Virginia: Unfriendly sUAS bills introduced to the General Assembly

[NealJ777]

The following House Bills have been introduced in the 2020 Legislative Session regarding sUAS. Please contact your state delegate to oppose these bills.

HB311

A political subdivision may adopt time, place, or manner restrictions regarding the takeoff or landing of unmanned aerial systems on property owned by the political subdivision.

HB742

A political subdivision may adopt time, place, or manner restrictions regarding the takeoff or landing of unmanned aerial systems on property owned by the political subdivision.

HB1227

The language in this one is a bit confusing.

No political subdivision may regulate the use of a privately owned, unmanned aircraft system as defined in § 19.2-60.1 within its boundaries. A political subdivision may adopt reasonable time, place, and manner regulations regarding the takeoff and landing of unmanned aerial systems on property owned by the political subdivision, provided such regulations are narrowly tailored to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Regulation of takeoffs and landings adopted pursuant to this section shall be conspicuously posted.

Takeoff and landing regulations adopted by a political subdivision shall not apply to persons authorized by federal regulations to operate an unmanned aircraft system provided such system is operated in an otherwise lawful manner and consistent with federal regulations.

 

[Camino Ken]

My quick interpretation is that cities, towns, etc can enact regulations that prohibit people without a federal license from taking off or landing in parks, playgrounds, etc.

It’s interesting that they were very careful not to step on any federal laws. Flying over said areas was not mentioned because that is controlled by the FAA.

 

[NealJ777]

My quick interpretation is that cities, towns, etc can enact regulations that prohibit people without a federal license from taking off or landing in parks, playgrounds, etc.

That's not what it's saying. Take a look at the language of HB 311 and HB 742. They're saying that they can restrict takeoff/landing on property owned by the political subdivision. That means the local park can prohibit you from flying if you're on park property.

I called the office of each of the Delegates that introduced each bill and I also contacted my own Delegate. The office of Ms. Wendy Gooditis (HB 311) called me back and we spoke for about 30 minutes this morning. The reason Ms. Gooditis wants to introduce HB 311 is that the Town of Leesburg has requested to be permitted to restrict drone flights over the town swimming pool and special events within the town. I pointed out that this would already be prohibited on the federal level and therefore there's no need for a state law that would be duplicating federal regulations.

 

[Camino Ken]

That's not what it's saying. Take a look at the language of HB 311 and HB 742. They're saying that they can restrict takeoff/landing on property owned by the political subdivision. That means the local park can prohibit you from flying if you're on park property.

I called the office of each of the Delegates that introduced each bill and I also contacted my own Delegate. The office of Ms. Wendy Gooditis (HB 311) called me back and we spoke for about 30 minutes this morning. The reason Ms. Gooditis wants to introduce HB 311 is that the Town of Leesburg has requested to be permitted to restrict drone flights over the town swimming pool and special events within the town. I pointed out that this would already be prohibited on the federal level and therefore there's no need for a state law that would be duplicating federal regulations.

I thought that is what I said. A city could limit your ability to takeoff and land on land owned by the city. What am I missing? BTW - I was only going off of what you included in your post. I did not read the bills.

 

[NealJ777]

I thought that is what I said. A city could limit your ability to takeoff and land on land owned by the city. What am I missing?

A political subdivision may adopt time, place, or manner restrictions regarding the takeoff or landing of unmanned aerial systems on property owned by the political subdivision.

Basically, this would be creating a hodgepodge of regulations. So "Town A" has a set of regulations and "Town B" has it's own regulations, etc.

 

[Camino Ken]

A political subdivision may adopt time, place, or manner restrictions regarding the takeoff or landing of unmanned aerial systems on property owned by the political subdivision.

Basically, this would be creating a hodgepodge of regulations. So "Town A" has a set of regulations and "Town B" has it's own regulations, etc.

I guess I still don’t see any disagreement. I also don’t quite see the potential for a hodgepodge. The park will either prohibit takeoffs and landings, or not. I live in California, and it is getting more and more common to see signs at the entrance to parks that prohibit a whole multitude of things, no drinking, no staying after dark, no bicycles, no loud music, etc. They will just add drones to the list.

 

[Thomas B]

@NealJ777 ... I must commend you on the time spent with your legislator and the education you offered. Well done!
The regulations as posted above by you don’t seem out of line with FAA regs or unduly prescriptive at first reading.
If you’re up to contacting you legislator again, you might make the argument that towns and counties should provide areas where TO and landing of drones is allowed. That’s how it played out in Arizona so far. I am not talking about AMA type fields, but actual municipal parks.

 

[NealJ777]

@Thomas B - Thank you. But where you say "out of line with FAA regs" If there are already federal regulations, then there is no need for there to be regulations at the state and local levels.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, the park and planning authority has a designated model airpark. This is the only park in the entire county where remote aircraft is permitted. It is run by the AMA.

Here is the language of the regulations of the park and planning authority:

Rules & Regulations - Montgomery Parks

Chapter I: Purpose, Authority and Other Matters Section 1. Purpose The Commission has a responsibility to establish rules and regulations to provide for the safe and peaceful use of Commission […]

www.montgomeryparks.org

(B) Remote Controlled and Similar Devices. No person shall possess, operate, fly, control, or launch any model aircraft, model helicopter, model rocket, powered projectile, drone, unpersonned aerial vehicle, or similar airborne device remotely from or above Park Property, except in a manner that is consistent with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations and [the bolding is mine]

(1) as authorized by Permit, and only if conducted in a manner that is not hazardous to Commission personnel or the general public; or

(2) as authorized expressly in designated areas, subject to applicable Park Directives, and only if conducted in a manner that is not hazardous to Commission personnel or the general public.

However, Maryland State Law says:

(b) Only the State may enact a law or take any other action to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the testing or operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the State.

(c) Subsection (b) of this section:

(1) preempts the authority of a county or municipality to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the testing or operation of unmanned aircraft systems; and
(2) supersedes any existing law or ordinance of a county or municipality that prohibits, restricts, or regulates the testing or operation of unmanned aircraft systems.

So, basically, the Montgomery County Parks and Planning Administration is itself in violation of Maryland law.

My point being that if there are already federal regulations in place regarding sUAS, then Virginia does not need to enable the local parks, towns, cities, counties, etc. to have their own regulations.

Current Virginia Law states:

No political subdivision may regulate the use of a privately owned, unmanned aircraft system as defined in § 19.2-60.1 within its boundaries. Nothing in this section shall permit a person to go or enter upon land owned by a political subdivision solely because he is in possession of an unmanned aircraft system if he would not otherwise be permitted entry upon such land.

So, the bills in the current General Assembly seek to change the wording of the current law to allow the local parks, towns, cities, counties, etc. to have their own regulations and then yes, there will be a hodgepodge of regulation.

I wasn't expecting to receive this kind of reception from a community of drone enthusiasts. I was expecting more support.

 

[Thomas B]

Understand... looks like they are getting ready to charge fees.

 

[BigAl07]

By local entities "mirroring" Federal Regs allows local them to also have some control over what's happening without crossing any lines. NC does this and it's worked very well.

I wasn't expecting to receive this kind of reception from a community of drone enthusiasts. I was expecting more support.

Even a community of drone enthusiasts can have varying ideas and point of view. I can assure you my ideas and beliefs differ greatly from many of our finest and most outstanding members.

 

[NealJ777]

By local entities "mirroring" Federal Regs allows local them to also have some control over what's happening without crossing any lines. NC does this and it's worked very well.

I agree with the state saying "we agree with federal regulations", however if a state wants to say "we don't care what the feds have to say, we're doing our own thing" can sometimes be a little problematic. Take a look at my post above and what current state law says. The only reason why the delegate wants to change the wording of the state law is because she was contacted by a local town that wants to prohibit flying over the special events within the town, which already is unlawful on a federal level. The FAA regulates airspace and says that you can't fly over people and that you can't fly over sporting events, etc.

 

[JAW]

Be thankful they're not trying to prohibit overflight

 

[MaxE1955!]

People’s Republic of Virginia. First Guns, now drones. What’s next, bible burning! Sounds like it’s modeling itself after Kalifornia.

 

[NealJ777]

[emoji45]

 

[MaxE1955!]

[emoji45]

Didn’t mean to offend. But Virginia is the focus of gun control legislation lately. I think the people of America are being regulated to death. We need less government in our lives, not more!

 

[NealJ777]

No offense taken.

Without getting into a huge political discussion, I'll just say look at a map of Virginia after the Nov 2019 election and see how much of the state was red and how much was blue.

 

[Chip]

A political subdivision may adopt time, place, or manner restrictions regarding the takeoff or landing of unmanned aerial systems on property owned by the political subdivision.

Basically, this would be creating a hodgepodge of regulations. So "Town A" has a set of regulations and "Town B" has it's own regulations, etc.

Wow. "Time, place or manner restrictions" is the buzz phrase used in First Amendment free speech cases. For example, a city may enact and enforce an ordinance regulating when, where and how someone may hand out fliers in certain spaces or places but not the content of the flier itself. VA is in a way analogizing drone flying to free speech!