States and territories should be given the power to regulate drone noise, the federal government has recommended.
But recreational drones and those used by farmers, emergency services and lifeguard patrols should be exempt from new regulations.
The federal transport and infrastructure department has released a discussion paper on potential noise restrictions for commercial and recreational drones, as part of a review launched earlier this year.
The review was prompted by evidence to the ACT Assembly's drone inquiry, which exposed a lack of regulation of drone noise.
The inquiry found that the high-pitched noise emitted by Wing's household delivery drones was the "single largest source of negative feedback" during its contentious Bonython trial, and the "single biggest obstacle to community acceptance" of the technology more broadly.
The Google-linked company developed a quieter-model drone ahead of its expansion into Gungahlin, however that was also found to exceed suburban noise limits during flights.
The discussion paper noted that the Commonwealth had oversight of aviation regulation, with rules preventing the states and territories from introducing their own aircraft noise laws.
But there were "good arguments" for the regulations to amended when it comes to drones, the paper stated.
The paper suggested that the states and territories might be better placed to regulate drones flying in residential areas, given that they already policed suburban noise.
"Many drones are not like other aircraft with the ability for drones to operate far closer to people on the ground and operating shorter distances than other aircraft," the paper stated.
They would "arguably" be better suited than the Commonwealth to enforce noise limits and take action when they were breached.
The department has proposed that states and territories be handed the power to regulate drone noise - as they would other types of noise - provided that it did not conflict with federal laws.
Planning Minister Mick Gentleman would not be drawn on the proposal when contacted by The Canberra Times.
An ACT government spokesman said it would be providing a submission to the department's review, and would await its findings.
Bonython resident Nev Sheather, who spearheaded opposition to Wing's trial in Canberra's south, was divided over the proposal.
"On the one hand, the federal government should not abrogate its prime responsibility for drone noise control and regulation," Mr Sheather said.
"On the other hand, governments, and especially local governments, should be able to regulate where drones can fly in their own areas. This would hopefully mean that local citizens would be able to have a say as to what level of drone activity they want in their neighbourhoods."
The discussion paper signals that the future federal noise regulations will target operations such as Wing's Canberra venture, which involves delivering to households in residential areas.
The regulations should take into account the size, weight and design of the drone, as well as "tested" noise levels and daily flight numbers.
But any new regulations shouldn't apply to recreational drones, or those weighing fewer than 250 grams, the department said.
In the paper, the department said the experience in Australia and overseas had shown that recreational drones had a "smaller and less continuous noise impact" than commercial operations.
Drones used by farmers, emergency services and lifeguards should be exempt from the regulations, as should drones used to deliver essential medical supplies.
"The willingness of the public to accept drone operations is also likely to be affected by the societal benefit of the operation," the paper stated.
"A number of studies have highlighted that public acceptance is higher if the drone is being used for a public purpose, e.g. firefighting, police operations, medical emergencies, blood supplies, versus those with limited perceived societal benefit such as for real estate, commercial product delivery and commercial surveying."
The review is scheduled to be completed by December 31.