(1)Existing federal law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the National Airspace System. Existing federal law generally requires an aircraft to be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), prohibits a person from operating a United States registered aircraft unless that aircraft displays specified nationality and registration marks, and, unless authorized by the FAA, prohibits a person from placing on any aircraft a design, mark, or symbol that modifies or confuses those nationality and registration marks.

The State Aeronautics Act governs various matters relative to aviation in the state, including, among other things, fostering and promoting safety in aeronautics and establishing only those regulations that are essential and clearly within the scope of the authority granted to the Department of Transportation by the Legislature, in order that persons may engage in every phase of aeronautics with the least possible restriction consistent with the safety and the rights of others. A violation of the act is a crime punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both.

This bill would enact the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act. The bill would prohibit a person from operating a remote piloted aircraft in any number of specified manners and would require any person using, operating, or renting a remote piloted aircraft and every commercial operator of a remote piloted aircraft to maintain adequate liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to adopt rules and regulations governing the conditions under which remote piloted aircraft may be operated for the purpose of protecting and ensuring the general public interest and safety and the safety of persons operating remote piloted aircraft. The bill would authorize the department to make and amend general or special rules, orders, and procedures, and establish minimum standards consistent with the act as it deems necessary, to administer the provisions of the act, as specified. The bill would provide that remedies provided by the act are cumulative with any other remedies available under law. The bill would provide that the provisions of the act are severable. The bill would make a violation of any provision of the act or any rule or order issued pursuant to the act punishable as an infraction with a fine not exceeding $250, or as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Because the bill would create new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing federal law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the National Airspace System. Existing federal law generally requires an aircraft to be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), prohibits a person from operating a United States registered aircraft unless that aircraft displays specified nationality and registration marks, and, unless authorized by the FAA, prohibits a person from placing on any aircraft a design, mark, or symbol that modifies or confuses those nationality and registration marks.

The State Aeronautics Act governs various matters relative to aviation in the state, including, among other things, fostering and promoting safety in aeronautics and establishing only those regulations that are essential and clearly within the scope of the authority granted to the Department of Transportation by the Legislature, in order that persons may engage in every phase of aeronautics with the least possible restriction consistent with the safety and the rights of others. A violation of the act is a crime punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both.

This bill would enact the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act. The bill would prohibit a person from operating a remote piloted aircraft in any number of specified manners and would require any person using, operating, or renting a remote piloted aircraft and every commercial operator of a remote piloted aircraft to maintain adequate liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to adopt rules and regulations governing the conditions under which remote piloted aircraft may be operated for the purpose of protecting and ensuring the general public interest and safety and the safety of persons operating remote piloted aircraft. The bill would authorize the department to make and amend general or special rules, orders, and procedures, and establish minimum standards consistent with the act as it deems necessary, to administer the provisions of the act, as specified. The bill would provide that remedies provided by the act are cumulative with any other remedies available under law. The bill would provide that the provisions of the act are severable. The bill would make a violation of any provision of the act or any rule or order issued pursuant to the act punishable as an infraction with a fine not exceeding $250, or as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Because the bill would create new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing: June 19, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ed Chau, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 347

Author:(Jackson) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2017

SENATE VOTE: 26-12

SUBJECT: State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act

SUMMARY: This bill would establish the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act, which governs unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) flight in California, allows local governments to adopt ordinances limiting UAS provided they are consistent with this bill, and establishes state enforcement authority over UAS for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Specifically, this bill would:

1. Prohibit the operation of a UAS in a manner that:

• interferes with manned aircraft;
• is prohibited by federal statute or regulation;
• is careless or reckless that endangers life or property;
• constitutes a nuisance, as specified;
• violates an individual’s right to privacy under the California Constitution; or
• constitutes trespass under California law.

1. Prohibit the weaponization of UAS and the operation of a weaponized UAS.
2. Require that UAS must always give way to manned aircraft.
3. Require UAS operators to first comply with all licensing, registration, and marking requirements required by the FAA.
4. Require every commercial UAS operator and any person using a UAS with permission from a commercial UAS operator to maintain adequate protection against liability for payment of damages for personal bodily injury, including death, and property damage as a result of a UAS accident.
5. Require Caltrans to establish, after a public hearing, the amount of liability insurance reasonably necessary to adequately compensate for damages incurred through a commercial UAS accident.
6. Authorize Caltrans to develop and publicly disclose rules and regulations to govern the conditions under which UAS may be operated for the purpose of protecting the public interest and safety and the safety of UAS operators, and would authorize Caltrans to make and amend general or special rules, orders, and procedures and to establish minimum standards consistent with this bill as needed.

1. Require Caltrans to cooperate with and assist the federal government, political subdivisions of the state, and others in the development of UAS aeronautics in developing rules and regulations.
2. Require Caltrans to make available to the public a copy of its rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this bill, and to further provide for the publication and general distribution of all its orders, rules, regulations, and procedures applicable to UAS.
3. Provide that a violation of this bill or Caltrans’ rules and regulations are punishable as an infraction with a fine of $250 or punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $1,000, and imprisonment of up to six months, or both.
   
4. Authorize any state or peace officer to enforce and assist in the enforcement of the provisions of this bill.
   
5. Provide that the provisions of this bill may not be construed to impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under other laws and that the remedies in the bill are cumulative with any other remedies available at law.
6. Provide that the provisions of this bill are severable, and that if any part of this bill is found to be invalid, the remaining parts of the bill are unaffected.
7. Provide that this bill may not be construed to limit any power of the state or a political subdivision to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of operation of UAS if the restrictions do not conflict with this bill, including any local ordinance that regulates UAS, nor may these provisions be construed as prohibiting, restricting, or permitting the prohibition of the takeoff, operation, or landing of UAS, except as specified.
8. Make statements of legislative intent regarding the need to further and protect the public interest in remote piloted aircraft.
9. Define several terms related to UAS, including “aircraft,” “critical infrastructure,” “operation of remote piloted aircraft,” “person,” “pilot,” “political subdivision,” “remote piloted aircraft” and “remoted piloted aircraft system,” as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Vests, pursuant to federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with the authority to regulate airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise. (49 U.S.C. Secs. 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735.)
2. Requires, under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act), the FAA to safely integrate UAS operation into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015, and to develop and implement certification requirements for the operation of UAS in the national airspace system. (112 P.L. 95, 126 Stat. 11.)
3. Requires, under FAA rules, as of February 19, 2016, federal registration of a UAS before the first flight outdoors for any UAS weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds (approximately 25 kilos), including payloads such as on-board cameras, and requires UAS owners to be at least 13 years old to register and to provide name, home address, and email address. Upon registration, UAS owners receive a Certificate of Aircraft Registration/Proof of Ownership along with a unique identification number, which must be marked or affixed to the UAS. (14 C.F.R. Parts 1, 45, 47, 48, 91, and 375.)
4. Authorizes certain persons who are not peace officers to exercise the powers of arrest under certain circumstances, if they have completed a specific training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (Pen. Code Sec. 830.7.)
5. Establishes a Division of Aeronautics within Caltrans. (Pub. Util. Code Sec. 21001 et seq.)
6. Makes a violation of the State Aeronautics Act a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to six months in jail, a fine of not more than $1,000 plus penalty assessments, or both. (Pub. Util. Code Sec. 24400.)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Estimated Caltrans costs in the range of $150,000 to develop and adopt regulations to establish liability insurance requirements. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)
   
2. Estimated one-time and ongoing Caltrans costs of at least $100,000 to $150,000 in staff time to develop and adopt rules and regulations governing the operation of UAS in California, and to administer and oversee state functions related to UAS operations, including coordination with state, federal, local, and private entities, and updating rules and regulations as necessary. Costs could be higher, depending on future federal activity in regulating the operation of UAS. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill: This bill seeks to protect privacy and public safety by prohibiting the flight of UAS in a manner that would interfere with manned aircraft, violate federal law, endanger the life or property of another, pose a nuisance, invade privacy, or constitute trespass under California law. The bill also prohibits the weaponization of UAS and requires commercial UAS operators to obtain liability insurance in order to mitigate potential harm to people, property, and nature. This bill is author-sponsored.
2. Author’s statement: According to the author, “[t]he lack of clear rules governing the use of this emerging technology threatens to harm orderly use of California’s airspace and undermine public safety. To date, the lack of regulation has led to disputes between neighbors concerned about invasions of their privacy, impacts to wildlife, near-collisions with airplanes and helicopters, interference with firefighting efforts, and accidents injuring innocent bystanders. Some individuals are reportedly modifying drones to carry weapons, and, in at least one instance, a drone was used to land radioactive material on the roof of a government building. Commonsense rules are needed to ensure that drones are used in a safe and responsible manner, consistent with the values of the people of the State of California.

The bill continues to allow local governments to regulate drone use in their communities, and creates a statewide mechanism for the enforcement of drone safety rules and ordinances. The bill avoids the threat of frivolous litigation by vesting enforcement authority with California’s peace officers, and directs the state’s Division of Aeronautics to work cooperatively with local governments, state agencies, and the federal government to implement this regulatory framework.”

1. Growth in commercial and recreational uses of UAS: UAS are widely available to the public for recreational use. Retail UAS devices outfitted with cameras now range in price from roughly $300 to $1,500. The FAA expects drone sales to grow from 2.5 million in 2016 to 7 million annually by 2020, and both recreational and business uses are seeing rapid growth.
   
   UAS give the news media economical and environmentally friendly access to aerial views of traffic, storms, and other events when compared to the current use of helicopters and other manned aircraft. UAS can also be used in the agricultural industry to observe and measure crops while conserving resources and avoiding the use of heavy equipment. UAS may also be a future delivery system for mail-order and internet companies as well.
2. The growing number of UAS incidents causing injury and damage: While California has had no fatal drone accident to date, less serious accidents are on the rise. Recently, in May 2017 during a cycling competition, the Golden State Race, in Sacramento, a drone pilot hovering his UAS just above the riders lost control of his UAS and pieces of the UAS were caught in the spokes of a bike, sending a racer over his handlebars and causing minor injuries.

In September 2015, a falling UAS in Pasadena cut and bruised the head of an 11-month old baby in a stroller during an outdoor movie screening. Other incidents involved a drone crashing into stands at the U.S. Open in New York, crashing into a moving car in Canada, and hitting a toddler in the UK that left the youth blind in one eye.

1. Current regulation of UAS: Under current federal law, the FAA has broad authority to regulate the national airspace. State and local jurisdictions may seek a Temporary Flight Restriction from the FAA to protect public safety for certain events, such as the Superbowl.

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act). The Act required the FAA to establish a framework for safely integrating UAS into the national airspace, and authorized the FAA to establish interim requirements for the commercial operation of UAS. While the FAA is not expected to finish its final rulemaking for another year or two, the FAA’s interim rules require entities that wish to conduct commercial, governmental, research or educational UAS operations to meet certain standards and apply for a Certificate of Authorization from the FAA in order to operate.

In February 2015, the FAA proposed regulations on commercial drone users. Among the proposals was a 55-pound weight limitation, a line-of-sight operation requirement, maximum airspeed of 100 mph, a ban on operation over any people, a maximum operating altitude of 500 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. The FAA said it would release the final version of those regulations in Spring 2016, so industry experts continue to expect the FAA to publish those regulations soon.

However, in December 2015, the FAA issued rules requiring any UAS weighing between half a pound and 55 pounds to be registered with the FAA. While 460,000 drone users registered with the FAA, on May 19, 2017 a federal appeals court struck down the FAA’s UAS registry rules on the grounds that the FAA’s authority to integrate UAS into the national airspace did not encompass creating a national registry of “model aircraft” (i.e., recreational UAS). (John A. Taylor v. Michael P. Huerta, FAA, Slip Op. Case No. 15-1495 and consolidated cases, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia)

Despite the FAA’s past progress on integrating UAS into the national airspace and its 2016 announcements about the release of regulations permitting UAS flight over populated areas, no FAA movement has been seen with regard to the issuance of new UAS regulations since the transition to a new presidential administration in January 2017.

1. The federal preemption issue: Whenever the FAA ultimately finishes promulgating regulations governing the commercial use of UAS, a future court may find that those regulations preempt certain state laws – such as the provisions of this bill, if passed – but much remains uncertain.
   
   In Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, the Ninth Circuit held in 2007 that federal law preempts state law aviation safety standards in areas in which the FAA has issued “pervasive regulations.” In discussing the Montalvo case, the Ninth Circuit found that the specific FAA regulations relevant in the case were “pervasive” in that they were “specific,” detail[ed],” “complete,” “thorough” and “comprehensive” and that this pervasiveness evidenced Congressional intent to broadly preempt state law. The Montalvo court held that “federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety. Congress’ intent to displace state law is implicit in the pervasiveness of the federal regulations, the dominance of the federal interest in this area, and the legislative goal of establishing a single, uniform system of control over air safety.” (Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 464, 473.) But two years later, in Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., the Ninth Circuit limited the scope of FAA preemption and held that state law was only preempted if the specific area covered by the plaintiff’s tort claim was the subject of pervasive federal regulations. (Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc. (9th Cir. 2009) 555 F.3d 806, 811.)

The FAA itself recently took a more concrete position on the issue of preemption of state and local UAS regulation. According to a December 17, 2015, FAA white paper entitled, “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),” the FAA stated that “[l]aws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.” The FAA cited the following as examples:

• requiring police to obtain a warrant before using UAS for surveillance;
• specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism;
• prohibiting the use of UAS to hunt or fish or interfere with someone hunting or fishing; and
• banning the weaponization of UAS.

However, the FAA white paper identifies other areas for which it recommends consultation with the FAA, such as “operational UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; any regulation of navigable airspace. For example – a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within city limits, within the airspace of the city or within certain distances of landmarks.”

The FAA white paper states further that “federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight” and that “[s]tate and local restrictions affecting UAS operations should be consistent with the extensive federal statutory and regulatory framework pertaining to control of the airspace, flight management and efficiency, air traffic control, aviation safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source.”

This bill would place restrictions on the manner of overflight, and impose other operational restrictions, which arguably appear to fall into the “consultation” category above, which requires consistency with the FAA’s extensive federal regulatory framework pertaining to control of airspace and flight management in order to avoid preemption.

Because the FAA regulations have not yet been finalized, it would be difficult – even for the FAA – to determine whether and in what ways the provisions of this bill would conflict with the FAA regulatory framework.

1. Authorization for Caltrans to regulate UAS: This bill authorizes Caltrans to develop and adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this bill. Caltrans currently has a Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person unit, which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at public-use airports. These are airports open to the general public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or familiarity with the FAA, and the author contends Caltrans is therefore the best location to place the broad, new UAS regulatory duties created by this bill.
2. Authorization for local ordinances: This bill specifically permits local governments to develop and adopt ordinances and also specifies that nothing in the bill may be construed to preempt any existing local ordinance as long as the ordinance is consistent with the bill.

Several California cities and special districts have enacted ordinances restricting UAS use. The City of Los Angeles has enacted UAS restrictions similar to the FAA’s proposed regulations and filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance in 2015, citing two UAS operators for interfering with a Los Angeles Police Department helicopter, causing it to change its landing path. In Northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District banned UAS near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway. Other California jurisdictions that have enacted local UAS ordinances include the City of West Hollywood, the East Bay Regional Parks District and the City of Rancho Mirage. Others, including the City of Encinitas, are considering adopting UAS ordinances.

1. Requiring commercial UAS operators to carry liability insurance: This bill requires every commercial UAS operator, and any person using, operating, or renting a UAS with the permission of a commercial operator, to maintain liability insurance. Caltrans would be tasked with holding a public hearing on the issue and ultimately determining the amount of insurance necessary to provide adequate compensation for liability or damages incurred involving operation of a UAS. Recreational and other non-commercial drone operators are not required to obtain insurance under this bill, although many may have coverage through existing homeowners’ insurance policies.
   
2. Arguments in support: The League of California Cities states in support that the measure “will allow drone technology to thrive in California while codifying a small number of reasonable provisions to ensure protection of public safety. For example, it prohibits the installation of weapons on a [UAS]…as well as the operation of a drone in a careless or reckless manner endangering the life or property of another. It would codify in state law a provision expressly requiring operator compliance with the licensing registration and marking requirements established by the [FAA]…Most importantly for the cities of California, we appreciate that this measure envisions a role for local government regulation…”

The California State Association of Counties, states “[t]his measure is carefully drafted to protect local and state regulating authority for [UAS] as long as the ordinances are consistent with [the bill].”

The California Police Chiefs Association states “CPCA believes strongly that there is, and that there will continue to be, a role for local government enforcement and regulation of UAS in a fashion consistent with local priorities, so long as locally adopted regulations do not conflict with state or federal guidelines.”

The California Cattlemen’s Association states in support: “Although the increased utilization of unmanned aircraft technology in recent years offers a variety of benefits, it also presents a series of challenges for private property right owners and state and local agencies. The lack of clear regulations governing the use of this new technology have caused significant impacts to both public safety and privacy. For example, unmanned aircraft have interfered with the activities of first responders and have caused near-collisions with other manned aircraft. In addition, the unregulated use of unmanned aircraft causes concern for private property owners with a legal right to privacy including California’s family ranchers and cattle producers.”

1. Arguments in opposition: A coalition of businesses and industry associations led by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association oppose the bill and state: “This bill attempts to broadly restrict operations and navigation of UAS and delegate authority to the California Department of Transportation to regulate UAS. To do so, [this bill] seeks to regulate airspace which is the jurisdiction of the [FAA]…The FAA’s message is clear. Proposals that seek to regulate the use of UAS at a local or state level have the potential to create a complicated patchwork of laws that my erode, rather than enhance safety…We urge you to leave the regulation of U.S. airspace to the FAA and work closely with the agency to address any of the state’s concerns. By doing so, California can continue to support UAS growth and reap its economic benefits, rather than create inconsistencies with federal law and risk stunting a still-nascent industry.”

The Personal Insurance Federation of California, American Insurance Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies oppose the bill on the grounds that “there is currently insufficient actuarial data to calculate risk…Given the relatively new technology of [UAS], liability insurers are still in the process of collecting data to develop insurance coverage. We must also oppose the Department of Transportation establishing the amounts of actuarially untested liability limits.”

The Consumer Technology Association opposes the bill, arguing that “efforts to arbitrarily regulate conduct based on the use of a UAS should not be adopted, especially where existing California law already applies. For example, the privacy and property protections proposed in [the bill] are redundant. California Civil Code Section 1708.8 already forbids the invasion of privacy to capture a physical impression regardless of the manner in which the invasion takes place… Penal Code Section 629.89 already prohibits all “covert entry” onto a property for installation or placement of an interception device… Penal Code Section 647(j) prohibits “Peeping Tom” conduct wherever a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. All of these laws apply to UAS operations… Moreover technology-specific regulatory approaches are inefficient…”

1. Potential solution to address concerns: The author may wish to consider amendments to strike most of the contents of the bill, leaving only the prohibition on the weaponization of remote piloted aircraft and the corresponding enforcement provision authorizing a fine or imprisonment or both for a violation. This would arguably address the majority of concerns raised by the opposition and would likely not be preempted. Staff notes that the FAA’s 2015 white paper entitled “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),” indicated that such a regulation would probably be an appropriate state regulation of UAS and generally not subject to federal regulation. (See Comment 6, above.) Such amendments would also strike the provisions requiring operators of commercial UAS to acquire liability insurance which should address the concerns raised by the insurance industry.

While this would result in a much narrower bill, a matter of public policy, small and incremental changes in law can still have meaningful impact.

Staff notes that on this issue, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who opposes this bill unless amended to address a variety of issues, requests the addition of a definition of “weaponize.” EFF notes that “[m]any Californians participate in a thriving hobby of aerial combat games. […] Often operators outfit their drones with fishing line and the like to foul a competitor’s propellers. Many participants are students, for whom building combat drones is their first exposure to science and engineering. […] A flat ban on ‘weaponized’ drones would have the unintended consequence of banning this harmless activity. We do not know what particular weapons are of concern. Therefore, in our proposed definition, we have left a blank (‘___’) to be filled in. Depending on what particular weapons are listed in this blank, EFF may withdraw its opposition to the weaponization ban.”

Accordingly, if this bill should pass out of this Committee, the author may wish also to define “weaponization” in a manner that clearly prohibits the use of specific mechanisms, devices, or practices.

1. Prior legislation: AB 868 (Jackson, 2016) would have established the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act, which would have governed where and how UAS may operate, and would have established state-level regulatory and enforcement authority over UAS for the Caltrans, the California Office of Emergency Services, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the California Highway Patrol. SB 868 failed passage in this Committee.

AB 856 (Calderon, Ch. 521, Stats 2015) expanded the scope of the cause of action in existing law for physical invasion of privacy by making a person liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters “into the airspace” above the land of another person without permission.

SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) would have extended liability for wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person who without permission operates a UAS below the navigable airspace overlaying the real property. SB 142 was vetoed by Governor Brown.

1. Double-referral: This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee, where it will be heard if passed by this Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Cattlemen’s Association

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Association of Counties

City and County of San Francisco

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Rural County Representatives of California

Western United Dairymen

Opposition

Association of California Insurance Companies

Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

American Insurance Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Retailers Association

Consumer Technology Association

Computing Technology Industry Association – CompTIA

CTIA – The Wireless Association

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Internet Coalition

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

State Farm

TechNet

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Rapier / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ed Chau, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 347

Author:(Jackson) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2017

SENATE VOTE: 26-12

SUBJECT: State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act

SUMMARY: Establishes the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act, which governs unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) flight in California, allows local governments to adopt ordinances limiting UAS provided they are consistent with this bill, and establishes state enforcement authority over UAS for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the operation of a UAS in a manner that:
2. Interferes with manned aircraft;
3. Is prohibited by federal statute or regulation;
4. Is careless or reckless that endangers life or property;
5. Constitutes a nuisance, as specified;
6. Violates an individual’s right to privacy under the California Constitution; and
7. Constitutes trespass under California law.
8. Prohibits the weaponization of UAS and the operation of a weaponized UAS.
9. Requires that UAS must always give way to manned aircraft.
10. Requires UAS operators to first comply with all licensing, registration and marking requirements required by the FAA.
11. Requires every commercial UAS operator and any person using a UAS with permission from a commercial UAS operator to maintain adequate protection against liability for payment of damages for personal bodily injury, including death, and property damage as a result of a UAS accident.
12. Requires Caltrans to establish, after a public hearing, the amount of liability insurance reasonably necessary to adequately compensate for damages incurred through a commercial UAS accident.
13. Authorizes Caltrans to develop and publicly disclose rules and regulations to govern the conditions under which UAS may be operated for the purpose of protecting the public interest and safety and the safety of UAS operators, and authorizes Caltrans to make and amend general or special rules, orders, and procedures and to establish minimum standards consistent with this bill as needed.

1. Requires Caltrans to cooperate with and assist the federal government, political subdivisions of the state, and others in the development of UAS aeronautics in developing rules and regulations.
2. Requires Caltrans to make available to the public a copy of its rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this bill, and to further provide for the publication and general distribution of all its orders, rules, regulations, and procedures applicable to UAS.
3. Makes a violation of this bill or Caltrans’ rules and regulations subject to an infraction with a fine of $250 or subject to a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $1,000, and imprisonment of up to six months, or both.
   
4. Authorizes any state or peace officer to enforce and assist in the enforcement of this bill.
   
5. Provides that the provisions of this bill may not be construed to impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under other laws and that the remedies in the bill are cumulative with any other remedies available at law.
6. Provides that the provisions of this bill are severable, and that if any part of this bill is found to be invalid, the remaining parts of the bill are unaffected.
7. Provides that this bill may not be construed to limit any power of the state or a political subdivision to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of operation of UAS if the restrictions do not conflict with this bill, including any local ordinance that regulates UAS if consistent with these provisions, nor may these provisions be construed as prohibiting, restricting, or permitting the prohibition of the takeoff, operation or landing of UAS, except as specified.
8. Makes statements of legislative intent regarding the need to further and protect the public interest in remote piloted aircraft.
9. Defines several terms related to UAS, including “aircraft,” "critical infrastructure," "operation of remote piloted aircraft," "person," “pilot,” "political subdivision," “remote piloted aircraft” and “remoted piloted aircraft system,” as specified.
10. Declares that no reimbursement is required pursuant to the California Constitution because the only costs incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or changes the definition of a crime.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Vests, pursuant to federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with the authority to regulate airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise. (49 U.S.C. Section 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735)
2. Requires, under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act), the FAA to safely integrate UAS operation into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015, and to develop and implement certification requirements for the operation of UAS in the national airspace system. (Public Law Number 112-095)
3. Requires, under FAA rules, as of February 19, 2016, federal registration of a UAS before first flight outdoors for any UAS weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds (approximately 25 kilos), including payloads such as on-board cameras, and requires UAS owners to be at least 13 years old to register and to provide name, home address, and email address. Upon registration, UAS owners receive a Certificate of Aircraft Registration/Proof of Ownership along with a unique identification number, which must be marked or affixed to the UAS. (14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1, 45, 47, 48, 91, and 375)
4. Authorizes certain persons who are not peace officers to exercise the powers of arrest under certain circumstances, if they have completed a specific training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (Penal Code Section 830.7)
5. Establishes a Division of Aeronautics within Caltrans. (Public Utilities Code Section (PU) 21001 et seq.)
6. Makes a violation of the State Aeronautics Act a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to six months in jail and/or a fine of not more than $1,000 plus penalty assessments. (PU 24400)
   

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Estimated Caltrans costs in the range of $150,000 to develop and adopt regulations to establish liability insurance requirements. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)
   
2. Estimated one-time and ongoing Caltrans costs of at least $100,000 to $150,000 in staff time to develop and adopt rules and regulations governing the operation of UAS in California, and to administer and oversee state functions related to UAS operations, including coordination with state, federal, local, and private entities, and updating rules and regulations as necessary. Costs could be higher, depending on future federal activity in regulating the operation of UAS. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. This bill seeks to protect privacy and public safety by prohibiting the flight of UAS in a manner that would interfere with manned aircraft, violate federal law, endanger the life or property of another, pose a nuisance, invade privacy, or constitute trespass under California law. The bill also prohibits the weaponization of UAS and requires commercial UAS operators to obtain liability insurance in order to mitigate potential harm to people, property, and nature. This bill is author-sponsored.
2. Author’s statement. According to the author: “The lack of clear rules governing the use of this emerging technology threatens to harm orderly use of California’s airspace and undermine public safety. To date, the lack of regulation has led to disputes between neighbors concerned about invasions of their privacy, impacts to wildlife, near-collisions with airplanes and helicopters, interference with firefighting efforts, and accidents injuring innocent bystanders. Some individuals are reportedly modifying drones to carry weapons, and, in at least one instance, a drone was used to land radioactive material on the roof of a government building. Commonsense rules are needed to ensure that drones are used in a safe and responsible manner, consistent with the values of the people of the State of California.

“The bill continues to allow local governments to regulate drone use in their communities, and creates a statewide mechanism for the enforcement of drone safety rules and ordinances. The bill avoids the threat of frivolous litigation by vesting enforcement authority with California’s peace officers, and directs the state’s Division of Aeronautics to work cooperatively with local governments, state agencies, and the federal government to implement this regulatory framework.”

1. Growth in commercial and recreational uses of UAS. UAS are widely available to the public for recreational use. Retail UAS devices outfitted with cameras now range in price from roughly $300 to $1,500. The FAA expects drone sales to grow from 2.5 million in 2016 to 7 million annually by 2020, and both recreational and business uses are seeing rapid growth.
   
   UAS give the news media economical and environmentally friendly access to aerial views of traffic, storms, and other events when compared to the current use of helicopters and other manned aircraft. UAS can also be used in the agricultural industry to observe and measure crops while conserving resources and avoiding the use of heavy equipment. And UAS may be a future delivery system for mail-order and internet companies as well.
2. The growing number of UAS incidents causing injury and damage. While California has had no fatal drone accident to date, less serious accidents are on the rise. Most recently, in May 2017 during a cycling competition, the Golden State Race, in Sacramento, a drone pilot hovering his UAS just above the riders lost control of his UAS and pieces of the UAS got caught in the spokes of a bike, sending a racer flying over his handlebars and causing minor injuries.

In September 2015, a falling UAS in Pasadena cut and bruised the head of an 11-month old baby in a stroller during an outdoor movie screening. Other incidents involved a drone crashing into stands at the U.S. Open in New York, crashing into a moving car in Canada, and hitting a toddler in the UK that left the youth blind in one eye.

1. Current regulation of UAS. Under current federal law, the FAA has broad authority to regulate the national airspace. State and local jurisdictions may seek a Temporary Flight Restriction from the FAA to protect public safety for certain events, such as the Superbowl.

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act). The Act required the FAA to establish a framework for safely integrating UAS into the national airspace, and authorized the FAA to establish interim requirements for the commercial operation of UAS. While the FAA is not expected to finish its final rulemaking for another year or two, the FAA’s interim rules require entities that wish to conduct commercial, governmental, research or educational UAS operations to meet certain standards and apply for a Certificate of Authorization from the FAA in order to operate.

In February 2015, the FAA proposed regulations on commercial drone users. Among the proposals was a 55-pound weight limitation, a line-of-sight operation requirement, maximum airspeed of 100 mph, a ban on operation over any people, a maximum operating altitude of 500 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. The FAA has said it will release the final version of those regulations in Spring 2016, so industry experts expect the FAA to publish its new regulations soon.

However, in December 2015, the FAA issued rules requiring any UAS weighing between half a pound and 55 pounds to be registered with the FAA. While 460,000 drone users registered with the FAA, on May 19, 2017 a federal appeals court struck down the FAA’s UAS registry rules on the grounds that the FAA’s authority to integrate UAS into the national airspace did not encompass creating a national registry of “model aircraft” (i.e., recreational UAS). (John A. Taylor v. Michael P. Huerta, FAA, Slip Op. Case No. 15-1495 and consolidated cases, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia)

Despite the FAA’s past progress on integrating UAS into the national airspace and its 2016 announcements about the release of regulations permitting UAS flight over populated areas, no FAA movement has been seen with regard to the issuance of new UAS regulations since the transition to a new presidential administration in January 2017.

1. The federal preemption issue. Whenever the FAA ultimately finishes promulgating regulations governing the commercial use of UAS, a future court may find that those regulations preempt certain state laws – such as the provisions of this bill, if passed – but much remains uncertain.
   
   In Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, the Ninth Circuit held in 2007 that federal law preempts state law aviation safety standards in areas in which the FAA has issued “pervasive regulations.” In discussing the Montalvo case, the Ninth Circuit found that the specific FAA regulations relevant in the case were “pervasive” in that they were “specific,” detail[ed],” “complete,” “thorough” and “comprehensive” and that this pervasiveness evidenced Congressional intent to broadly preempt state law. The Montalvo court held that “federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety. Congress’ intent to displace state law is implicit in the pervasiveness of the federal regulations, the dominance of the federal interest in this area, and the legislative goal of establishing a single, uniform system of control over air safety.” Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 473 (9^th Cir. 2007) But two years later, in Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., the Ninth Circuit limited the scope of FAA preemption and held that state law was only preempted if the specific area covered by the plaintiff’s tort claim was the subject of pervasive federal regulations. (555 F.3d 806, 811 (9^th Cir. 2009))

The FAA itself recently took a more concrete position on the issue of preemption of state and local UAS regulation. According to a December 17, 2015, FAA white paper entitled, “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),” the FAA stated that “[l]aws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.” The FAA cited the following as examples:

• Requiring police to obtain a warrant before using UAS for surveillance;
• Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism;
• Prohibiting the use of UAS to hunt or fish or interfere with someone hunting or fishing; and
• Banning the weaponization of UAS.

However, the FAA white paper identifies other areas for which it recommends consultation with the FAA, such as “operational UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; any regulation of navigable airspace. For example – a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within city limits, within the airspace of the city or within certain distances of landmarks.”

The FAA white paper states further that “federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight” and that “[s]tate and local restrictions affecting UAS operations should be consistent with the extensive federal statutory and regulatory framework pertaining to control of the airspace, flight management and efficiency, air traffic control, aviation safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source.”

This bill would place restrictions on the manner of overflight, and impose other operational restrictions, which appear to fall into the "consultation" category above, which requires consistency with the FAA’s extensive federal regulatory framework pertaining to control of airspace and flight management in order to avoid preemption.

Because the FAA regulations have not yet been finalized, it would be difficult – even for the FAA – to determine whether and in what ways the provisions of this bill would conflict with the FAA regulatory framework.

1. Authorization for Caltrans to regulate UAS. This bill authorizes Caltrans to develop and adopt regulations to implement this bill. Caltrans currently has a Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person unit, which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at public-use airports. These are airports open to the general public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or familiarity with the FAA, and the author contends Caltrans is therefore the best location to place the broad, new UAS regulatory duties created by this bill.
2. Authorization for local ordinances. This bill specifically permits local governments to develop and adopt ordinances and also specifies that nothing in the bill may be construed to preempt any existing local ordinance as long as the ordinance is consistent with the bill.

Several California cities and special districts have enacted ordinances restricting UAS use. The City of Los Angeles has enacted UAS restrictions similar to the FAA’s proposed regulations and filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance in 2015, citing two UAS operators for interfering with a Los Angeles Police Department helicopter, causing it to change its landing path. In Northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District banned UAS near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway. Other California jurisdictions that have enacted local UAS ordinances include the City of West Hollywood, the East Bay Regional Parks District and the City of Rancho Mirage. Others, including the City of Encinitas, are considering adopting UAS ordinances.

1. Requiring commercial UAS operators to carry liability insurance. This bill requires every commercial UAS operator, and any person using, operating, or renting a UAS with the permission of a commercial operator, to maintain liability insurance. Caltrans would be tasked with holding a public hearing on the issue and ultimately determining the amount of insurance necessary to provide adequate compensation for liability or damages incurred involving operation of a UAS. Recreational and other non-commercial drone operators are not required to obtain insurance under this bill, although many may have coverage through existing homeowners’ insurance policies.
   
2. Arguments in support. The League of California Cities states in support that the measure “will allow drone technology to thrive in California while codifying a small number of reasonable provisions to ensure protection of public safety. For example, it prohibits the installation of weapons on a [UAS]…as well as the operation of a drone in a careless or reckless manner endangering the life or property of another. It would codify in state law a provision expressly requiring operator compliance with the licensing registration and marking requirements established by the [FAA]…Most importantly for the cities of California, we appreciate that this measure envisions a role for local government regulation…”

The California State Association of Counties, states “[t]his measure is carefully drafted to protect local and state regulating authority for [UAS] as long as the ordinances are consistent with [the bill].”

The California Police Chiefs Association states “CPCA believes strongly that there is, and that there will continue to be, a role for local government enforcement and regulation of UAS in a fashion consistent with local priorities, so long as locally adopted regulations do not conflict with state or federal guidelines.”

The California Cattlemen’s Association states in support: “Although the increased utilization of unmanned aircraft technology in recent years offers a variety of benefits, it also presents a series of challenges for private property right owners and state and local agencies. The lack of clear regulations governing the use of this new technology have caused significant impacts to both public safety and privacy. For example, unmanned aircraft have interfered with the activities of first responders and have caused near-collisions with other manned aircraft. In addition, the unregulated use of unmanned aircraft causes concern for private property owners with a legal right to privacy including California’s family ranchers and cattle producers.”

1. Arguments in opposition. A coalition of businesses and industry associations led by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association oppose the bill and state: “This bill attempts to broadly restrict operations and navigation of UAS and delegate authority to the California Department of Transportation to regulate UAS. To do so, [this bill] seeks to regulate airspace which is the jurisdiction of the [FAA]…The FAA’s message is clear. Proposals that seek to regulate the use of UAS at a local or state level have the potential to create a complicated patchwork of laws that my erode, rather than enhance safety…We urge you to leave the regulation of U.S. airspace to the FAA and work closely with the agency to address any of the state’s concerns. By doing so, California can continue to support UAS growth and reap its economic benefits, rather than create inconsistencies with federal law and risk stunting a still-nascent industry.”

The Personal Insurance Federation of California, American Insurance Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies oppose the bill on the grounds that “there is currently insufficient actuarial data to calculate risk…Given the relatively new technology of [UAS], liability insurers are still in the process of collecting data to develop insurance coverage. We must also oppose the Department of Transportation establishing the amounts of actuarially untested liability limits.”

The Consumer Technology Association opposes the bill, arguing that “efforts to arbitrarily regulate conduct based on the use of a UAS should not be adopted, especially where existing California law already applies. For example, the privacy and property protections proposed in [the bill] are redundant. California Civil Code Section 1708.8 already forbids the invasion of privacy to capture a physical impression regardless of the manner in which the invasion takes place… Penal Code Section 629.89 already prohibits all “covert entry” onto a property for installation or placement of an interception device… Penal Code Section 647(j) prohibits “Peeping Tom” conduct wherever a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. All of these laws apply to UAS operations… Moreover technology-specific regulatory approaches are inefficient…”

1. Prior legislation. AB 868 (Jackson) of 2016 would have established the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act, which would have governed where and how UAS may operate, and would have established state-level regulatory and enforcement authority over UAS for the Caltrans, the California Office of Emergency Services, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). SB 868 failed passage in this Committee.

AB 856 (Calderon), Chapter 521, Statutes of 2015, expanded the scope of the cause of action in existing law for physical invasion of privacy by making a person liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters “into the airspace” above the land of another person without permission.

SB 142 (Jackson) of 2015 would have extended liability for wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person who without permission operates a UAS below the navigable airspace overlaying the real property. SB 142 was vetoed by Governor Brown.

1. Double-referral. This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee, where it will be heard if passed by this Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Cattlemen’s Association

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

City and County of San Francisco

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC)

Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

Western United Dairymen (WUD)

Opposition

Association of California Insurance Companies

Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

American Insurance Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Retailers Association

Consumer Technology Association (CTA)

Computing Technology Industry Association – CompTIA

CTIA – The Wireless Association

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Internet Coalition

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

State Farm

TechNet

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 347

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 4/4/17

AYES: Beall, Allen, Atkins, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Cannella

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Gaines, Morrell

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/25/17

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Anderson, Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Nielsen

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes rules on the operation of remote piloted aircraft (i.e., drones).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal regulation:

1. Requires all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if those drones weigh more than 0.55 pounds. Commercial drone pilots must have a Remote Pilot Airman certificate, be at least 16 years old, and pass a security vetting by the TSA. There are no requirements for recreational pilots.
2. Requires that the drone be in the line of sight of the operator, fly less than 400 feet above the ground with a speed limit of 100 mph, not fly over people, not fly at night, and generally prohibit the use of drones around airports.

Existing state law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

This bill:

1. Prohibits the weaponization of a drone or the operation of a weaponized drone.
   1. Prohibits the operation of a drone in any of the following manners:
   2. In a manner that interferes with manned aircraft
   3. In a manner that is prohibited by federal statute or regulation
   4. In a careless or reckless manner
   5. In a manner constituting a nuisance, as defined
   6. In a manner that violates an individual’s right to privacy
   7. In a manner that constitutes trespass
2. Requires drones to be operated in compliance with all licensing, registration and marking requirements of the FAA.
3. Requires every commercial drone operator to maintain adequate liability protection, as determined by Caltrans after a public hearing.
4. Authorizes Caltrans to develop additional implementing regulations.
5. Establishes that a violation shall be punishable as an infraction with a fine not to exceed $250, or as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both that imprisonment and fine.

Comments

1. Drones. Moving beyond hobbyists and the military, drones are increasingly a part of commercial and recreational activities. In fields as diverse as agriculture, filmmaking, electric utility service, and public safety, drones can monitor, track, and provide surveillance in many useful and previously undoable ways. Amazon and Google are experimenting with using drones to speed package delivery. Drones have become easier to use and have become less costly. This, combined with improved cameras and sensors, has caused drone sales to take off, so to speak. The FAA estimated that one million drones would be sold during the 2015 Christmas season. Compared to 2014, the Consumer Electronics Association estimated that drone sales would increase by 63% in 2015. The FAA believes that twice as many drones were sold in 2016, 2.5 million, than 2015.

Drones will play an increasingly visible role in our future. They will be used by many businesses and government entities to do their jobs better and more efficiently, and they’ll be used by our friends and neighbors for recreation. They will also be over our heads, whether in the park, at the mall, or in our backyards.

The remarkable growth in drone usage creates issues, as more untrained drone operators take to the sky. Foremost is public safety, as drones can imperil aircraft, as recent incidents with commercial aviation and forest fire-fighting aircraft demonstrate. The FAA has noted that, “Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year (2015).”^[1] Between December 2013 and September 12, 2015, the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College collected records of 921 incidents involving drones and manned aircrafts in the national airspace. One hundred fifty eight incidents were classified as instances in which a drone came within 200 feet or less of an airplane, 28 of which required a pilot to maneuver the aircraft to avoid a collision with a drone. During that period, 17 drone sightings and near misses were documented near Los Angeles International Airport.^[2] On April 17, 2016, a drone struck a British Airways passenger aircraft landing at Heathrow Airport. (No major damage was reported.) This is believed to be the first time a drone has struck a landing passenger aircraft.

The safety of the public on the ground is also potentially at risk, as drones can crash, be mis-piloted, or simply malfunction: On September 12, 2015, an operator error caused a drone to crash to the ground in Pasadena, injuring an 11 month old girl. Two separate drone crashes in Seattle, at the Space Needle and at an amusement park, have caused scares but not injuries. Drones can also be used for harmful purposes, as in the case of transporting contraband into prisons or as a means for conveying explosives or other dangerous materials. And there are the more conventional concerns about privacy and nuisance behavior.

1. Looks familiar. This bill is similar to SB 868 (Jackson, 2016), which passed the Senate last year. The provisions regarding how the drone may be operated, requiring compliance with federal regulations, and requiring insurance are nearly identical to that bill. However, unlike SB 868, this bill does not restrict where drones can operate.
2. Current drone regulation. On June 21, 2016 the FAA adopted regulations for commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These regulations require line-of-sight operation, a maximum airspeed of 100 mph, and a ban on operation over people, a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Accidents that result in serious injury or property damage of more than $500 must be reported to the FAA. However, an existing FAA regulation requiring drone users to register their drones with the FAA was struck down earlier this month by a federal Appellate court, potentially making it very difficult to associate a drone with its remotely located owner.

Several California local governments have enacted their own drone regulations. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles enacted drone regulations similar to the FAA proposal. In December, the city filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance, citing two individuals for operating a drone which interfered with a Los Angeles Police Department air unit, causing it to change its landing path. In northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District banned drones near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway. The City of San Diego has proposed drone rules, which give local police enforcement authority, which are pending.

1. Jurisdiction. The dividing line between state and federal jurisdiction of drones has been made clearer with the recently released FAA regulations. The regulations do not preempt state jurisdiction over privacy rights or trespassing laws. The regulations generally leave it to the drone operator to determine where they can fly; the regulations do not prohibit drone flight over critical infrastructure, such as power plants and prisons.
2. Enforcement. The FAA is responsible for enforcing its regulations, but partners with state and local governments for help. By codifying the federal regulations into state law, this bill authorizes state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce those regulations, which may be the most consequential part of the bill.
3. Caltrans. This bill requires the development of implementing regulations by Caltrans. While this may seem an odd assignment, within Caltrans resides the Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person unit which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at public-use airports. These are airports open to the general public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or familiarity with the FAA and is therefore the best, though imperfect, fit for these regulatory duties.
4. Opposition. Insurance companies, technology trade groups and others oppose this bill. The insurance companies oppose the insurance requirement. And the opponents generally oppose any state regulation, arguing that state regulation risks slowing the growth of this new industry. The opponents do not argue that the provisions of this bill are preempted; rather, they are concerned that the provisions of this bill are unwise and will create a patchwork of regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Estimated one-time Caltrans costs in the range of $150,000 to develop and adopt regulations to establish liability insurance requirements. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)
  
• Estimated one-time and ongoing Caltrans costs of at least $100,000 to $150,000 in staff time to develop and adopt rules and regulations governing the operation of drones in California, and to administer and oversee state functions related to drone operations, including coordination with state, federal, local, and private entities, and updating rules and regulations as necessary. Costs could be higher, depending on future federal activity in regulating the operation of drones. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/31/17)

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Rural County Representatives of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/17)

American Insurance Association

Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International

California Chamber of Commerce

California Retailers Association

CompTIA

Consumer Technology Association

CTIA

Internet Coalition

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

TechNet

Prepared by:

5/31/17 13:56:42

**** END ****

1. FAA Office of the Chief Counsel; “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS) Fact Sheet”; December 17, 2015. ↑

2. “Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis,” Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, December 2015. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 347

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 4/4/17

AYES: Beall, Allen, Atkins, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Cannella

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Gaines, Morrell

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/25/17

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Anderson, Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Nielsen

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes rules on the operation of remote piloted aircraft (i.e., drones).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal regulation:

1. Requires all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if those drones weigh more than 0.55 pounds. Commercial drone pilots must have a Remote Pilot Airman certificate, be at least 16 years old, and pass a security vetting by the TSA. There are no requirements for recreational pilots.
2. Requires that the drone be in the line of sight of the operator, fly less than 400 feet above the ground with a speed limit of 100 mph, not fly over people, not fly at night, and generally prohibit the use of drones around airports.

Existing state law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

This bill:

1. Prohibits the weaponization of a drone or the operation of a weaponized drone.
   1. Prohibits the operation of a drone in any of the following manners:
   2. In a manner that interferes with manned aircraft
   3. In a manner that is prohibited by federal statute or regulation
   4. In a careless or reckless manner
   5. In a manner constituting a nuisance, as defined
   6. In a manner that violates an individual’s right to privacy
   7. In a manner that constitutes trespass
2. Requires drones to be operated in compliance with all licensing, registration and marking requirements of the FAA.
3. Requires every commercial drone operator to maintain adequate liability protection, as determined by Caltrans after a public hearing.
4. Authorizes Caltrans to develop additional implementing regulations.
5. Establishes that a violation shall be punishable as an infraction with a fine not to exceed $250, or as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both that imprisonment and fine.

Comments

1. Drones. Moving beyond hobbyists and the military, drones are increasingly a part of commercial and recreational activities. In fields as diverse as agriculture, filmmaking, electric utility service, and public safety, drones can monitor, track, and provide surveillance in many useful and previously undoable ways. Amazon and Google are experimenting with using drones to speed package delivery. Drones have become easier to use and have become less costly. This, combined with improved cameras and sensors, has caused drone sales to take off, so to speak. The FAA estimated that one million drones would be sold during the 2015 Christmas season. Compared to 2014, the Consumer Electronics Association estimated that drone sales would increase by 63% in 2015. The FAA believes that twice as many drones were sold in 2016, 2.5 million, than 2015.

Drones will play an increasingly visible role in our future. They will be used by many businesses and government entities to do their jobs better and more efficiently, and they’ll be used by our friends and neighbors for recreation. They will also be over our heads, whether in the park, at the mall, or in our backyards.

The remarkable growth in drone usage creates issues, as more untrained drone operators take to the sky. Foremost is public safety, as drones can imperil aircraft, as recent incidents with commercial aviation and forest fire-fighting aircraft demonstrate. The FAA has noted that, “Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year (2015).”^[1] Between December 2013 and September 12, 2015, the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College collected records of 921 incidents involving drones and manned aircrafts in the national airspace. One hundred fifty eight incidents were classified as instances in which a drone came within 200 feet or less of an airplane, 28 of which required a pilot to maneuver the aircraft to avoid a collision with a drone. During that period, 17 drone sightings and near misses were documented near Los Angeles International Airport.^[2] On April 17, 2016, a drone struck a British Airways passenger aircraft landing at Heathrow Airport. (No major damage was reported.) This is believed to be the first time a drone has struck a landing passenger aircraft.

The safety of the public on the ground is also potentially at risk, as drones can crash, be mis-piloted, or simply malfunction: On September 12, 2015, an operator error caused a drone to crash to the ground in Pasadena, injuring an 11 month old girl. Two separate drone crashes in Seattle, at the Space Needle and at an amusement park, have caused scares but not injuries. Drones can also be used for harmful purposes, as in the case of transporting contraband into prisons or as a means for conveying explosives or other dangerous materials. And there are the more conventional concerns about privacy and nuisance behavior.

1. Looks familiar. This bill is similar to SB 868 (Jackson, 2016), which passed the Senate last year. The provisions regarding how the drone may be operated, requiring compliance with federal regulations, and requiring insurance are nearly identical to that bill. However, unlike SB 868, this bill does not restrict where drones can operate.
2. Current drone regulation. On June 21, 2016 the FAA adopted regulations for commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These regulations require line-of-sight operation, a maximum airspeed of 100 mph, and a ban on operation over people, a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Accidents that result in serious injury or property damage of more than $500 must be reported to the FAA. However, an existing FAA regulation requiring drone users to register their drones with the FAA was struck down earlier this month by a federal Appellate court, potentially making it very difficult to associate a drone with its remotely located owner.

Several California local governments have enacted their own drone regulations. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles enacted drone regulations similar to the FAA proposal. In December, the city filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance, citing two individuals for operating a drone which interfered with a Los Angeles Police Department air unit, causing it to change its landing path. In northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District banned drones near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway. The City of San Diego has proposed drone rules, which give local police enforcement authority, which are pending.

1. Jurisdiction. The dividing line between state and federal jurisdiction of drones has been made clearer with the recently released FAA regulations. The regulations do not preempt state jurisdiction over privacy rights or trespassing laws. The regulations generally leave it to the drone operator to determine where they can fly; the regulations do not prohibit drone flight over critical infrastructure, such as power plants and prisons.
2. Enforcement. The FAA is responsible for enforcing its regulations, but partners with state and local governments for help. By codifying the federal regulations into state law, this bill authorizes state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce those regulations, which may be the most consequential part of the bill.
3. Caltrans. This bill requires the development of implementing regulations by Caltrans. While this may seem an odd assignment, within Caltrans resides the Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person unit which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at public-use airports. These are airports open to the general public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or familiarity with the FAA and is therefore the best, though imperfect, fit for these regulatory duties.
4. Opposition. Insurance companies, technology trade groups and others oppose this bill. The insurance companies oppose the insurance requirement. And the opponents generally oppose any state regulation, arguing that state regulation risks slowing the growth of this new industry. The opponents do not argue that the provisions of this bill are preempted; rather, they are concerned that the provisions of this bill are unwise and will create a patchwork of regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Estimated one-time Caltrans costs in the range of $150,000 to develop and adopt regulations to establish liability insurance requirements. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)
  
• Estimated one-time and ongoing Caltrans costs of at least $100,000 to $150,000 in staff time to develop and adopt rules and regulations governing the operation of drones in California, and to administer and oversee state functions related to drone operations, including coordination with state, federal, local, and private entities, and updating rules and regulations as necessary. Costs could be higher, depending on future federal activity in regulating the operation of drones. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/17)

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Rural County Representatives of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/17)

American Insurance Association

Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International

California Chamber of Commerce

California Retailers Association

CompTIA

Consumer Technology Association

CTIA

Internet Coalition

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

TechNet

Prepared by:

5/27/17 18:03:45

**** END ****

1. FAA Office of the Chief Counsel; “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS) Fact Sheet”; December 17, 2015. ↑

2. “Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis,” Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, December 2015. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 347 (Jackson) - State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 347 would enact the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act to establish a regulatory framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft in this state, and authorize the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to adopt rules and regulations governing the conditions under which remote piloted aircraft (drones) may operate.

Fiscal Impact:

• Estimated one-time Caltrans costs in the range of $150,000 to develop and adopt regulations to establish liability insurance requirements. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account) ---see staff comments---
  
• Estimated one-time and ongoing Caltrans costs of at least $100,000 to $150,000 in staff time to develop and adopt rules and regulations governing the operation of drones in California, and to administer and oversee state functions related to drone operations, including coordination with state, federal, local, and private entities, and updating rules and regulations as necessary. Costs could be higher, depending on future federal activity in regulating the operation of drones. (State Highway Account or Aeronautics Account)

Background:

Existing federal regulations require all commercial and recreational drone owners to register unmanned piloted aircraft that weigh more than 0.55 pounds with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act). The Act required the FAA to establish a framework for safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace no later than September 30, 2015, and authorized the FAA to establish interim requirements for the commercial operation of drones. Under the interim rules, drone operators must meet certain standards and apply for a commercial use exemption and an FAA Certificate of Authorization (COA) in order to operate in in “navigable airspace,” which is generally above 500 feet. In addition, the Act also provides that certain small drones (model, hobby, or recreational use aircraft) that are operated away from airports and air traffic and near the ground level are exempt from federal regulation, if they are flown for exclusively recreational, non-commercial purposes.

On June 21, 2016 the FAA adopted regulations for commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These regulations require line-of-sight operation, a maximum airspeed of 100 mph, and a ban on operation over people, a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Accidents that result in serious injury or property damage of more than $500 must be reported to the FAA.

Several local agencies, such as the City of Los Angeles and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, have also established drone regulations within their jurisdictions.

Existing state law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within Caltrans to foster and promote safety in aeronautics and establish only those regulations that are necessary so that persons may engage in aeronautics with the least possible restriction consistent with the safety and rights of others. The Division of Aeronautics is primarily involved in the siting, planning, and inspection of public-use airports in the state.

Proposed Law:

SB 347 would establish a regulatory framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems within the state that would further and protect the public interest in remote piloted aircraft, as specified. Specifically, this bill would:

• Specify that the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act should not be construed to limit any power of the state or political subdivision, or preempt local ordinances to regulate drone operations if the regulations or ordinances are consistent with and not in conflict with the bill.
• Prohibit a person from weaponizing a drone or operating a weaponized drone.
• Prohibit a person from operating a drone in any a manner that interferes with manned aircraft, is prohibited by federal statutes or regulations, carelessly or recklessly endangers life or property, constitutes a nuisance, violates privacy rights, or constitutes trespass under state law.
• Prohibit a person from operating a drone without complying with all FAA licensing, registration, and marking requirements.
• Require Caltrans to establish the amount of liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility necessary to provide adequate compensation for damages incurred through a commercial drone accident.
• Require every commercial drone operator, and persons using a drone with a commercial operator’s permission, to maintain adequate protection against liability, as specified.
• Authorize Caltrans to adopt rules and regulations governing the conditions under which drones may be operated in the state for the purpose of protecting and ensuring general public interest and safety and the safety of drone operators.
• Authorize Caltrans to make and amend any general or special rules, orders, and procedures, and establish minimum standards as deemed necessary.
• Require Caltrans to cooperate and assist the federal government, political subdivisions of the state, and others in the development of drone aeronautics.
• Require Caltrans to keep a copy of all rules and regulations on file with the Secretary of State, and to provide for the publication and general distribution of those items.
• Specify that a violation of the bill’s provisions is an infraction punishable with a fine of up to $250, or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment up to six months in a county jail, or a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
• Explicitly authorize any state or local peace officer to enforce and assist in the enforcement of these provisions, any other rule, order, or state laws applicable to drones.

Related Legislation:

SB 868 (Jackson), which failed passage in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee last year, would have established a regulatory framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft in this state, and authorized Caltrans to adopt rules and regulations governing the conditions under which drones may operate, and required Caltrans to establish liability insurance requirements, among other things.

AB 2724 (Gatto), which was vetoed by the Governor last year, would have required certain drones to be equipped with geofencing technology that prevents operation in prohibited areas, and required drone owners to procure adequate protection against liability, as specified by Caltrans. The veto message included the following statement:

This bill creates significant regulatory confusion by creating a patchwork of federal, state, and local restrictions on airspace. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration will likely assert federal preemption on the bill's "geo-fencing" requirements. I believe it's more prudent to explore a more comprehensive approach that takes into account federal regulations on this subject. Piecemeal is not the way to go.

Staff Comments:

Staff notes that Caltrans does not currently possess staff expertise in the area of liability insurance, and it is unclear how Caltrans would determine what level of liability protection is adequate for drone operation. Staff estimates costs could be minor for Caltrans to simply consult with other state entities that may possess this expertise, such as the Department of Insurance (DOI), or to potentially enter into an interagency agreement with DOI to establish appropriate parameters for establishing adequate liability protection. To the extent Caltrans determines that a regulatory process is required, staff estimates that costs could be in the range of $150,000 to develop and adopt appropriate regulations regarding liability insurance requirements.

This bill authorizes, but does not require Caltrans to adopt regulations and perform other regulatory and administrative functions related to the operations of drones in California. It is unclear whether Caltrans will act to adopt relevant regulations or exercise any of the other general powers of authority specified in the bill. To the extent Caltrans exercises the discretionary authority to adopt rules and regulations that complement FAA regulations, to make or amend any other rules, and to coordinate with other governmental entities in the development of remote piloted aeronautics, ongoing costs could be in the range of $100,000 to $150,000. Depending on future federal regulatory activity, these costs could increase.

Staff notes that a U.S. appellate court issued a decision on May 19, 2017 that strikes down the drone registration requirement, to the extent it applies to “model aircraft” (John Taylor v. Michael P. Huerta, as Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, No. 15-1495). The decision cited a provision of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which specified that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” The Act defines model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft capable of sustained flight, flown within the visual line of sight of the operator, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes. Since the 2015 FAA Registration Rule applies to model aircraft, it directly violates the clear statutory provision. The court vacated the Registration Rule, to the extent it applies to model aircraft.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 347 Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

Subject: State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: SB 868 (Jackson) failed Assembly Privacy 2016

SB 807 (Gaines) Chapter 834, Stats. 2016

AB 1820 (Quirk) Failed Senate Judiciary 2016

AB 2320 (Calderon) Vetoed 2016

SB 142 (Jackson) Vetoed 2015

SB 167 (Gaines) not heard 2015

SB 170 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015

SB 262 (Galgiani) Failed Senate Judiciary 2015

SB 263 (Gaines) not heard 2015

SB 271 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015

AB 56 (Quirk) inactive Senate Floor

SB 15 (Padilla) failed Assembly Public Safety 2014

AB 1327 (Gorell) Vetoed 2014

Support: California Police Chiefs Association; California State Association of Counties; League of California Cities; Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association; Rural County Representatives of California;

Opposition: American Insurance Association; AUVSI; CalChamber; California Retailers Association; CompTIA; Consumer Technology Association; National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies; Personal Insurance Federation of California; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; TechNet

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to regulate the use of unmanned aircraft and to provide penalties for the violation of those prohibitions.

Existing law authorizes certain persons who are not peace officers to exercise the powers of arrest under certain circumstances, if they have completed a specific training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.  (Penal Code § 830.7).

This bill gives officers and employees of the Department of Transportation who are designated by the Director of Transportation the right to exercise the powers of arrest to enforce the provisions of the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act, any rule or order issued under that part or any other law applicable to remote piloted aircraft or unmanned aircraft systems.

Existing federal regulations require all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Commercial drone operators, but not recreational drone operators, must also obtain FAA authorization, which is granted on a case-by-case basis.

Existing law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (Public Utilities Code §§ 21001 et seq)

This bill creates the “State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act.”

This bill states that the purpose of the bill is to promote the public interest in remote piloted aircraft by:

1. Encouraging the development and general use of remote piloted aircraft.
2. Fostering and promoting safety in remote piloted aeronautics.
3. Preserving the fundamental right to privacy.
4. Protecting the security of critical infrastructure.
5. Protecting California’s natural resources.
6. Encouraging the use of remote piloted aircraft for newsgathering gin a manner consistent with the fundamental right to privacy.
7. Effecting, where feasible and consistent with the policies of this state, uniformity with federal aeronautics laws and regulations.
8. Establishing only those regulations that are essential and clearly within the scope of the authority granted by the Legislature, in order that persons may engage in every phase of remote piloted aeronautics with the least possible restriction consistent with the safety and the rights of others.

This bill provides that it shall not be construed to either of the following:

• Limit any power of the state or a political subdivision to regulate the operation of remote piloted aircraft if the regulations do not conflict with the provision of this part.
• Preempt any local ordinance that regulates remotely piloted aircraft or unmanned aircraft systems if the ordinance is consistent with this part.

This bill prohibits the operation of a drone in a manner that:

1. Interferes with manned aircraft;
2. Is prohibited by federal statute or regulation;
3. Is careless or reckless and endangers life or property;
4. Constitutes a nuisance under section 3479 of the Civil Code;
5. Violates an individual’s right to privacy under the California constitution; and
6. Constitutes trespass under California law.

This bill prohibits the weaponization of drones.

This bill provides that a person shall not operate a remote piloted aircraft in this state without first complying with all licensing, registration, and marking requirements required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

This bill requires every commercial operator of a drone to procure adequate protection against liability.

This bill provides that any person using, operating or renting a remote piloted aircraft with the permission of a commercial operator shall also maintain adequate protection against liability.

This bill provides that Caltrans may adopt rules and regulations relating to the provisions in this bill.

This bill provides that the amount of liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility required shall be determined by Caltrans after a public hearing.

Existing law provides that a violation of the State Aeronautics Act is punishable as a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to six months in jail and/or a fine of not more than $1,000.

This bill provides that a violation of any provision of this part or any rule or order issued shall be punishable as a wobblette with an infraction fine not to exceed $250 and the misdemeanor penalty to be up to 6 months in county jail and/or a fine not to exceed $1,000.

This bill provides that any state or peace officer charged with the enforcement of state and local laws or ordinances may enforce and assist in the enforcement of this part, any rule or order issued under this part, and all other laws of the state applicable to remote piloted aircraft or unmanned aircraft systems.

This bill provides that nothing in this part shall be construed to impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under other laws. The remedies in this part are cumulative with any other remedies available under other laws.

This bill provides that the provisions of this bill are severable. If any part of this bill is found to be invalid, the remaining parts of the bill are unaffected.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

The development of small unmanned aircraft systems – known as “unmanned aerial vehicles,” “remote piloted aircraft,” or simply “drones” – promises to revolutionize the way Californians interact with each other and their environment. Drone technology may transform the way California’s farmers and ranchers manage livestock and agricultural resources. Drone technology could also fundamentally alter the way goods move across the state and greatly improve the capacity of emergency personnel to respond to disasters.

However, the lack of clear rules governing the use of this emerging technology threatens to harm orderly use of California’s airspace and undermine public safety. To date, the lack of regulation has led to disputes between neighbors concerned about invasions of their privacy, impacts to wildlife, near-collisions with airplanes and helicopters, interference with firefighting efforts, and accidents injuring innocent bystanders. Some individuals are reportedly modifying drones to carry weapons, and, in at least one instance, a drone was used to land radioactive material on the roof of a government building.

Commonsense rules are needed to ensure that drones are used in a safe and responsible manner, consistent with the values of the people of the State of California.

This bill creates a comprehensive set of sensible and intelligent drone regulations that strike an appropriate balance between protecting public safety and privacy, and encouraging innovation and technology. Among other things, SB 347:

• Limits disruptive drone use near private property;
• Prohibits the weaponization of drones;
• Prohibits the reckless operation of drones and drone interference with manned aircraft;
• Requires drone pilots to comply with all applicable licensing, registration, and aircraft marking requirements; and
• Requires commercial drone operators to obtain liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility.

SB 347 continues to allow local governments to regulate drone use in their communities, and creates a statewide mechanism for the enforcement of drone safety rules and ordinances. SB 347 avoids the threat of frivolous litigation by vesting enforcement authority with California’s peace officers, and directs the state’s Division of Aeronautics to work cooperatively with local governments, state agencies, and the federal government to implement this regulatory framework.

2. Current Regulation

On June 21, 2016 the FAA adopted regulations for commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These regulations require line-of-sight operation, a maximum airspeed of 100 mph, and a ban on operation over people, a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Accidents that result in serious injury or property damage of more than $500 must be reported to the FAA. Both commercial and recreational drone users must register their drones if they weight more than 0.55 pounds.

Several California local governments have enacted their own drone regulations. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles enacted drone regulations similar to the FAA proposal. In December, the city filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance, citing two individuals for operating a drone which interfered with a Los Angeles Police Department air unit, causing it to change its landing path. In northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District banned drones near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway.

The City of San Diego has proposed drone rules, which give local police enforcement authority, which are pending.

3. Statewide regulation of Drones

This bill provides that CalTrans may adopt regulations and rules consistent with this bill for the purpose of protecting and ensuring the general public interest and safety and the safety of persons operating a remote piloted aircraft.

The bill specifically prohibits operating a remote piloted aircraft in a manner: that interferes with aircraft; that is prohibited by federal statute; in a reckless manner; in a manner that constitutes a nuisance; in a manner that violates an individual’s right to privacy; or, in a manner that constitutes trespass.

The bill also specifically prohibits weaponizing a remote piloted aircraft.

This bill also requires liability insurance, in an amount to be determined by CalTrans, to commercially operate a remote piloted aircraft.

4. No preemption

This bill states that is shall not be construed to preempt any local ordinance that regulates remotely piloted aircraft or unmanned aircraft systems if the ordinance is consistent with the bill.

5. Criminal Penalties

This bill provides that a violation of any provision of this part or any rule or order issued shall be punishable as a wobblette with an infraction fine not to exceed $250 and the misdemeanor penalty to be up to 6 months in county jail and/or a fine not to exceed $1,000.

6. Argument in Support

In support CSAC states:

The increased use of unmanned aircraft technology in recent years offers a variation of benefits, but also presents a series of challenges for state and local government regulatory authorities. The lack of clear regulations with this technology has led to multiple problems with interference with first responders, firefighting efforts, near-collisions with aircrafts, and invasions of privacy. SB 347 takes a critical step in addressing these issues by establishing the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act.

SB 347 creates a comprehensive set of practical and intelligent drone regulations that provide a balance between protecting public safety and privacy and encouraging innovation and technology. This measure is carefully drafted to protect local and state regulating authority for remotely piloted aircrafts or unmanned aircraft systems as long as the ordinances are consistent with the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act.

7. Argument in Opposition

State Farm opposes this bills stating:

The Federal Aviation Administration is currently working on a new set of regulations that will further the national governance of drones in American airspace. State Farm strongly encourages all states to allow the FAA’s rules to take precedence and to limit complicated patchworks of laws and regulations.

In addition to our concern about the conflict between federal and state rules, we also have serious concerns regarding the insurance mandate in SB 347 for all commercial operators. Liability insurance, as obtained and regulated today, is based on historical claims data and underwriting experience. Given the relatively new technology of remote piloted aircrafts, liability insurers are still in the process of collecting data to develop insurance coverage for drone use. As such, State Farm believes this insurance mandate is premature.

-- END –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/4/2017

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill establishes rules on the operation of remote piloted aircraft (i.e., drones).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal regulations:

Require all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if those drones weigh more than 0.55 pounds. Commercial drone pilots must have a Remote Pilot Airman certificate, be at least 16 years old, and pass a security vetting by the TSA. There are no requirements for recreational pilots.

Existing federal regulations require that the drone be in the line of sight of the operator, fly less than 400 feet above the ground with a speed limit of 100 mph, not fly over people, not fly at night, and generally prohibit the use of drones around airports.

Existing law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

This bill:

1. Prohibits the weaponization of a drone or the operation of a weaponized drone.
2. Prohibits the operation of a drone in any of the following manners:
3. In a manner that interferes with manned aircraft
4. In a manner that is prohibited by federal statute or regulation
5. In a careless or reckless manner
6. In a manner constituting a nuisance, as defined
7. In a manner that violates an individual’s right to privacy
8. In a manner that constitutes trespass
9. Requires drones to be operated in compliance with all licensing, registration and marking requirements of the FAA.
10. Requires every commercial drone operator to maintain adequate liability protection, as determined by Caltrans after a public hearing.
11. Authorizes Caltrans to develop additional implementing regulations.
12. Establishes that a violation shall be punishable as an infraction with a fine not to exceed $250, or as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1000, or both that imprisonment and fine.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. The development of small unmanned aircraft systems —known as “unmanned aerial vehicles,” “remote piloted aircraft,” or simply “drones” — promises to revolutionize the way Californians interact with each other and their environment. However, the lack of clear rules governing the use of this emerging technology threatens to harm orderly use of California’s airspace and undermine public safety. To date, the lack of regulation has led to disputes between neighbors concerned about invasions of their privacy, impacts to wildlife, near-collisions with airplanes and helicopters, interference with firefighting efforts, and accidents injuring innocent bystanders. Some individuals are reportedly modifying drones to carry weapons, and, in at least one instance, a drone was used to land radioactive material on the roof of a government building. Commonsense rules are needed to ensure that drones are used in a safe and responsible manner, consistent with the values of the people of the State of California.
2. Background. Moving beyond hobbyists and the military, drones are increasingly a part of commercial and recreational activities. In fields as diverse as agriculture, filmmaking, electric utility service, and public safety, drones can monitor, track, and provide surveillance in many useful and previously undoable ways. Amazon and Google are experimenting with using drones to speed package delivery. Drones have become easier to use and have become less costly. This, combined with improved cameras and sensors, has caused drone sales to take off, so to speak. The FAA estimated that 1 million drones would be sold during the 2015 Christmas season. Compared to 2014, the Consumer Electronics Association estimated that drone sales would increase by 63% in 2015. The FAA believes that twice as many drones were sold in 2016, 2.5 million, than 2015.

Drones will play an increasingly visible role in our future. They will be used by many businesses and government entities to do their jobs better and more efficiently, and they’ll be used by our friends and neighbors for recreation. They will also be over our heads, whether in the park, at the mall, or in our backyards.

The remarkable growth in drone usage creates issues, as more untrained drone operators take to the sky. Foremost is public safety, as drones can imperil aircraft, as recent incidents with commercial aviation and forest fire-fighting aircraft demonstrate. The FAA has noted that, “Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year (2015).”^[1] Between December 2013 and September 12, 2015, the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College collected records of 921 incidents involving drones and manned aircrafts in the national airspace. One hundred fifty eight incidents were classified as instances in which a drone came within 200 feet or less of an airplane, 28 of which required a pilot to maneuver the aircraft to avoid a collision with a drone. During that period, seventeen drone sightings and near misses were documented near Los Angeles International Airport.^[2] On April 17, 2016, a drone struck a British Airways passenger aircraft landing at Heathrow Airport. (No major damage was reported.) This is believed to be the first time a drone has struck a landing passenger aircraft.

The safety of the public on the ground is also potentially at risk, as drones can crash, be mis-piloted, or simply malfunction: On September 12, 2015 an operator error caused a drone to crash to the ground in Pasadena, injuring an 11 month old girl. Two separate drone crashes in Seattle, at the Space Needle and at an amusement park, have caused scares but no injuries. Drones can also be used for harmful purposes, as in the case of transporting contraband into prisons or as a means for conveying explosives or other dangerous materials. And there are the more conventional concerns about privacy and nuisance behavior.

1. Looks familiar. This bill is similar to SB 868 (Jackson, 2016), which passed this committee last year. The provisions regarding how the drone may be operated, requiring compliance with federal regulations, and requiring insurance are nearly identical to that bill. However, unlike SB 868, this bill does not restrict where drones can operate.
2. Current drone regulation. On June 21, 2016 the FAA adopted regulations for commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These regulations require line-of-sight operation, a maximum airspeed of 100 mph, and a ban on operation over people, a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Accidents that result in serious injury or property damage of more than $500 must be reported to the FAA. Both commercial and recreational drone users must register their drones if they weight more than 0.55 pounds.

Several California local governments have enacted their own drone regulations. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles enacted drone regulations similar to the FAA proposal. In December, the city filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance, citing two individuals for operating a drone which interfered with a Los Angeles Police Department air unit, causing it to change its landing path. In northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District banned drones near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway. The City of San Diego has proposed drone rules, which give local police enforcement authority, which are pending.

1. Jurisdiction. The dividing line between state and federal jurisdiction of drones has been made clearer with the recently released FAA regulations. The regulations do not preempt state jurisdiction over privacy rights or trespassing laws. The regulations generally leave it to the drone operator to determine where they can fly; the regulations do not prohibit drone flight over critical infrastructure, such as power plants and prisons.
2. Enforcement. The FAA is responsible for enforcing its regulations, but partners with state and local governments for help. By codifying the federal regulations into state law, this bill authorizes state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce those regulations, which may be the most consequential part of the bill.
3. Caltrans. This bill requires the development of implementing regulations by Caltrans. While this may seem an odd assignment, within Caltrans resides the Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person unit which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at public-use airports. These are airports open to the general public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or familiarity with the FAA and is therefore the best, though imperfect, fit for these regulatory duties.
4. Opposition. Insurance companies, technology trade groups and others oppose the bill. The insurance companies oppose the insurance requirement. And the opponents generally oppose any state regulation, arguing that state regulation risks slowing the growth of this new industry. The opponents do not argue that the provisions of this bill are preempted; rather, they are concerned that the provisions of this bill are unwise and will create a patchwork of regulations.
5. Double Referral. This bill has been double-referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Related Legislation:

SB 868 (Jackson, 2016) — This bill comprehensively regulates by establishing numerous prohibitions, restrictions, and penalties on their use in ways that would invade privacy, endanger personal safety, interfere with critical infrastructure or harm nature. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

AB 1820 (Quirk, 2016) — This bill prohibits a law enforcement agency from using an unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system from another public agency, or using information obtained from an unmanned aircraft system, except as specifically authorized. This bill failed passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 807 (Gaines, 2016) — would provide public entities and public employees with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services. This bill was passed into law (Chapter 834 of 2016).

AB 2320 (Calderon, 2016) — places several restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems, including using such systems to violate protective orders, to view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties, or to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person. This bill was vetoed.

AB 56 (Quirk, 2015) — prohibits law enforcement agencies from using an unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system from another public agency by contract, loan, or other arrangement, or using information obtained from an unmanned aircraft system used by another public agency, unless certain requirements are met. This bill was amended to deal with unrelated subject matter in the Senate.

SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) — Establishes that operation of a drone below the navigable airspace overlying the property of another without permission is trespassing. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) — Prohibits operation of a drone over a jail. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) — Prohibits operation of a drone over a K-12 school campus or the taking of pictures by a drone of a K-12 campus without permission. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) — Establishes a drone task force to recommend policies regarding drone use. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

March 29.)

SUPPORT:

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Rural County Representatives of California

OPPOSITION:

American Insurance Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Retailers Association

Computing Technology Industry Association

Consumer Technology Association

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm)

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

-- END --

1. FAA Office of the Chief Counsel; “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS) Fact Sheet”; December 17, 2015. ↑

2. “Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis,” Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, December 2015. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 347 Hearing Date: 4/4/2017

SUBJECT: State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act

DIGEST: This bill establishes rules on the operation of remote piloted aircraft (i.e., drones).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal regulations:

Require all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if those drones weigh more than 0.55 pounds. Commercial drone pilots must have a Remote Pilot Airman certificate, be at least 16 years old, and pass a security vetting by the TSA. There are no requirements for recreational pilots.

Existing federal regulations require that the drone be in the line of sight of the operator, fly less than 400 feet above the ground with a speed limit of 100 mph, not fly over people, not fly at night, and generally prohibit the use of drones around airports.

Existing law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

This bill:

1. Prohibits the weaponization of a drone or the operation of a weaponized drone.
2. Prohibits the operation of a drone in any of the following manners:
3. In a manner that interferes with manned aircraft
4. In a manner that is prohibited by federal statute or regulation
5. In a careless or reckless manner
6. In a manner constituting a nuisance, as defined
7. In a manner that violates an individual’s right to privacy
8. In a manner that constitutes trespass
9. Requires drones to be operated in compliance with all licensing, registration and marking requirements of the FAA.
10. Requires every commercial drone operator to maintain adequate liability protection, as determined by Caltrans after a public hearing.
11. Authorizes Caltrans to develop additional implementing regulations.
12. Establishes that a violation shall be punishable as an infraction with a fine not to exceed $250, or as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1000, or both that imprisonment and fine.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. The development of small unmanned aircraft systems —known as “unmanned aerial vehicles,” “remote piloted aircraft,” or simply “drones” — promises to revolutionize the way Californians interact with each other and their environment. However, the lack of clear rules governing the use of this emerging technology threatens to harm orderly use of California’s airspace and undermine public safety. To date, the lack of regulation has led to disputes between neighbors concerned about invasions of their privacy, impacts to wildlife, near-collisions with airplanes and helicopters, interference with firefighting efforts, and accidents injuring innocent bystanders. Some individuals are reportedly modifying drones to carry weapons, and, in at least one instance, a drone was used to land radioactive material on the roof of a government building. Commonsense rules are needed to ensure that drones are used in a safe and responsible manner, consistent with the values of the people of the State of California.
2. Background. Moving beyond hobbyists and the military, drones are increasingly a part of commercial and recreational activities. In fields as diverse as agriculture, filmmaking, electric utility service, and public safety, drones can monitor, track, and provide surveillance in many useful and previously undoable ways. Amazon and Google are experimenting with using drones to speed package delivery. Drones have become easier to use and have become less costly. This, combined with improved cameras and sensors, has caused drone sales to take off, so to speak. The FAA estimated that 1 million drones would be sold during the 2015 Christmas season. Compared to 2014, the Consumer Electronics Association estimated that drone sales would increase by 63% in 2015. The FAA believes that twice as many drones were sold in 2016, 2.5 million, than 2015.

Drones will play an increasingly visible role in our future. They will be used by many businesses and government entities to do their jobs better and more efficiently, and they’ll be used by our friends and neighbors for recreation. They will also be over our heads, whether in the park, at the mall, or in our backyards.

The remarkable growth in drone usage creates issues, as more untrained drone operators take to the sky. Foremost is public safety, as drones can imperil aircraft, as recent incidents with commercial aviation and forest fire-fighting aircraft demonstrate. The FAA has noted that, “Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year (2015).”^[1] Between December 2013 and September 12, 2015, the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College collected records of 921 incidents involving drones and manned aircrafts in the national airspace. One hundred fifty eight incidents were classified as instances in which a drone came within 200 feet or less of an airplane, 28 of which required a pilot to maneuver the aircraft to avoid a collision with a drone. During that period, seventeen drone sightings and near misses were documented near Los Angeles International Airport.^[2] On April 17, 2016, a drone struck a British Airways passenger aircraft landing at Heathrow Airport. (No major damage was reported.) This is believed to be the first time a drone has struck a landing passenger aircraft.

The safety of the public on the ground is also potentially at risk, as drones can crash, be mis-piloted, or simply malfunction: On September 12, 2015 an operator error caused a drone to crash to the ground in Pasadena, injuring an 11 month old girl. Two separate drone crashes in Seattle, at the Space Needle and at an amusement park, have caused scares but no injuries. Drones can also be used for harmful purposes, as in the case of transporting contraband into prisons or as a means for conveying explosives or other dangerous materials. And there are the more conventional concerns about privacy and nuisance behavior.

1. Looks familiar. This bill is similar to SB 868 (Jackson, 2016), which passed this committee last year. The provisions regarding how the drone may be operated, requiring compliance with federal regulations, and requiring insurance are nearly identical to that bill. However, unlike SB 868, this bill does not restrict where drones can operate.
2. Current drone regulation. On June 21, 2016 the FAA adopted regulations for commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These regulations require line-of-sight operation, a maximum airspeed of 100 mph, and a ban on operation over people, a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Accidents that result in serious injury or property damage of more than $500 must be reported to the FAA. Both commercial and recreational drone users must register their drones if they weight more than 0.55 pounds.

Several California local governments have enacted their own drone regulations. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles enacted drone regulations similar to the FAA proposal. In December, the city filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance, citing two individuals for operating a drone which interfered with a Los Angeles Police Department air unit, causing it to change its landing path. In northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District banned drones near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway. The City of San Diego has proposed drone rules, which give local police enforcement authority, which are pending.

1. Jurisdiction. The dividing line between state and federal jurisdiction of drones has been made clearer with the recently released FAA regulations. The regulations do not preempt state jurisdiction over privacy rights or trespassing laws. The regulations generally leave it to the drone operator to determine where they can fly; the regulations do not prohibit drone flight over critical infrastructure, such as power plants and prisons.
2. Enforcement. The FAA is responsible for enforcing its regulations, but partners with state and local governments for help. By codifying the federal regulations into state law, this bill authorizes state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce those regulations, which may be the most consequential part of the bill.
3. Caltrans. This bill requires the development of implementing regulations by Caltrans. While this may seem an odd assignment, within Caltrans resides the Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person unit which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at public-use airports. These are airports open to the general public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or familiarity with the FAA and is therefore the best, though imperfect, fit for these regulatory duties.
4. Opposition. Insurance companies, technology trade groups and others oppose the bill. The insurance companies oppose the insurance requirement. And the opponents generally oppose any state regulation, arguing that state regulation risks slowing the growth of this new industry. The opponents do not argue that the provisions of this bill are preempted; rather, they are concerned that the provisions of this bill are unwise and will create a patchwork of regulations.
5. Double Referral. This bill has been double-referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Related Legislation:

SB 868 (Jackson, 2016) — This bill comprehensively regulates by establishing numerous prohibitions, restrictions, and penalties on their use in ways that would invade privacy, endanger personal safety, interfere with critical infrastructure or harm nature. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

AB 1820 (Quirk, 2016) — This bill prohibits a law enforcement agency from using an unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system from another public agency, or using information obtained from an unmanned aircraft system, except as specifically authorized. This bill failed passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 807 (Gaines, 2016) — would provide public entities and public employees with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services. This bill was passed into law (Chapter 834 of 2016).

AB 2320 (Calderon, 2016) — places several restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems, including using such systems to violate protective orders, to view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties, or to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person. This bill was vetoed.

AB 56 (Quirk, 2015) — prohibits law enforcement agencies from using an unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system from another public agency by contract, loan, or other arrangement, or using information obtained from an unmanned aircraft system used by another public agency, unless certain requirements are met. This bill was amended to deal with unrelated subject matter in the Senate.

SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) — Establishes that operation of a drone below the navigable airspace overlying the property of another without permission is trespassing. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) — Prohibits operation of a drone over a jail. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) — Prohibits operation of a drone over a K-12 school campus or the taking of pictures by a drone of a K-12 campus without permission. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) — Establishes a drone task force to recommend policies regarding drone use. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

March 29.)

SUPPORT:

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Rural County Representatives of California

OPPOSITION:

American Insurance Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Retailers Association

Computing Technology Industry Association

Consumer Technology Association

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm)

-- END --

1. FAA Office of the Chief Counsel; “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS) Fact Sheet”; December 17, 2015. ↑

2. “Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis,” Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, December 2015. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/4/2017

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill establishes rules on the operation of remote piloted aircraft (i.e., drones).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal regulations:

Require all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if those drones weigh more than 0.55 pounds. Commercial drone pilots must have a Remote Pilot Airman certificate, be at least 16 years old, and pass a security vetting by the TSA. There are no requirements for recreational pilots.

Existing federal regulations require that the drone be in the line of sight of the operator, fly less than 400 feet above the ground with a speed limit of 100 mph, not fly over people, not fly at night, and generally prohibit the use of drones around airports.

Existing law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

This bill:

1. Prohibits the weaponization of a drone or the operation of a weaponized drone.
2. Prohibits the operation of a drone in any of the following manners:
3. In a manner that interferes with manned aircraft
4. In a manner that is prohibited by federal statute or regulation
5. In a careless or reckless manner
6. In a manner constituting a nuisance, as defined
7. In a manner that violates an individual’s right to privacy
8. In a manner that constitutes trespass
9. Requires drones to be operated in compliance with all licensing, registration and marking requirements of the FAA.
10. Requires every commercial drone operator to maintain adequate liability protection, as determined by Caltrans after a public hearing.
11. Authorizes Caltrans to develop additional implementing regulations.
12. Establishes that a violation shall be punishable as an infraction with a fine not to exceed $250, or as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1000, or both that imprisonment and fine.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. The development of small unmanned aircraft systems —known as “unmanned aerial vehicles,” “remote piloted aircraft,” or simply “drones” — promises to revolutionize the way Californians interact with each other and their environment. However, the lack of clear rules governing the use of this emerging technology threatens to harm orderly use of California’s airspace and undermine public safety. To date, the lack of regulation has led to disputes between neighbors concerned about invasions of their privacy, impacts to wildlife, near-collisions with airplanes and helicopters, interference with firefighting efforts, and accidents injuring innocent bystanders. Some individuals are reportedly modifying drones to carry weapons, and, in at least one instance, a drone was used to land radioactive material on the roof of a government building. Commonsense rules are needed to ensure that drones are used in a safe and responsible manner, consistent with the values of the people of the State of California.
2. Background. Moving beyond hobbyists and the military, drones are increasingly a part of commercial and recreational activities. In fields as diverse as agriculture, filmmaking, electric utility service, and public safety, drones can monitor, track, and provide surveillance in many useful and previously undoable ways. Amazon and Google are experimenting with using drones to speed package delivery. Drones have become easier to use and have become less costly. This, combined with improved cameras and sensors, has caused drone sales to take off, so to speak. The FAA estimated that 1 million drones would be sold during the 2015 Christmas season. Compared to 2014, the Consumer Electronics Association estimated that drone sales would increase by 63% in 2015. The FAA believes that twice as many drones were sold in 2016, 2.5 million, than 2015.

Drones will play an increasingly visible role in our future. They will be used by many businesses and government entities to do their jobs better and more efficiently, and they’ll be used by our friends and neighbors for recreation. They will also be over our heads, whether in the park, at the mall, or in our backyards.

The remarkable growth in drone usage creates issues, as more untrained drone operators take to the sky. Foremost is public safety, as drones can imperil aircraft, as recent incidents with commercial aviation and forest fire-fighting aircraft demonstrate. The FAA has noted that, “Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year (2015).”^[1] Between December 2013 and September 12, 2015, the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College collected records of 921 incidents involving drones and manned aircrafts in the national airspace. One hundred fifty eight incidents were classified as instances in which a drone came within 200 feet or less of an airplane, 28 of which required a pilot to maneuver the aircraft to avoid a collision with a drone. During that period, seventeen drone sightings and near misses were documented near Los Angeles International Airport.^[2] On April 17, 2016, a drone struck a British Airways passenger aircraft landing at Heathrow Airport. (No major damage was reported.) This is believed to be the first time a drone has struck a landing passenger aircraft.

The safety of the public on the ground is also potentially at risk, as drones can crash, be mis-piloted, or simply malfunction: On September 12, 2015 an operator error caused a drone to crash to the ground in Pasadena, injuring an 11 month old girl. Two separate drone crashes in Seattle, at the Space Needle and at an amusement park, have caused scares but no injuries. Drones can also be used for harmful purposes, as in the case of transporting contraband into prisons or as a means for conveying explosives or other dangerous materials. And there are the more conventional concerns about privacy and nuisance behavior.

1. Looks familiar. This bill is similar to SB 868 (Jackson, 2016), which passed this committee last year. The provisions regarding how the drone may be operated, requiring compliance with federal regulations, and requiring insurance are nearly identical to that bill. However, unlike SB 868, this bill does not restrict where drones can operate.
2. Current drone regulation. On June 21, 2016 the FAA adopted regulations for commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 pounds. These regulations require line-of-sight operation, a maximum airspeed of 100 mph, and a ban on operation over people, a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Accidents that result in serious injury or property damage of more than $500 must be reported to the FAA. Both commercial and recreational drone users must register their drones if they weight more than 0.55 pounds.

Several California local governments have enacted their own drone regulations. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles enacted drone regulations similar to the FAA proposal. In December, the city filed the first criminal charges under the ordinance, citing two individuals for operating a drone which interfered with a Los Angeles Police Department air unit, causing it to change its landing path. In northern California, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District banned drones near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway. The City of San Diego has proposed drone rules, which give local police enforcement authority, which are pending.

1. Jurisdiction. The dividing line between state and federal jurisdiction of drones has been made clearer with the recently released FAA regulations. The regulations do not preempt state jurisdiction over privacy rights or trespassing laws. The regulations generally leave it to the drone operator to determine where they can fly; the regulations do not prohibit drone flight over critical infrastructure, such as power plants and prisons.
2. Enforcement. The FAA is responsible for enforcing its regulations, but partners with state and local governments for help. By codifying the federal regulations into state law, this bill authorizes state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce those regulations, which may be the most consequential part of the bill.
3. Caltrans. This bill requires the development of implementing regulations by Caltrans. While this may seem an odd assignment, within Caltrans resides the Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person unit which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at public-use airports. These are airports open to the general public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or familiarity with the FAA and is therefore the best, though imperfect, fit for these regulatory duties.
4. Opposition. Insurance companies, technology trade groups and others oppose the bill. The insurance companies oppose the insurance requirement. And the opponents generally oppose any state regulation, arguing that state regulation risks slowing the growth of this new industry. The opponents do not argue that the provisions of this bill are preempted; rather, they are concerned that the provisions of this bill are unwise and will create a patchwork of regulations.
5. Double Referral. This bill has been double-referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Related Legislation:

SB 868 (Jackson, 2016) — This bill comprehensively regulates by establishing numerous prohibitions, restrictions, and penalties on their use in ways that would invade privacy, endanger personal safety, interfere with critical infrastructure or harm nature. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

AB 1820 (Quirk, 2016) — This bill prohibits a law enforcement agency from using an unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system from another public agency, or using information obtained from an unmanned aircraft system, except as specifically authorized. This bill failed passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 807 (Gaines, 2016) — would provide public entities and public employees with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services. This bill was passed into law (Chapter 834 of 2016).

AB 2320 (Calderon, 2016) — places several restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems, including using such systems to violate protective orders, to view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties, or to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person. This bill was vetoed.

AB 56 (Quirk, 2015) — prohibits law enforcement agencies from using an unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system from another public agency by contract, loan, or other arrangement, or using information obtained from an unmanned aircraft system used by another public agency, unless certain requirements are met. This bill was amended to deal with unrelated subject matter in the Senate.

SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) — Establishes that operation of a drone below the navigable airspace overlying the property of another without permission is trespassing. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) — Prohibits operation of a drone over a jail. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) — Prohibits operation of a drone over a K-12 school campus or the taking of pictures by a drone of a K-12 campus without permission. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) — Establishes a drone task force to recommend policies regarding drone use. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

March 29.)

SUPPORT:

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Rural County Representatives of California

OPPOSITION:

American Insurance Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Retailers Association

Computing Technology Industry Association

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm)

-- END --

1. FAA Office of the Chief Counsel; “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS) Fact Sheet”; December 17, 2015. ↑

2. “Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis,” Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, December 2015. ↑