Nevada adopted in 2013, SCR7, to recognize the benefits of a thriving UAS industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a). Also, in Assembly Bill (AB) 507, Nevada appropriated $4,000,000 to the interim Finance Committee for allocation to the Governor’s Office of Economic Development for the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program in the event Nevada is selected as an FAA test site (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, AB239 included UAS in the definition of aircraft and regulated the operators of UAS. It also prohibited the weaponization of UAS and prohibited the use of UAS within a certain distance of critical facilities and airports without permission. The bill specified certain restrictions on the use of UAS by law enforcement and public agencies and required the creation of a registry of all UAS operated by public agencies in the state (NCSL, 2015c).
New Hampshire SB222 prohibited the use of UAS for hunting, fishing, or trapping (NCSL, 2015c).
North Carolina, in 2013 in SB402, placed a moratorium on UAS use by state and local personnel unless the Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the Department of Transportation approves the use. Any CIO granted exception has to be reported immediately to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology and the Fiscal Research Division (NCSL, 2015a). In 2014, North Carolina enacted SB744, a bill creating regulations for the public, private and commercial use of UAS. This new law prohibits any entity from conducting UAS surveillance of a person or private property and also prohibits taking a photo of a person without their consent for the purpose of distributing it. The law creates a civil cause of action for those whose privacy is violated. Furthermore, the law authorizes different types of infrared and thermal imaging technology for certain commercial and private uses including the evaluation of crops, mapping, scientific research and forest management. Under this law, the state Division of Aviation is required to create a knowledge and skills test for operating UAS. All agents of the state who operate UAS must pass this test. The law enables law enforcement to use UAS pursuant to a warrant, to counter an act of terrorism, to oversee public gatherings, or gather information in a public space (NCSL, 2015b). North Carolina created several new crimes. The first crime, a class H felony, is using UAS to interfere with manned aircraft. The second crime, a class E felony, is the possession of a UAS with an attached weapon. The third crime, a class 1 misdemeanor, is the unlawful fishing or hunting with UAS. The fourth crime, also a class 1 misdemeanor, is the harassment of hunters or fishermen with a UAS. The fifth crime, again a class 1 misdemeanor, is the unlawful distribution of images obtained with a UAS. The sixth crime, another class 1 misdemeanor, is operating a UAS commercially without a license (NCSL, 2015b). North Carolina law also prohibits the launch or recovery of UAS from any state or private property without consent. Additionally, the law extends the state’s current regulatory framework, administered by the CIO, for state use of UAS from July to December 31, 2015 (NCSL, 2015b).
North Dakota adopted in 2013, HCR3012, to recognize the benefits of a thriving UAS industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a). Also in 2013 in SB2018, North Dakota granted $1 million from the state general fund to pursue designation as an FAA UAS test site. Furthermore, is selected, the law would grant an additional $4 million to operate the site (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, HB1328 provided limitations for the use of UAS for surveillance (NCSL, 2015c). Oregon HB2710 defined a UAS as an unmanned flying machine, not including model aircraft. This new law allows a law enforcement agency to operate a UAS if it has a warrant and for enumerated exceptions including for training purposes. Oregon law also requires that a UAS operated by a public body be registered with the Oregon Department of Aviation (DOA), which shall keep a registry of UAS operated by public bodies. The law grants the DOA rulemaking authority to implement these provisions. It also created new crimes and civil penalties for mounting weapons on UAS and interfering with or gaining unauthorized access to public UAS. Under certain conditions, an Oregon landowner can bring an action against someone flying a UAS lower than 400 feet over the property. Oregon law also requires that the DOA must report to legislative committees on the status of federal regulations and whether UAS operated by private parties should be registered in a manner similar to the requirement for other aircraft (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, HB2534 required the development of rules prohibiting the use of UAS for angling, hunting, trapping, or interfering with a person who is lawfully angling, trapping, or hunting. HB2354 changed the term “drone” to “unmanned aircraft system” in the statute (NCSL, 2015c).