Massachusetts lawmakers propose package of new drone rules
By DRONELIFE Features Editor Jim Magill
A package of six bills making their way through the Massachusetts legislature could have profound negative impacts on future drone operations in the Commonwealth, representatives of the commercial UAV industry say.
Advocates and opponents of the proposed legislation made their opinions clear at a recent hearing by the legislature’s Joint Committee on Transportation. The Massachusetts bills are part of a larger national trend, as state lawmakers across the country consider a variety of measures to regulate the operation of UAVs at a time when the commercial drone industry is looking forward to an explosive growth in drone operations.
According to the FAA, “since 2013, at least 44 States have enacted laws relating to UAS, addressing issues such as privacy, delivery of prison contraband, firefighting, law enforcement use of UAS, and UAS registration.”
Industry advocates largely oppose the Massachusetts bills as they are currently written, saying some of the proposed legislation prohibits activity already illegal under federal law and FAA regulations, while other bills would impose onerous land-use restrictions that could hobble commercial drone operations.
“One of the bills was just a horrific bill,” said Vic Moss, a drone industry veteran who serves as CEO and co-founder of Drone Service Provider Alliance. “It tried to do all kinds of things that the FAA says you can’t do.”
House Bill 3663, sponsored by State Rep. Brandy Fluker-Reid, would prohibit commercial drones from taking off or landing within 150 feet of a wide range of sites, including airports or helipads, aquifers, places where children congregate, military bases, and critical infrastructures facilities such as power plants, gas utilities, solar fields, wind farms or water treatment facilities.
The bill which has been referred to the legislature’s Joint Committee on Transportation, would also prohibit commercial drones from taking off or landing within 100 feet of a public or private schools, churches, athletic events, concerts or other events where crowds gather, playgrounds, or parks.
Moss, a Denver-based commercial photographer and videographer, called the proposed restrictions under H 3663 “heinous,” and predicted that the bill would not likely become law in the state.
Other drone-related bills being considered by the Massachusetts legislature include:
- H 3618 — Prohibits the operation of a small, unmanned aircraft system within 400 vertical feet of a school zone without the authorization of the superintendent of schools. Proposed by Representatives Bruce Ayers Margaret Scarsdale, the bill establishes fines for violations.
- H 3800 – Proposed by Rep. Marcus S. Vaughn, prohibits Chinese state-owned companies from selling or distributing drones in the Commonwealth.
- S 2454 – Proposed by Senator John Velis, proposes various regulations for unmanned aircraft systems including operating a drone in a way that disrupts the flight of manned aircraft.
- S 2438 – Proposed by Michael Rush, prohibits arming drones with a weapon capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.
- H 3749 – Proposed by Brian Murray, prohibits municipalities from enacting or enforcing any ordinance regulating the use of drones except as otherwise authorized by the FAA or by state law.
Legislation could run afoul of federal pre-emption
Moss said flaws in several of the bills indicate that the lawmakers who sponsored them are not familiar with existing aviation laws and regulations governing UAV operations. He said that some of the pending legislation, should it become law, would likely be struck down by the courts as being pre-empted by federal law.
According to an FAA Fact Sheet on state and local regulation of UAS, “the FAA has exclusive regulatory authority over matters pertaining to aviation safety and the efficient use of the airspace.” States and local governments are prohibited from regulating in the fields of aviation safety or airspace efficiency, but may establish drone-related regulations outside those specific areas.
While a state or local law that conflicts with FAA regulations definitely will be pre-empted, state or local laws affecting commercial UAS operators not in direct conflict with federal laws nevertheless are more likely to be pre-empted than laws that are designed for recreational drone operations, the Fact Sheet states.
Hayden Spitz, founder of Boston Drone Productions, was one of three drone industry representatives who testified at the recent joint hearing against the group of drone-related bills. In an interview with DroneLife, he said that although the legislation was well-intentioned, several of the bills would create onerous restrictions on commercial drone operations, while others duplicated or conflicted with existing federal aviation regulations.
“They were brought in by people who have legitimate fears and thoughts, like not wanting people to fly around schools or around air airports and things like that,” he said.
Legislation restricting the areas in which commercial drone operators could fly – such as close to schools, aquifers or any federal building – “would effectively ruin a lot of real estate photography,” Spitz said. “It would effectively stop them, and or have them have to jump through a lot of hoops to be able to do what they’re doing right now.”
Several of the proposed bills, such as those containing language prohibiting installing weapons on drones, would likely be struck down by the courts because they prohibit conduct already forbidden by federal law.
“That would just conflict because of the wording that they’re trying to impose in the Massachusetts laws,” he said “And then of course, the bill to stop Chinese drones as well, is just silly.”
That proposed law, H 3800, is similar to legislation under consideration in a number of states, as well as at the federal level. These laws and legislative proposals attempt to curtain the theft of drone-collected data and to promote the growth of the U.S. drone industry by prohibiting the sale of products made by industry-leading drone companies, such as DJI and Autel.
Spitz said the effect of such a law, however, would be to penalize current users of those Chinese-made products, which often feature superior capabilities compared with similarly priced American drones. “Getting rid of DJI would effectively ruin many careers because they are the absolute best quality drones for what is available right now, especially at the price point.”
A ban on Chinese drones also would hit especially hard at educators teaching the next generation of drone operators, and their students, who might not be able afford the more expensive American-made products, he said.
Some drone legislation likely to become law
While all six of the proposed bills are likely to undergo substantial changes as they make their way through the legislative process, or fail to become law altogether, it is also likely that the lawmakers will pass some form of drone-related legislation in the coming months.
Velis, whose proposal seeks to craft a comprehensive set of drone regulations for the state, said his bill is not about stifling innovation of the drone industry. “It’s about ensuring that as drone technology evolves, it does so with responsibility and safeguards,” he said in an email statement to DroneLife. “We regulate cars. We regulate aircraft. We must do the same for drones to protect public safety and personal privacy.”
An Army veteran, Velis has said he first became aware of the potential danger imposed by drones operated by malicious actors while serving in Afghanistan. As the current chairman of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Veteran & Federal Affairs, he said his proposed legislation is designed to protect the U.S. Homeland from similar hazards.
“Drones are powerful tools that are rapidly transforming our airspace and have enormous potential—from inspecting infrastructure, to assisting in emergency response,” Velis said. “However, that potential comes with risk, and right now, our Commonwealth’s laws have not kept pace with the technology.”
Read more:
Jim Magill is a Houston-based writer with almost a quarter-century of experience covering technical and economic developments in the oil and gas industry. After retiring in December 2019 as a senior editor with S&P Global Platts, Jim began writing about emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robots and drones, and the ways in which they’re contributing to our society. In addition to DroneLife, Jim is a contributor to Forbes.com and his work has appeared in the Houston Chronicle, U.S. News & World Report, and Unmanned Systems, a publication of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
