What Florida HB 1121 Changed for Critical-Infrastructure Drone Flights

I'm Tom Dowell. I fly commercially out of Springdale, Arkansas, for Drones Inbound, and I have held a Part 107 certificate for eight years. This is a law explainer, not legal advice. CS/CS/HB 1121, enrolled as Chapter 2025-29, took effect October 1, 2025. It amended Fla. Stat. § 330.41, § 330.411, and § 934.50. Other Florida material on this site lives at DroneLaws.us /florida. Federal operating rules live at DroneLaws.us /federal.

What the bill actually changed

The Senate page titles the act "Unmanned Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft Systems." The Senate bill summary states the core 330.41 change in one sentence: the criminal penalty for specified critical-infrastructure conduct rose from a second-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony, and the definition of "critical infrastructure facility" was amended to include wired communications facilities.

That is the change I care about on a commercial job. HB 1121 did not invent Florida's school-overflight statute. It did not write a 500-foot or 400-foot numeric buffer into § 330.41. If a summary treats those measurements as current statutory text, it is reading something the 2025 codification does not say. Read the House statute page for § 330.41 before you fly.

The critical-infrastructure prohibition is three acts, not a buffer

Section 330.41(4)(a) says a person may not knowingly or willfully do any of three things.

First, operate a drone over a critical infrastructure facility, unless the operation is for a commercial purpose and is authorized by and in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

Second, allow a drone to make contact with a critical infrastructure facility, including any person or object on the premises of or within the facility.

Third, allow a drone to come within a distance of a critical infrastructure facility that is close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility.

The third clause is a facts-and-circumstances distance. The 2025 statute does not convert it into a 500-foot horizontal line or a 400-foot vertical line. "Close enough to interfere" or "cause a disturbance" is the test the Legislature left in the text. I will not invent a number the session law did not enact.

The commercial-purpose exception sits only on the first clause — overflight. It does not appear on the contact clause or the interfere-or-disturb clause. Even a Part 107 job that is authorized by and in compliance with FAA regulations can still violate (4)(a)2 or (4)(a)3 if the aircraft touches the facility or comes close enough to interfere with or disturb it. FAA airspace authorization is not a state contact license.

Who is carved out of subsection (4)

Section 330.41(4)(c) carves out a federal, state, or other governmental entity (or a person under contract or direction of one); a law enforcement agency in compliance with § 934.50 (or a person under that agency's contract or direction); and an owner, operator, or occupant of the facility, or a person with that party's prior written consent. A Part 107 certificate and a LAANC authorization, without that consent, do not put a stranger inside (4)(c).

The facility list after Chapter 2025-29

Section 330.41(2)(b) defines "critical infrastructure facility." Most items still require a fence or other barrier obviously designed to exclude intruders, or signs indicating that entry is forbidden and posted so they are reasonably likely to come to an intruder's attention. Seaports listed in § 311.09(1) are the stated exception to that enclosure-or-sign condition. The numbered list still covers power, chemical storage, water and wastewater, mining, gas and oil infrastructure, ports, airports, spaceport territory, military sites, dams, and specified correctional and detention facilities. Read the House page before you treat a site as off the list.

Item 10 is the HB 1121 expansion the Senate summary flags: "A wireless or wired communications facility, including the tower, antennas, support structures, and all associated ground-based equipment." Wired communications now sits in the same definition as wireless.

The penalty upgrade

Section 330.41(4)(b) now says a person who violates paragraph (a) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084. That is the statutory citation. This post will not invent a dollar figure or a prison term the subsection does not recite. The Senate summary records the pre-2025 baseline as a second-degree misdemeanor. After October 1, 2025, the same three acts are a third-degree felony.

What else Chapter 2025-29 put in 330.411 and 934.50

Section 330.411, as rewritten by Chapter 2025-29, now has three additional hooks. Subsection (2) prohibits knowingly or willfully possessing or operating an unmanned aircraft or system with an attached weapon, firearm, explosive, destructive device, or ammunition as defined in § 790.001. Subsection (3) makes it a separate offense, "for the purposes of violating s. 330.41(4)(a)," to alter hardware or software to frustrate FAA remote-identification tools, or to possess or operate an aircraft so altered. Those two are third-degree felonies under subsection (4). Subsection (5) makes unauthorized possession or operation of an unmanned aircraft or system carrying a weapon of mass destruction or a hoax weapon of mass destruction, as defined in § 790.166(1)(a) and (b), a first-degree felony.

Section 934.50 is the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act. Chapter 2025-29 added subsection (8): a knowing or willful violation of paragraph (3)(b) is a first-degree misdemeanor; the same act plus intentional distribution of the surveillance is a third-degree felony. Those criminal penalties do not apply to a state agency, political subdivision, or law enforcement agency, or to an officer, employee, or agent acting in the course and scope of employment. The bill also amended the law-enforcement crowd exception in § 934.50(4)(d) and added (4)(r) for security of an elected official pursuant to § 943.68. Those are law-enforcement exceptions, not a commercial license.

Schools are mostly a 2024 statute

Section 330.41(5) is the school provision: no knowingly or willfully operating a drone over a public or private school serving VPK through grade 12, or allowing contact with the school. First offense is a second-degree misdemeanor; subsequent is first-degree. If the person also records video of the school, first offense is a first-degree misdemeanor and subsequent is a third-degree felony. Written consent of the principal, district school board, superintendent, or school governing board, and specified law-enforcement activity, are the exceptions.

That text sits in the 2025 statute next to the HB 1121 amendments, but the overflight rule itself is mostly 2024 HB 1473 (chapter 2024-133), not Chapter 2025-29. HB 1121 did not add a commercial-purpose FAA exception to subsection (5).

What this looks like before I launch in Florida

I treat § 330.41(4) as a site problem, not an airspace-waiver problem. Confirm the (2)(b) list — including wired communications — and the enclosure or signage the statute requires. The commercial-purpose exception still does not cover contact or disturbance. If I am not the owner, operator, occupant, or a person with prior written consent, I am not in (4)(c). Federal Part 107, Remote ID, and airspace authorization still apply; those rules are at DroneLaws.us /federal. The other federal shoe already live on this site is How to File an FCC 26-189 Comment.

Primary sources

• Florida Senate, CS/CS/HB 1121 (2025) (Chapter 2025-29; effective October 1, 2025)
• Senate bill summary, CS/CS/HB 1121
• Fla. Stat. § 330.41 (2025), including §§ 330.41(2)(b), (4), and (5)
• Fla. Stat. § 330.411 (2025)
• Fla. Stat. § 934.50 (2025)
• DroneLaws.us /florida

This is general information about Florida statutes, not legal advice. We are not affiliated with the Florida Legislature, FDLE, or the FAA. Verify the primary sources before you fly, and consult a Florida-licensed attorney about your specific job.