BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2724 Hearing Date: 6/21/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Gatto |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |6/1/2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Randy Chinn |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Unmanned aircraft
DIGEST: This bill requires:
1)Specific information about federal flight regulations to be
provided to purchasers of drones
2)Drone operators to procure adequate protection against
liability
3)Certain drones to be equipped with technology to avoid flying
within five miles of an airport
These provisions become operative on January 1, 2020.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal regulations require all drone owners to
register their drones weighing more than 250 grams, about
one-half pound, 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 federal regulations require recreational drone
operators to notify airport operators and air traffic
controllers if they are flying within five miles of an airport.
AB 2724 (Gatto) PageB of?
Moreover, these drones are prohibited in certain areas, known as
Class B airspace, around major airports without specific
permission.
This bill:
1)Defines "unmanned aircraft" (e.g., drones) as an aircraft that
is operated without the possibility of direct human
intervention from within or on the aircraft.
2)Requires, by January 1, 2020, drone manufacturers to include
with the drone a copy of the FAA drone safety regulations and
the requirement to register the drone, if applicable.
3)Requires, by January 1, 2020, that drones equipped with global
positioning satellite (GPS) mapping capabilities shall also be
equipped with geofencing technological capabilities that
prohibit the drone from flying within five miles of an
airport.
4)Requires, by January 1, 2020, that all non-commercial owners
of drones procure adequate protection against liability for
damages for bodily injury and to property.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, rapid advances in
technology have enabled drone manufacturers to transform
drones from weapons of war to everyday toys and tools.
Unfortunately, the growing number of amateur enthusiasts who
are beginning to take to the skies as the technology becomes
both cheaper and more widely available present ever more
frequent opportunities for accidents and injuries. Accidents
are on the rise and the potential for more catastrophic
accidents is looming, according to the author. Geofencing
uses GPS and other technologies to impose geographical limits
on drone movement. The technology has the potential to
prevent drones from flying into areas such as airport runways,
government properties, and in the vicinity of natural
disasters.
2)Drafting error. The author's office notes an error in the
bill. The bill provides for implementation on January 1,
2020. However, the author intends for the delayed
implementation to apply only to the insurance requirement.
The comments below are based on correcting that error.
AB 2724 (Gatto) PageC of?
3)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 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. According to the retail research firm NPD,
drone sales tripled from April 2015 to April 2016.
Drone technology is improving quickly. They are getting
smaller, faster, cheaper, and easier to fly, as well as having
greater range and improved photographic and video
capabilities.
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.
The remarkable growth in drone usage creates issues. 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> The safety of the public on
the ground is also potentially at risk, as drones can crash,
be mispiloted, or simply malfunction. 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.
4)Current drone regulation. The FAA does not permit commercial
drone operation except on a case-by-case basis. In February
---------------------------
<1> FAA Office of the Chief Counsel; "State and Local Regulation
of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS) Fact Sheet"; December 17,
2015.
AB 2724 (Gatto) PageD of?
2015, the FAA proposed regulations on commercial drone users.
Among the proposals was a 55-pound weight limitation,
line-of-sight operation, 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. Those
rules have not been finalized but are expected this year. As
input to those rules, in April the FAA received a report from
its Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aviation Rulemaking
Committee with recommendations for rules governing the
operation of drones above people. That panel, composed
primarily of aviation industry representatives, recommended
that drones weighing less than 250 grams, about one-half
pound, can operate without restriction, but that other drones
could operate over people depending on the level of risk of
injury posed.
In December 2015, the FAA required commercial and recreational
drone users to register their drones if they weigh more than
250 grams. Recent reports indicate that 460,000 drone users
have registered, with many users likely to have more than one
drone, exceeding the number of registered airplanes and
helicopters. (Baltimore Sun, "Small Drones in Maryland,
Nation, Outnumber Other Kinds of Aircraft," May 31, 2016.)
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. Other California jurisdictions,
including the East Bay Regional Parks District and the City of
Rancho Mirage, have enacted their own rules.
5)Fenced out. This bill requires drone operators to install
software to prevent drones from flying within five miles of an
airport if the drone is equipped with GPS mapping
capabilities. This technology is not new; several major drone
manufacturers installed such software in their higher-end
drones beginning last year to prevent them from flying over
restricted areas of Washington, D.C. This technology could be
used to prevent drones from flying over other areas which are
AB 2724 (Gatto) PageE of?
deemed off-limits. SB 868 identified several which should be
drone-free, such as the state Capitol, state parks, and
sensitive infrastructure such as power plants. The author
should consider expanding this provision to require the
technology to prevent drones from flying not just near
airports but to also include anywhere they are prohibited by
law. The author may also wish to consider removing the
prohibition on flying within five miles of an airport.
Federal regulations only require notification for flights
within five miles of an airport. The prohibited space is a
smaller diameter at ground level, which expands at higher
heights, and would be covered in the more general prohibition
against flying where it is prohibited by law.
This bill requires geofencing only for drones equipped with
GPS mapping capabilities. Given the rapidly advancing
technology, it may be appropriate to consider requiring all
drones subject to registration to be equipped with GPS mapping
capabilities, just as cars are required to have certain
minimum safety features such as seat belts, airbags, and
antilock brakes. While this would not apply to the smaller
consumer-market drones which have also have photographic and
video capability, it would help with the bigger commercial
market drones which have the potential to do more damage to
people, aircraft, and property.
6)Jurisdiction. The dividing line between state and federal
jurisdiction of drones is fuzzy. The most recent and directly
relevant guidance is perhaps the December 17, 2015, fact sheet
issued by the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel, cited above.
It notes that "a navigable airspace free from inconsistent
state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance
of a safe and sound air transportation system." Quoting the
fact sheet, "Laws 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." Cited examples include prohibiting
drones from being used for voyeurism, prohibitions on using
drones for hunting or fishing, and prohibitions on attaching
weapons to drones.
The fact sheet notes that mandating equipment or training for
drones related to aviation safety would likely be preempted by
federal law. State drone registration requirements are
barred.
AB 2724 (Gatto) PageF of?
Other areas are less clear. Operational restrictions on
drones, including altitude and flight paths, operational bans,
and any regulations of navigable airspace are areas where
consultation with the FAA is recommended by the fact sheet.
Many of the provisions of this bill create no-fly zones and
impose operational restrictions, which fall into this
jurisdictionally unclear area, neither clearly authorized nor
clearly preempted.
As noted above, the fuzzy jurisdictional lines have not
prevented the City of Los Angeles and the Golden Gate Bridge
Highway and Transportation District from imposing their own
rules.
7)Insurance. This bill requires drone operators to obtain
adequate liability insurance, similar to SB 868 (Jackson).
However, there is no direction as to how to determine
adequacy. The author may wish to consider specifying that the
Department of Transportation shall determine adequate
insurance levels, as is done in SB 868.
8)Harmony. This bill and SB 868 (Jackson) both deal with the
safe operation of drones. While there is no direct conflict,
the authors should consider amending the bills to harmonize
their provisions by using the same terminology, enforcement
provisions, and definitions.
9)Double-referral. This bill has been double referred to the
Judiciary Committee. Given the short timeframe between
hearings, any amendments agreed to in this committee will have
to be adopted in the Judiciary Committee.
Related Legislation:
SB 868 (Jackson) - proposes the State Remote Piloted Aircraft
Act containing numerous provisions regulating the use of drones.
SB 868 is pending before the Assembly Privacy and Consumer
Protection 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.
AB 2724 (Gatto) PageG of?
Assembly Votes
Floor: 54-17
P&CP: 10-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 15, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
Peace Officer Research Association of California
San Diego International Airport
OPPOSITION:
Consumer Technology Association
ACIC (prior version)
American Insurance Association (prior version)
Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California (prior
version)
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (prior
version)
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies (prior
version)
Personal Insurance Federation (prior version)
-- END --