I'm sorry, but that seems like a complete mischaracterization of the
FAA's guidance to local & state governments, and the subsequent preemption cases like
Singer v. City of Newton where a local UAS law was invalidated due to preemption. If you can, please cite any reference you have to the FAA openly endorsing North Carolina's specific law creating a duplicative state regulatory license for UAS operators. I would be shocked to see that the FAA did any such thing, since it would be inconsistent with all of their other issued guidance.
In fact, if you click my first link in the above paragraph and look at the linked fact sheet, the FAA's guidance goes through various regulatory hypotheticals and describes what would be inappropriate at a state/local level, and what would be appropriate:
Inappropriate regulations according to the fact-sheet:
• Operational UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; any regulation of the navigable airspace. (for example, a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within the city limits, within the airspace of the city, or within certain distances of landmarks. Federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight.
• Mandating equipment or training for UAS related to aviation safety such as geo-fencing would likely be preempted. Courts have found that state regulation pertaining to mandatory training and equipment requirements related to aviation safety is not consistent with the federal regulatory framework.
Permissible state/local regulations - those laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – and are generally are not subject to federal regulation.
For example:
• Requirement for police to obtain a warrant prior to using a UAS for surveillance.
• Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism.
• Prohibitions on using UAS for hunting or fishing, or to interfere with or harass an individual
who is hunting or fishing.
• Prohibitions on attaching firearms or similar weapons to UAS.
Thus the North Carolina statute falls squarely into the "inappropriate" arena of laws, since it broadly seeks to regulate the commercial use of drones in the entire state of North Carolina, instead of being a more targeted use of their police power on a specific UAS use. (for example, banning take-offs or landings in state parks, which would be permissible at a state/local level). North Carolina's attempt to have their own knowledge test regarding the use of UAS is a type of of state-required training, and thus is specifically called out as not permissible by the FAA.
The only reason the North Carolina law continues to exist is that generally the FAA themselves don't bring these kinds of preemption cases, individual pilots or companies have to, and federal litigation isn't cheap or quick. The plaintiff in Singer was only able to do it because he had legal training himself and brought the case
pro se. 99% of the pilots out there aren't going to have the legal skills to successfully litigate a federal case to conclusion. Since the North Carolina law doesn't actually impose much of a burden on pilots there, it just isn't worth it for any particular individual to pay the thousands of dollars in legal fees and spend a year of their lives challenging it in court, even if the state law is inappropriate.
State and local authorities
are already given guidance by the FAA on how to address those issues too. They collect the pilots information, document the alleged offense, and forward it to the FAA for enforcement. There isn't a need to inappropriately "duplicate" the federal regulations for state authorities to have a role there. And the
Singer case determined, such duplication would be preempted by the federal regulatory structure.
