FAA rescinded NOTAM FDC 6/4375 after freelance photojournalist Rob Levine sued, replacing a 21-month flight prohibition with a weaker advisory.
Key Takeaways
NOTAM FDC 6/4375 (Jan 16, 2026) created roving 3,000-ft lateral / 1,000-ft vertical no-fly zones around unmarked, moving DHS vehicles – with no compliance mechanism for drone pilots.
FAA’s own guidance acknowledged the rule was “ambiguous” and that “any flight carries the risk of inadvertent violation” – an impossible standard for Remote ID-broadcasting commercial operators.
The replacement NOTAM FDC 6/2824 (Apr 15) strips the flight prohibition and criminal penalties but retains language allowing federal agents to seize or destroy drones deemed a “credible threat” – without requiring public disclosure of completed risk assessments.
DHS, not FAA, is identified as the likely holdout delaying the revision; FAA deferred jurisdiction questions back to DHS throughout.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed Levine v. FAA (26-1054) in DC Circuit on March 16; attorneys plan to continue despite the revised NOTAM to prevent tactical mootness.
Hacker News Comment Review
Commenters zeroed in on the structural absurdity: a no-fly zone attached to an unmarked moving vehicle has no defined perimeter at time of flight, making lawful compliance logically impossible rather than merely difficult.
The “you’ll find out where you shouldn’t have been when charged” dynamic was called out as a novel enforcement model – where the violation zone is retroactively determinable only by the government, not the operator.
Notable Comments
@delichon: “Hopefully they will tell you when and where you shouldn’t have been when they charge you for it, but that may be classified.”
@tamimio: questions who authored and approved a rule covering unmarked vehicles in motion with no announced routes.
