security agency shall provide the Commission with necessary information on whether enabling those uses is appropriate and how to enable those uses if necessary, and the Commission may promulgate implementing rules or policies accordingly.

DJI responded and pointed out some things:

  • “The legislation . . . does not designate an agency to conduct the required risk study. If no agency determines whether DJI poses a risk, DJI would be automatically added to the FCC’s Covered List through no fault of its own.
  • DJI should be provided with fair opportunity and allowed due process in order to either validate or address any potential findings from the assessment, as no technology audit is ever perfect.”

Where is the “covered list?”

It’s located here.

https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist

What happens when you get put onto the “covered list?”

For drone sellers and drone operators, this means that if DJI and Autel are added, new or updated/amended applications to the FCC will not be granted. 47 CFR 2.903 says, ” (a) All equipment on the Covered List, . . . is prohibited from obtaining an equipment authorization under this subpart. This includes: (1) Equipment that would otherwise be subject to certification procedures; (2) Equipment that would otherwise be subject to Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity procedures; and (3) Equipment that would otherwise be exempt from equipment authorization.”

This is significant because drones rely on certified radio frequency transmitters under 47 CFR Part 15 to operate. If a manufacturer like DJI or Autel is added to the list, new FCC applications for their equipment—including amendments—will be denied.

The FCC regulations were all recently updated in 2022. The Cooley Law Firm published a pretty good blog article on what the updated recent FCC regulations actually mean:

“In 2022, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules to implement the Secure Equipment Act of 2021. Those rules, which in large part took effect on February 6, 2023, prevent manufacturers on the FCC’s Covered List – companies whose products are deemed to pose a risk by national security agencies – from obtaining the equipment authorizations necessary to sell new or updated products in US markets. Any manufacturer on the list is subject to the ban, but the FCC’s new rules do not apply to information security products, solutions and services, or telecommunications services provided by entities on the Covered List.

Under the new rules, no applications for affected equipment filed by any of the listed companies or their affiliates will be granted. The new rules cover both equipment that requires affirmative approval and equipment that is deemed approved under the FCC’s Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity program, which is used for a wide range of equipment sold to the consumer market. In addition to preventing these companies from introducing new equipment into the US market, the rules prohibit companies from making changes that would require additional authorization to existing equipment that includes components from manufacturers on the Covered List.

The FCC’s new rules do not prevent manufacturers on the Covered List from selling equipment that already has been authorized. However, the FCC has asked for comment on whether it should revoke all existing equipment authorizations for manufacturers on the Covered List. Revocation would prevent future sales of equipment manufactured by these companies or any other company that is placed on the Covered List in the future, potentially including equipment already in the supply chain in the US. Action on this proposal could come in the next several months, and any new rules potentially could be effective before the end of 2023.”

Can the FCC go back and revoke the licenses previously granted?

This is the big issue. The FCC thinks they can. To date, they have not, but they did assert their authority to do so. The FCC said,

In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on revocation of equipment authorizations on the grounds that the equipment authorization involved “covered” equipment. The Commission tentatively concluded that, if it adopted new rules prohibiting authorization of “covered” equipment, the Commission had the authority to revoke any authorization that may have been granted after adoption of such rules based on applicants’ false statements or representations that the equipment was not “covered.” The Commission also tentatively concluded that the current rules provide the Commission with the authority to revoke any existing equipment authorizations— i.e., authorizations granted before adoption of rules in this proceeding prohibiting any future authorization of “covered” equipment—if such equipment constituted “covered” equipment, and sought comment on whether there are particular circumstances that would merit revocation of any specific equipment authorization(s) and, if so, the procedures that should apply (including whether to adopt possible revisions to the current procedures).

With respect to equipment authorized subsequent to adoption of proposed rules prohibiting authorization of “covered” equipment, the Commission tentatively concluded that § 2.939(a)(1) and (2) applied to “covered” equipment, such that the Commission could revoke any equipment authorization that may have been granted based on false statements or representations in the application for authorization attesting that the equipment is not “covered.” Under this proposed approach, the Commission would revoke any such equipment authorization granted after adoption of the rules proposed in the NPRM, even if the TCBs or the Commission had not acted to set the grant aside within the 30-day period following the posting of the grant on the EAS database. In addition, the Commission tentatively concluded that, pursuant to § 2.239(a)(3), if authorized equipment is subsequently changed ( e.g., the responsible party initiates a permissive change which changes the equipment status from not covered to “covered” equipment), that equipment authorization could be revoked because such a change would violate the Commission’s newly adopted prohibition on authorization of “covered” equipment.

As for revocation of any existing equipment authorizations involving “covered” equipment, the Commission sought comment on whether § 2.939(a)(4), which allows revocation `[b]ecause of conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original application” would provide the Commission basis for revoking equipment granted prior to adoption of the prohibition on authorization of “covered” equipment. In addition, the Commission tentatively concluded that if it were to adopt rules prohibiting authorization of “covered” equipment, then § 2.939(c), which states that the Commission “may also withdraw any equipment authorization in the event of changes in its technical standards,” could constitute such a change in technical standards that warrants withdrawal of the equipment authorizations.

To the extent the Commission sought to revoke any equipment authorizations, it noted the current procedures set forth in § 2.939(b), and requested comment on whether it should use these specific procedures or other procedures, and on what process the Commission could use to help identify equipment authorizations for revocation. Finally, the Commission asked whether it should make any revisions to § 2.939, including whether that section should specifically address the revocation process for “covered” equipment.

The Secure Equipment Act, enacted subsequent to the close of the comment period on the NPRM, includes specific provisions concerning the Commission’s actions that concern revocation of equipment authorizations involving “covered” equipment. In section 2(a)(2), Congress directed the Commission to adopt new rules prohibiting authorization of “covered” equipment. As for revocation of existing equipment authorizations involving “covered” equipment, section 2(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides that “[i]n the rules adopted” by the statutory deadline, the Commission “may not provide for review or revocation of any equipment authorization” granted before the adoption date of such rules. Section 2(a)(3)(B), however, provides generally that, other than in “the rules adopted” by the statutory deadline, the Secure Equipment Act does not prohibit the Commission from examining the necessity of review or revocation of any equipment authorization on the basis of the equipment being on the Covered List or adopting rules providing for any such review or revocation.

In the Report and Order, the Commission did not adopt any rules providing for the review or revocation of any currently existing equipment authorization granted prior to adoption of the Report and Order. With respect to equipment authorized after adoption of the Report and Order prohibiting authorization of “covered” equipment, the Commission adopted streamlined revocation procedures to apply if the authorization had been granted based on false statements or representations in the applications that the equipment is not “covered,” or if the authorized equipment is modified or changed in such a way as to become “covered” equipment. In addition, the Commission concludes that it has the authority, as affirmed by Congress in the Secure Equipment Act, to consider the necessity to review or revoke an existing authorization of “covered” equipment approved prior to adoption of the Report and Order, and that it has such authority to consider such action without considering additional rules providing for any such review or revocation of existing authorizations.

Streamlined revocation of authorizations based on false statements or representations about “covered” equipment. With regard to revocation of equipment authorizations granted after adoption of rules prohibiting authorization of “covered” equipment, the Commission concludes, as in the NPRM, that the Commission already has authority, under its current rules in § 2.939(a)(1), to revoke authorizations if the Commission discovers, post-authorization, that the application (or in materials or responses submitted in connection therewith) contained false statements or representations. The Commission notes that revoking authorizations on this basis is clearly permitted under the Secure Equipment Act, which did not proscribe adopting rules for revocation of authorizations that are granted after adoption of the Report and Order.

However, because Congress established that “covered” equipment poses an unacceptable risk to national security, the Commission finds that it is necessary to adopt an expedited mechanism for review and revocation of equipment authorizations that were granted after adoption of the Commission’s prohibitions where the application for such authorization contained a false statement or representation regarding the “covered” status of such equipment at the time of such statement or representation. To that end, the Commission adopted a new provision, § 2.939(d), providing for streamlined procedures to address such situations, as discussed further below.

Nothing in the Commission’s statutory authority requires that the process for revocation of equipment authorizations be conducted pursuant to existing rule § 2.939(b), i.e., the revocation process generally afforded radio licensees. As the Commission noted in its 2020 order adopting streamlined procedures for certain administrative hearings, the hearing provisions in the Communications Act do not expressly require formal hearings ( e.g., hearings conducted with live witness testimony and cross examination and the introduction of evidence before a presiding officer). Instead, revocation proceedings generally are subject only to informal adjudication requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that an authorization holder be given written notice of the facts or conduct which may warrant the revocation and an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all lawful requirements. The Commission may resolve disputes of fact in an informal hearing proceeding on a written record. Thus, the Commission concludes that, going forward, where the Commission has reason to believe that an equipment authorization was granted on the basis of a false statement or representation by the applicant concerning whether the subject equipment is “covered” equipment, the more streamlined informal hearing procedures described below, based on a written record, will apply. However, the Commission may in its discretion determine to hold oral hearings when needed to resolve a genuine dispute as to an outcome-determinative fact, and such hearings may be limited to testimony and cross-examination necessary to resolve that dispute.

As discussed in this document above, the Commission also is prohibiting the modification of equipment if such modification would alter the equipment’s status such that it would become “covered” equipment. In implementing this prohibition, the Commission requires that applications or requests to modify already certified equipment include a written and signed certification that the equipment is not “covered.” The Commission concludes that, pursuant to existing § 2.939(a)(3), the Commission already has authority to revoke an equipment authorization granted after the adoption of rules in the Report and Order if that equipment is changed in the future in such a way as to become “covered” equipment. Again, because “covered” equipment poses an unacceptable risk to national security, the Commission also will include within the streamlined procedures the authority to revoke equipment authorization in which equipment is changed in such a way that it becomes “covered” equipment where the application or request for modification is found to include false statements or representations that the equipment is not “covered.”

Streamlined procedures. In cases in which OET and PSHSB, working with other Bureaus/Offices as may be appropriate, have reason to believe that a particular equipment authorization or modification of an equipment authorization granted after adoption of the rules in the Report and Order was or may have been based on a false statement or representation made by an applicant, either in the application or in the materials connected therewith, regarding the required attestations under revised § 2.911 concerning whether the equipment was “covered” or whether the applicant is an entity identified on the Covered List, OET and PSHSB will investigate whether such authorization was improperly granted or otherwise should be revoked. OET and PSHSB will provide written notice to the equipment authorization holder of the initiation of a revocation proceeding and the grounds under consideration for such revocation. As discussed above, the Commission is requiring that applicants for equipment authorization make certain attestations under § 2.911 regarding the subject equipment in the context of “covered” equipment. False statements or representations with respect to the application under this section provide grounds for revocation of the authorization pursuant to § 2.939(a)(1).

The Commission will model this procedure along lines consistent with section 558 of the Administrative Procedure Act. OET and PSHSB will issue an order to show cause why revocation proceedings should not be initiated, which order will provide notice of the facts or conduct which may warrant revocation, and an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance. The equipment authorization holder will have 10 days thereafter to provide a written submission responding to the notice of proposed revocation. After reviewing the record and any supplemental information requested by OET and PSHSB, if they find that the equipment is “covered” or that the applicant did not disclose that it was an entity identified on the Covered List, they will initiate revocation proceedings, providing the basis for such decision. The Commission notes that the determination as to whether to revoke an authorization focuses on whether the attestation was true, and it does not require any finding that the applicant has the specific intent to make a false statement or representation. In the event of revocation of an equipment authorization, OET and PSHSB will issue an order explaining its reasons as well as how such revocation will be implemented ( e.g., halting distribution, marketing, and sales of such equipment, requiring other appropriate actions) and enforced.

Revocation of existing equipment authorizations on grounds that the equipment is “covered” equipment. The Commission also concludes that it has the requisite authority under the Communications Act to review any existing equipment authorization that would, under the rules that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, be “covered” equipment, and to determine the necessity for revoking such authorization, and that the Commission can undertake such revocation pursuant to current rules. The Commission reaches this determination based on the reading of the Commission’s existing authorities. Pursuant to the same authorities discussed above with respect to the equipment authorization program, the Commission has long relied on its authority (modelled along the lines of section 312 of the Communications Act with respect to spectrum licensees) to revoke equipment authorizations under § 2.939(a)(4) “[b]ecause of conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original application.” The Commission concludes that it is well within its responsibilities and mandate, as IPVM has suggested, to revoke an existing equipment authorization under § 2.939(a)(4).

That the Commission has such authority to revoke is confirmed by the Secure Equipment Act. Indeed, as a matter of statutory structure, the Secure Equipment Act can be read as saying two complementary things: one, that the Commission has no discretion with respect to reviewing or approving requests for equipment authorization for equipment listed on the Covered List (as discussed above) after the Report and Order— i.e., the Secure Equipment Act requires that the Commission no longer review or approve them; and two, that the Commission does have discretion (“other than in the rules adopted” here) to exercise its statutory authority to decide whether to take equipment authorization action regarding authorizations granted prior to the Commission’s decision.

First, in sections 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2), Congress determined that the Commission shall adopt rules that clarify—on a going forward basis—that the Commission will no longer review or approve equipment that is on the Covered List. This is reinforced by Congress’s inclusion of section 2(a)(3)(A), which specifically states that “[i]n the rules adopted under paragraph [2(a)](1),” i.e., the rules the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, “the Commission may not provide for review or revocation of any equipment authorization granted before the date on which such rules are adopted on the basis of the equipment being on the [Covered List].” Read together, sections 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2), and 2(a)(3)(A) state that, with respect to the scope of the Commission’s section 2(a)(2) rules, those rules shall not provide for the review or revocation of existing authorizations. Second, in section 2(a)(3)(B), Congress made clear that the Commission could use its existing authority to adopt non-section 2(a)(2) rules or otherwise examine the necessity of providing for the review or revocation of equipment authorizations granted before any section 2(a)(2) rules—even in cases where the sole basis for the Commission’s equipment authorization action in those circumstances is the equipment being included on the Covered List.

Thus, with regard to the Commission’s discretion under the Secure Equipment Act, with regard to new equipment authorizations going forward, Congress has taken the discretion out of the Commission’s hands and directed us to stop reviewing or approving applications involving “covered” equipment. Congress has exercised its authority to draw a bright and clear line. As for existing equipment authorizations, Congress has preserved the Commission’s existing authority—and the discretion that comes with the exercise of that authority—to decide whether the Commission should take action based on equipment being added to the Covered List.

Finally, the Commission noted that it’s making no decision in the Report and Order as to whether any particular existing equipment authorization should be revoked. Whether and to what extent and pursuant to what processes the Commission exercises that authority would be based on several considerations, including the public interest and an assessment of the costs and benefits of any such action. As noted above, the procedures for revoking authorizations that would be applicable to authorization(s) granted before adoption of these rules are set forth in § 2.939(b). In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, the Commission explores streamlining these procedures and seeks comment on other issues relating to revocation.

Legal Issues

A Congressional Research Services report brought up a bunch of good legal issues in the context of the creation and application of the FCC covered list regulations.

Litigants might also challenge the rules on constitutional grounds. Commenters proffered various constitutional arguments during the rulemaking, including that the rules violate the Equal Protection Clause, are an unconstitutional taking of property, and violate separation of powers. The argument most commonly made, however, is that the restrictions are an unconstitutional “bill of attainder” (i.e., legislative punishment). Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a law is an unconstitutional bill of attainder if it (1) specifically targets individuals or groups and (2) inflicts punishment without a trial. Objecting companies may have particular difficulty establishing that the restrictions inflict punishment. In Huawei’s challenge to the 2019 NDAA, a federal district court held that the statute’s restriction did not amount to punishment because the law reasonably furthered non-punitive goals, such as protecting national security and informational security. The D.C. Circuit reached a similar conclusion in its 2018 decision in Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. DHS, which dealt with the 2017 NDAA’s prohibition on government agencies using “hardware, software, or services” developed by the Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab. For more discussion of these cases, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10274, Huawei v. United States: The Bill of Attainder Clause and Huawei’s Lawsuit Against the United States, coordinated by Joanna R. Lampe.

. . .

Should Congress require revocation, one consideration is that revoking prior authorizations might implicate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Under the Due Process Clause, the government may not deprive any person of their property without notice of the government action and a meaningful opportunity to contest it. Government benefits or licenses may be considered property interests under the Due Process Clause if they give the recipient a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to the uninterrupted enjoyment of the benefit. While courts have not said whether companies have a constitutionally protected property interest in FCC equipment authorizations, legislation that empowers the FCC to revoke authorizations without notice and an opportunity to respond could raise due process challenges. Affected companies might also argue that revoking prior authorizations without compensation violates the Constitution’s Takings Clause. The Takings Clause prohibits the government from “tak[ing] property for public use, without just compensation.” It is unlikely that the equipment authorizations themselves would be property under the Takings Clause, as courts have generally been skeptical of arguments that government licenses are property for Takings Clause purposes. Affected companies may argue, however, that a revocation is a “regulatory taking” if it results in serious financial loss in a way that frustrates their reasonable investment-backed expectations. Congress may seek to shift the burden for future authorizations by establishing a timeframe in which an authorization or transfer sunsets, similar to the way broadcast licenses are granted for a defined duration, rather than allowing a grant of the authorization in perpetuity, thereby potentially limiting future revocation actions.

FAQ

Operator Questions

Are my drones grounded? If the drone already has an FCC license, and it isn’t revoked, then you are still good to go. To figure this out, find your drone’s FCC ID and look it up here. https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid  Check to see if the equipment authorization has been revoked.

How can I use this situation to my advantage? You first need to estimate what is going to happen:

  • One view is that since it is unlikely anything new is coming out from DJI, then grab as many of the latest models as you can right now (before anyone else) and fly them until you cannot find any spare parts. This view assumes you think the FCC will most likely not revoke the FCC license.
  • Another view is having any exposure to an FCC license revocation is unacceptable for business. You could mitigate this somewhat by building into contracts that allow you to get out of the contracts in the event of an FCC revocation of your drones.

I suspect distributors will be unloading DJI and Autel equipment as they switch over to another manufacturer. You could maybe get a discount as they choose to transition.

Seller Questions

I sell drones, what does this mean? It means that there is a real possibility that DJI and Autel drones will have a hard time getting new equipment approved for sale in the United States.  If you sell DJI or Autel drones, it would be wise to explore opportunities with selling drones manufactured by other companies. If you need help here, let me know. I can introduce you to different manufacturers and distributors. Will the FCC revoke already issued FCC approvals for drones? I don’t know. You need to make that decision. You should advise potential clients on these issues and bake something into a contract that there is a regulatory risk that the FCC thinks they have the authority to revoke these FCC certifications for drones which would make it illegal for the customer to operate a wireless transmitter.

What type of contractual language should I use to warn the client?  I highly suggest you connect with a contract attorney in your state to draft a drone sale agreement that includes this. I don’t draft these as contracts are governed under state law, and I cannot know all of the intricacies of your state contract law. You want a dedicated contract attorney to help you with this.

The worst-case scenario is that the FCC license for my inventory gets revoked. What does this mean? 47 CFR 2.803 says,

“(a) Marketing, as used in this section, includes sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.

(b) General rule. No person may market a radio frequency device unless:

(1) For devices subject to authorization under certification, the device has been authorized in accordance with the rules in subpart J of this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter; or

(2) For devices subject to authorization under Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity in accordance with the rules in subpart J of this part, the device complies with all applicable technical, labeling, identification and administrative requirements; or

(3) For devices that do not require a grant of equipment authorization under subpart J of this chapter but must comply with the specified technical standards prior to use, the device complies with all applicable, technical, labeling, identification and administrative requirements.”

Selling unlicensed drone radio frequency equipment scares me. FCC has gone after multiple entities in the drone industry:

Drone Businesses and FINCEN’s Beneficial Ownership Information

FINCEN-beneficial-ownership-info

Update: This has been flopping back and forth. Currently, there is an injunction. On 12/26, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the trial courts nationwide preliminary injunction. It was originally declared unconstitutional and an injunction was issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, but then on 12/23/24, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted the U.S. government’s motion to stay the district court’s injunction.  On 12/26, they removed the stay which put the injunction back in effect. The court explained,

“in order to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties’ weighty substantive arguments, that part of the motions-panel order granting the Government’s motion to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the CTA and the Reporting Rule is VACATED. ” 

What now? The law is currently stopped while the 5th Circuit rules on whether it is legal or not.

The appeal to the 5th Circuit is expedited for the next available oral argument panel.  The 5th Circuit will then do a final ruling. They basically just removed the injunction that the district court put into place WHILE the appeal is still pending before the 5th Circuit.  Will the 5th Circuit issue its ruling by January 1st?  I don’t know.

The National Federation of Independent Business said they are going to appeal this stay. There are two options here.

Option 1. Appeal the case to the full 5th Circuit. This ruling is only by 3 judges. You can petition for rehearing by the entire 5th Circuit. That means ALL of the judges. This doesn’t happen alot. Why?  Here is what the 5th Circuit’s rules say:

[The attorneys] “are reminded that in every case the duty of counsel is fully discharged without filing a petition for rehearing en banc unless the case meets the rigid standards of FED. R. APP. P. 40(b)(2)(A)-(D). As is noted in FED. R. APP. P.40(g) and 40(d), en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored. Among the reasons is that each request for en banc consideration must be studied by every active judge of the court and is a serious call on limited judicial resources. Counsel have a duty to thecourt commensurate with that owed their clients to read with attention and observe with restraint the standards of FED. R. APP. P. 40(b)(2). The court takes the view that, given the extraordinary nature of petitions for en banc consideration, it is fully justified in imposing sanctions on its own initiative under, inter alia, FED. R. APP. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, upon the person whosigned the petitions, therepresented party,or both, for manifest abuse of the procedure.” (Emphasis mine).

Basically, the attorney AND the petitioner can both get sanctioned.

Option 2. Appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

The deadlines have also been updated. FINCEN published on its website:

In light of a December 23, 2024, federal Court of Appeals decision, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. However, because the Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect, we have extended the reporting deadline as follows:

  • Reporting companies that were created or registered prior to January 1, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN. (These companies would otherwise have been required to report by January 1, 2025.)
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after September 4, 2024 that had a filing deadline between December 3, 2024 and December 23, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after December 3, 2024 and on or before December 23, 2024 have an additional 21 days from their original filing deadline to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies that qualify for disaster relief may have extended deadlines that fall beyond January 13, 2025. These companies should abide by whichever deadline falls later.
  • Reporting companies that are created or registered in the United States on or after January 1, 2025 have 30 days to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN after receiving actual or public notice that their creation or registration is effective.
  • As indicated in the alert titled “Notice Regarding National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)”, Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)—namely, Isaac Winkles, reporting companies for which Isaac Winkles is the beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and members of the National Small Business Association (as of March 1, 2024)—are not currently required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) entered in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, pending the outcome of the Department of the Treasury’s ongoing appeal of the district court’s order. Texas Top Cop Shop is only one of several cases that have challenged the CTA pending before courts around the country. Several district courts have denied requests to enjoin the CTA, ruling in favor of the Department of the Treasury. The government continues to believe—consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon—that the CTA is constitutional. For that reason, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal with the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

There are other courts hearing cases right now on the Corporate Transparency Act, which might do something. Congress also might act as well.

While waiting, if you are interested in a beyond line of sight waiver for aerial data collection, Part 137 spraying, or any other special type of approval, contact me! :) We just recently obtained a BVLOS waiver for nationwide wide ops, lasting 4 years, without visual observers for multiple drones.

Background

In 2021, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act on a bipartisan basis. This law creates a new beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement as part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures.

After January 1, 2024, you are required to report. A reporting company created or registered to do business before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025 to file its initial beneficial ownership information report. From page 2 of BOI FAQ PDF,

“A reporting company created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2025, will have 90 calendar days after receiving notice of the company’s creation or registration to file its initial BOI report. This 90-calendar day deadline runs from the time the company receives actual notice that its creation or registration is effective, or after a secretary of state or similar office first provides public notice of its creation or registration, whichever is earlier. Reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 calendar days from actual or public notice that the company’s creation or registration is effective to file their initial BOI reports with FinCEN.”

Willful violation of the BOI reporting may be subject to civil penalties up to $500 per day that the violation continues and criminal penalties of up to 2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Individuals and businesses can both be liable for willful violations.

IMPORTANT. On March 1, 2024, a judge for the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Alabama granted a motion for summary judgement for the National Small Business Association in its lawsuit against the law. The judge declared the law to be unconstitutional and enjoined the Treasury Department from enforcing the law.  Here is the opinion. 

 

Reporting

There is no cost to file.  You file here. https://www.fincen.gov/boi

There is no annual reporting requirement. You must file updated or corrected reports when things change.

Who Must Report?

Who must report?  From page 4 of BOI FAQ PDF,

“Companies required to report are called reporting companies. There are two types of reporting companies:
• Domestic reporting companies are corporations, limited liability companies, and any other entities created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office in the United States.
• Foreign reporting companies are entities (including corporations and limited liability companies) formed under the law of a foreign country that have registered to do business in the United States by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office.”

Note that there are 23 exemptions from this reporting:

  1. Securities reporting issuer
  2. Governmental authority
  3. Bank
  4. Credit union
  5. Depository institution holding company
  6. Money services business
  7. Broker or dealer in securities
  8. Securities exchange or clearing agency
  9. Other Exchange Act registered entity
  10. Investment company or investment adviser
  11. Venture capital fund adviser
  12. Insurance company
  13. State-licensed insurance producer
  14. Commodity Exchange Act registered entity
  15. Accounting firm
  16. Public utility
  17. Financial market utility
  18. Pooled investment vehicle
  19. Tax-exempt entity
  20. Entity assisting a tax-exempt entity
  21. Large operating company
  22. Subsidiary of certain exempt entities
  23. Inactive entity

I’m just a sole proprietor using my drone to make some money. Do I have to report?  From page 8 of BOI FAQ PDF,

“Is a sole proprietorship a reporting company?
No, unless a sole proprietorship was created (or, if a foreign sole proprietorship, registered to do business) in the United States by filing a document with a secretary of state or similar office. An entity is a reporting company only if it was created (or, if a foreign company, registered to do business) in the United States by filing such a document. Filing a document with a government agency to obtain (1) an IRS employer identification number, (2) a fictitious business name, or (3) a professional or occupational license does not create a new entity, and therefore does not make a sole proprietorship filing such a document a reporting company.”

Report What?

You have to report beneficial owners. From page 8 of BOI FAQ PDF, “A beneficial owner is an individual who either directly or indirectly: (1) exercises substantial control (see Question D.2) over the reporting company, or (2) owns or controls at least 25% of the reporting company’s ownership interests.”

Substantial Control

From page 8 of BOI FAQ PDF,

“An individual can exercise substantial control over a reporting company in four different ways. If the individual falls into any of the categories below, the individual is exercising substantial control:
• The individual is a senior officer (the company’s president, chief financial officer, general counsel, chief executive office, chief operating officer, or any other officer who performs a similar function).
• The individual has authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors (or similar body) of the reporting company.
• The individual is an important decision-maker for the reporting company. See Question D.3 for more information.
• The individual has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company as explained further in FinCEN’s Small Entity Compliance Guide (see Chapter 2.1, “What is substantial control?”).”

Chapter 2.1’s table from BOI Small Compliance Guide says,

“[a]ny individual who directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company, including decisions regarding the reporting company’s:

1. Business, such as

  • Nature, scope, and attributes of the business.
  • The selection or termination of business lines or ventures, or geographic focus
  • The entry into or termination, or the fulfillment or non-fullfillment, or signifcant contracts

2. Finances, such as:

  • Sales, lease, mortgage, or other transfer of any principal assets
  • Majori expenditures or investments, issuances of any equity, incurrence of any significant debt, or approval of the operating budget
  • Compensation schemes and incentive programs for senior officers

3. Structure, such as:

  • Reoganrization, dissolution, or merger
  • Amendments of any substantial governance documents of the reporting company, including the articles of incorporation or similar formation documents, bylaws, and significant policies or procedures”

If you don’t fall into one of those 3, BOI has a catchall, “any other form of substantial control over the reporting company.”

Exceptions

There are exceptions for who qualifies as a beneficial owner.

What Aviation Positions Have Substantial Control?

I hired Rupprecht Law to obtain some exotic drone waivers for us. Is Rupprecht Law a beneficial owner?

From page 12 of BOI FAQ PDF,

“[L]awyers generally do not qualify as beneficial owners, but that may depend on the work being performed.

Accountants and lawyers who provide general accounting or legal services are not considered beneficial owners because ordinary, arms-length advisory or other third-party professional services to a reporting company are not considered to be “substantial control” (see Question D.2). In addition, a lawyer or accountant who is designated as an agent of the reporting company may qualify for the “nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent” exception from the beneficial owner definition. However, an individual who holds the position of general counsel in a reporting company is a “senior officer” of that company and is therefore a beneficial owner FinCEN’s Small Entity Compliance Guide includes a checklist to help determine whether an individual qualifies for an exception to the beneficial owner definition.”

I’m a Part 137 drone spraying operation, I have a Chief Supervisor. Am I considered a beneficial owner?

The word Chief Supervisor points out the person does supervision. The exemptions also require the Part 137 operating to do certain things. Most operations are really just pieces of paper.  LLCs and corporations are just pieces of paper. They can’t do anything. The Chief Supervisor is the one who has to do things.  The best thing to do is look at your exemption and  your operations manual to see if the Chief Supervisor does have substantial control.

I have a Part 107 waiver or Part 107 authorization, and I’m the person responsible listed on the document. Am I considered a beneficial owner?

If you go to the FAA’s Waiver Application Instructions, the FAA says,

“The Responsible Party information is prepopulated from the Part 107 Account Details. The Responsible Party is the official holder of the waiver.
The Responsible Party—

• Is responsible for the safe conduct of the operation and for the strict observanceof the terms and provisions contained in the waiver.

• Is responsible for ensuring the Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC), manipulators of the controls, and Visual Observer (VO), if one is used, are—

 Informed of, and observe, the terms and provisions in the waiver and of the requirement for strict observance of those terms and provisions; and

 Familiar with the regulations codified at 14 CFR part 107.

• Should be a person who has ongoing knowledge of the operations of the sUAS under the waiver.

• Is not required to be the holder of a remote pilot certificate with an sUAS rating (RPIC).

• May be the representative of an organization (enter name of organization in the appropriate space).

• Is responsible for maintaining information, such as a list of pilots and the make/model of all aircraft operating under the terms of the waiver, and presenting the information to the FAA upon request.

• Is responsible for maintaining records or other information required to demonstrate compliance with the special provisions in the waiver.”

If you also pull a granted 107 waivers, you’ll see the FAA frequently includes specific provisions JUST FOR the responsible person. I’ll pull some provisions here from a 400+ waiver.

“1. The Responsible Person listed on the Waiver is responsible to the FAA for the safe conduct of the operations. Prior to conducting operations that are the subject of this Waiver, the Responsible Person:
a. Must ensure the remote PIC, manipulators of the controls, and VO(s) are informed of the terms and provisions of this Waiver and strictly observe the terms and provisions herein;
b. Must ensure the remote PIC, manipulators of the controls, and VO(s) are informed and familiar with part 107 regulations; and
c. Evidence of the above (a and b) must be documented and must be presented for inspection upon request from the Administrator or an authorized representative;
….

12. The Responsible Person must file a Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM) no more than 72 hours and no less than 24 hours prior to operating under this waiver. A NOTAM can be filed by calling 1-877-487-6867 (1-877-4-US-NTMS) or online at https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/login#!/, and must include the location and/or operating area, altitude, and time and nature of the activity. The Responsible Person must verify the NOTAM has been issued prior to conducting waivered operations;”

Helpful Resources

I’m guessing you will have many questions. These two documents answer MANY MANY more issues not addressed here.

Drone Business Entity Issues

When people start their businesses, they ask me the following questions:

  • Should I set up an LLC?
  • What type of business entity structure should I set up?
  • What about taxes?
  • Will an LLC provide me protection if I am flying?

You need to understand that there are two issues ALWAYS in play here:  liability and tax savings.

Liability

If you are flying the drone as a pilot, you are always going to be on the hook as the pilot. Having an LLC means you, as the pilot, and the LLC both get sued.

If you are hiring pilots and they are flying, THEN you want to start thinking about having some entity like an LLC or corporation be the operating business that hires the pilots and does the operation.  There are other forms of entity structure like limited liability partnership (LLP), etc.  Ultimately, you want to connect with a business attorney in your state to answer the exact specifics.  For most of my clients, they choose to go the corporation or LLC for liability protection.

A doing business as (DBA) name does not provide any liability protections.

Tax Savings

The other major issue is tax savings. Corporations can be taxed under subchapter S and this provides for significant savings if done correctly.  If you are setting up an LLC, you need to figure out if you are going to set up taxing as subchapter S or just as a pass-through.  The downside to passthrough is ALL of your income is taxed with self-employment tax.

You also want to talk to an accountant or tax attorney in your state to see if there are any restrictions on STATE taxes or exemptions you can use for your operation. Some states have tax exemptions for certain types of entities. You need to make sure that any form of entity structure you select does NOT jeopardize the exemption and cost you more in taxes.

Ultimately, I highly suggest you reach out to a tax and business attorney to answer these issues.  A simple 30-minute phone call can save you a lot of trouble. That attorney can also help you set up the business and provide you with valuable documentation to keep your business working so it looks like a legitimate business (in the event you are sued and the plaintiff’s attorney is trying to piece the veil and get at your personal assets).

Guide to Handling Unidentified Drone Sightings (Civilians, Law Enforcement, etc.)

ultimate guide to handling unidentified drone sightings

Trying to figure out what is going on in the sky? Think it is a drone? Trying to figure out if you should be alarmed or not? I’ll explain to you how to go about handling it based on my years of experience as an FAA-certified commercial pilot, flight instructor, and practicing drone attorney with hundreds of clients (some of which are law enforcement).

Step 1. Is the unidentified object a manned aircraft?

Many manned aircraft transmit radio signals. There are prebuilt receivers out there that cost money. You can even build a DIY sensor if you want. You can receive these signals at various free websites:

Instructions:

  1. From your location, get a compass heading to the target. There are compass apps you can put on your phone to help figure out the heading.
  2. Open up one of the websites and figure out your location.
  3. See if there are any manned aircraft flying in that direction.

Keep in mind that not ALL manned aircraft must transmit radio signals. There are thousands of manned aircraft out there flying around legally all day long that are not required to transmit radio signals. See 14 CFR 91.215 and 91.225.

If you come up with nothing, let’s go to the next step.

Step 2. Is it a drone?

The vast majority of drones flying in the United States MUST transmit remote identification signals. See 14 CFR Part 89.  However, there are SOME aircraft that are not required to transmit these signals such as:

  • Drones 250 grams and less.
  • Drones flying in FAA-recognized identification areas (FRIA). To rule out this situation
    1. Go to this FAA website.  https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9c2e4406710048e19806ebf6a06754ad
    2. Type in your address in the top left.
    3. Zoom out and figure out if there are any FRIAs off in the direction you saw the object. There is a button at the top right that has a legend. It can help you figure it out. It’s the “Recreational Flyer Fixed Site” It’s a blue circle but that is just an example. These FRIAs can take different shapes in real life.  Click on the area on the map and it will pop up with a box and tell you if it is a FRIA or not.
  • The military or law enforcement operating under a waiver.

To receive these signals, you can download an app to your phone. Search in your app store for something like “remote identification receiver.” Note that some of these apps may have problems working on your phone. I won’t get into all of the technical reasons here but just note you may have to try a few different apps and maybe even purchase a dedicated receiver.  Here is one I know some have used. https://dronetag.com/apps/

You can also purchase dedicated prebuilt remote ID receivers.

Open up the receiver, and try and identify the object.  If the drone is broadcasting signals, it will show the aircraft’s location and altitude. It will also show either the ground controller location or the take-off position. This can give you an idea of who might be operating it.

There are been numerous reports of the phone apps having problems. Before going to the next step, you really should see if you or a friend can go fly a drone with remote ID to validate that you are receiving signals. You can figure out if your drone has remote ID by looking at this list. https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs

Nothing?

Step 3. Analyze the Situation

Things to keep in mind:

  • Unless you validated the remote ID receiver, it could be not working correctly. Before doing anything further or calling anyone, you should find a reliable receiver and verify it by testing it against a known remote ID transmitter.
  •  The drone may be far away and you see its lights. These can travel at farther ranges than the radio frequencies in certain locations. You may have a lot of radio frequency traffic in the area (high noise floor), which makes it difficult for your receiver to receive the signals.
  • If you see lights on the object, that appears to show they are trying to comply with 14 CFR 107.29. Or it could be a bad guy trying to appear lawful.  If the lights are on, it can go either way. If the lights are OFF, then that means it is most likely they are not lawfully flying. Yes, military and law enforcement sometimes get approvals to fly with their lights out but it is pretty rare. If you are looking at a military operations area, you could be witnessing military aircraft doing lights-out training.
  • Flying near an airport is not ALWAYS illegal. The FAA has granted over 1 million authorizations for drones to fly near airports.  See FAA news release. I remember getting approval for a client to fly right off the end of a large active runway of a major airport everyone in the United States knows of. It can be done lawfully.
  • Drones are limited to flying at 400ft for most operations. See 14 CFR 107.51 and 49 USC 44809. Studies out there show that it is really hard to accurately estimate the altitude of a drone. Making size estimations and altitude estimations of a drone, especially at night, is really unreliable. Unless you have some radar, altitude estimates or size estimates are useless.
  • Flying in warning, alert, and military operations areas is NOT illegal. These are on maps to WARN pilots that there are potential dangers in this area and they should do risk management.

Things that would indicate that the drone is most likely illegal (For each of these, there are scenarios where it can be lawful but unlikely):

  • Flying in flight restrictions
  • Flying in active restricted areas.
  • Flying without lights
  • A drone flying without transmitting remote ID signals.  How do you determine manned from unmanned? That’s kinda hard.
    • A manned aircraft flying in a direction towards you can give the appearance that it is a drone hovering. However, after watching for quite a while, the light should move rapidly as the aircraft moves on. However, it could also be a law enforcement helicopter or news chopper just hovering over a location.
    • A manned aircraft will have a solid red light on its left side and a solid green on its right side.  It will also have either a flashing red light and/or flashing white lights. If you see this, it most likely is a manned aircraft. The absence of the solid red and green position lights does not mean you have a drone, you just might not be at an angle to see the lights on the manned aircraft.

Ultimately, you are going to take all of these facts together to make a guestimate. It’s like poker. You are going to make a decision without all of the information. Your situation could be one of the following:

  • A legal manned aircraft flying in an area that does not require ADS-B radio transmission or radio transponder transmission. There are literally thousands of aircraft out there that do not have ADS-B transmitters and are not required to transmit.
  • It’s an unmanned aircraft that is flying for the federal government or law enforcement.
  • It is an illegal drone flight and law enforcement should investigate.

Extra Resources

“I wanna shoot the drone down, is that legal?” There are many issues here. I have a huge article on the issues surrounding attacking and destroying the drone. https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-jammer-gun-defender-legal-problems/

Here are some videos discussing all of the issues that surround HOW we can go about fixing this situation. There are alot of topics that are involved in counter drone technology.

    • My Interview on CBS.

DJI v. Department of Defense (DOD)

drone-lawsuits

On 10/18/24, DJI filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and Laura Taylor-Kale.

Here is a copy of the complaint.DJI_DC_Circuit_Complaint_1729453333

It alleges four violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and asks the following relief:

A. Declaring that Defendants’ designation is null, void, and with no force and effect;
B. Declaring that Defendants’ designation is not in accordance with law within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); and contrary to constitutional right within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2);
C. Declaring that Defendants’ failure to delete DJI from the CMC List is action unlawfully withheld within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1);
D. Vacating and setting aside the designation;
E. Compelling Defendants to delete DJI from the CMC List;
F. Permanently enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents from enforcing, implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever under, or in reliance on, the designation;
G. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
H. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper