This week, AUVSI, along with the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the Drone Service Providers Alliance (DSPA), and the Small UAV Coalition, submitted letters of opposition to Maryland SB 702, Montana SB 333, and Oregon HB 2688. Additionally, AUVSI’s Cascade Chapter President Wendie Kellington, Cascade Chapter member and Professor at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Patrick Sherman, and AUVSI’s Scott Shtofman testified in opposition to Oregon HB 2688 during the public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.  
 

The Bills:  

• Maryland SB 702 would prohibit a person from operating or causing the operation of a drone over a state correctional facility unless they received authorization from the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services or the Secretary’s designee.  

• Montana SB 333 would create the crime of criminal trespass when operating a drone that is flying two hundred feet or lower over either property or a person’s residence without authorization.  

• Oregon HB 2688 would amend ORS 837.380 to allow an individual to bring an action against a person or public body that flew a drone over their property without permission. HB 2688 also removes an existing section of ORS 837.380 that required there to have been at least one previous flight over the property and notification from the property owner that they did not want a drone to fly over their property.  

The Problem: 

These bills, each in their own way, seek to regulate the National Airspace System. As the FAA has complete sovereignty over the national airspace, these measures are outside of the purview of the state legislatures and preempted by federal law. Federal control of the airspace is a bedrock principal of aviation law in the United States and is one of the reasons why the U.S. enjoys the safest airspace in the world. Congress, in Title 49, Part A, Section 1 of the U.S. Code stated: “The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of the airspace of the United States,” and delegated control of the airspace to the FAA. The FAA has since reiterated to the states that it has the sole authority to regulate drones in the airspace. As such all three above measures, in their attempt to create no-fly zones for drones, are preempted by federal law. 

Additionally, when airspace regulation is left to the states or localities it creates a patchwork of regulations that would inhibit this growing industry and erode, rather than enhance, safety. Drones are poised to supply immense public benefits to wherever they are deployed. By adhering to the regulatory framework for drones established by the FAA, States will be able to reap the workforce, economic, and environmental benefits commercial drone operations provide.  
 

Our Recommendation:  

Before considering new legislation to regulate the use of drones, lawmakers should first contemplate if the proposed regulations are preempted, if the conduct targeted by the proposal is already addressed by existing state law, and if drone-specific regulations are necessary. Instead of pushing polices that restrict drone use, thus harming this growing industry, lawmakers in all states should advance drone friendly policy to ensure that their states are ready to benefit from this emerging technology.  
 

To assist lawmakers in drafting drone friendly legislation, AUVSI has created an industry backed initiative, Drone Prepared, which consists of educational materials and model legislation that is designed to ensure that states are ready to embrace UAS and all the benefits they provide. 
 

AUVSI looks forward to continuing to work with, and educate, state lawmakers on drone policy that allows for the growth of the industry, while also fighting measures that place an undue burden on drone use.  
 

For a more detailed discussion on federal preemption of the airspace, see AUVSI’s recently released legal white paper on the subject. A one-pager explaining the white paper is also available here.