BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 2724 (Gatto)
Version: June 1, 2016
Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Unmanned Aircraft
DESCRIPTION
This bill requires manufacturers of unmanned aircraft to provide
copies of federal safety regulations and information pertaining
to federal registration requirements with any unmanned aircraft
sold or offered for sale in this state, and requires unmanned
aircraft equipped with global positioning satellite mapping
capabilities to also be equipped with geofencing technological
capabilities that prohibit the unmanned aircraft from flying
within any area prohibited by law, whether local, state, or
federal. This bill, commencing on January 1, 2020, requires the
owner of an unmanned aircraft to procure adequate protection
against liability imposed by law, as specified, and exempts
specified commercial operators from the above requirements.
(This analysis reflects amendments to be offered by the author
in committee)
BACKGROUND
The development of small unmanned aircraft systems - known
variously as "unmanned aerial vehicles," "remote piloted
aircraft," or simply "drones" - promises to transform the way
Californians interact with each other and their environment.
Just a few decades ago, small aircraft of this type were the
exclusive domain of hobbyists. Within the last decade or so,
the public has become familiar with the military's use of
unmanned aircraft to accomplish certain mission objectives.
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageB of?
However, in December 2013 when Amazon.com, FedEx, and UPS
announced their plans to integrate unmanned aircraft into their
logistics and delivery services, the possibility of widespread
commercial adoption of this technology became clear.
At present, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the skies
over California is restricted. Congress effectively closed the
national airspace to commercial drone flights in the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.<1> That Act established a framework for safely
integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace no
later than September 30, 2015. The Act does, however, permit
certain commercial unmanned aircraft operations to take place
before the integration framework is implemented. Section 333 of
the Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish
special interim requirements for the operation of these aircraft
by designated operators, provided the aircraft and their
operators meet certain minimum standards and have applied for a
commercial use exemption. To date, several thousand commercial
operators have applied for, and received, permission to fly
commercial drones, including film production companies,
construction, surveying, and inspection companies, and real
estate firms. Recent regulations announced by the FAA on June
21, 2016, could further open the skies to commercial drone
operations through a streamlined commercial exemption and
authorization process. The Act also sets out a separate interim
operation exemption for "public unmanned aircraft," allowing
public agencies like police departments to operate drones upon
application, provided the aircraft and their operators meet
certain minimum standards.<2>
Unlike commercial drone operations, flying an unmanned aircraft
"strictly for hobby or recreational use" is allowed today so
---------------------------
<1> H.R.658, 112th Congress (2011-2012). In general, the FAA is
tasked with regulating aircraft operations conducted in the
national airspace under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103. This authority
extends to unmanned aircraft operations, which, by definition,
are considered to be "aircraft." (See 49 U.S.C. Sec.
40102(a)(6), which defines an "aircraft" as "any contrivance
invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.")
<2> See Section 334 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageC of?
long as the operator pilots the craft in accordance with
specific safety rules.<3> As a result, private citizens are
piloting most of the drones one sees in California today. The
Modernization and Reform Act's safety rules include a
requirement to operate these recreational aircraft "in
accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines," but
the lack of more comprehensive rules establishing clear
boundaries for when, where, and how these craft are to be
operated has raised several concerns. (Alwyn Scott, Americans
OK With Police Drones - Private Ownership, Not So Much: Poll
[as of June 23, 2016].) Indeed,
polling shows just how far this concern has permeated into the
general public. According to Reuters, "[s]ome 73 percent of
respondents to [an online poll] said they want regulations for
the lightweight, remote-control planes," and "forty-two percent
went as far as to oppose private ownership of drones, suggesting
they prefer restricting them to officials or experts trained in
safe operation." (Id.) Even though drone technology is in its
infancy, there have already been disputes between landowners who
have used these machines to traverse traditional boundaries,
including a New Jersey man who shot an aerial drone from the sky
when it entered above his land. (See Steve Beck, New Jersey Man
Accused of Shooting Down Neighbor's Remote Control Drone
[as of June
23, 2016].)
This bill responds to these concerns and others by requiring
drone manufacturers to provide safety and registration
information with drones sold in California. This bill also,
beginning in 2020, requires hobbyist and non-commercial drone
operators to obtain adequate protection against liability
resulting from the operation of a drone, such as insurance, in
order to fly a drone in California. Finally, this bill requires
manufacturers who equip drones with global positioning satellite
mapping capabilities to also equip them with geofencing
technological capabilities that prohibit the aircraft from
flying in areas prohibited by local, state, or federal law.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
---------------------------
<3> See Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageD of?
Existing federal law provides that the Federal Aviation
Administration shall regulate aircraft operations conducted in
the national airspace, including unmanned aircraft operations.
(49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103; 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102(a)(6).)
Existing federal regulations require the registration of
unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft weighing
less than 55 pounds. (14 C.F.R. Part 48.)
This bill requires a person who manufactures an unmanned
aircraft for sale in this state to include with the unmanned
aircraft both of the following:
a copy of Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations
applicable to unmanned aircraft; and
if the unmanned aircraft is required to be registered with the
Federal Aviation Administration, a notification of that
requirement.
This bill requires an unmanned aircraft equipped with global
positioning satellite mapping capabilities to also be equipped
with geofencing technological capabilities that prohibit the
unmanned aircraft from flying within any area prohibited by law,
whether local, state, or federal.
This bill , commencing on January 1, 2020, requires the owner of
an unmanned aircraft to procure adequate protection against
liability imposed by law on owners of unmanned aircraft,
including the payment of damages for personal bodily injuries
and death, and for property damage, resulting from the operation
of the unmanned aircraft. This bill specifies that the amount
of liability protection required shall be set by the Department
of Transportation.
This bill specifies that it does not apply to an unmanned
aircraft operated pursuant to a current commercial operator
exemption issued pursuant to Section 333 of the Federal Aviation
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95 (Feb.
12, 2014) 126 Stat. 11, 75-76) or other commercial operator
authorization granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageE of?
The author writes:
While California has been lucky enough to spare a fatal drone
accident to date, other accidents are on the rise. In October
2015, 647 residents in West Hollywood went without power after
a hobbyist drone flew into an electrical line. In September
2015, in Pasadena, a falling drone cut and bruised an 11-month
old baby in a stroller during an outdoor moving screening.
During the 2015 North Fire, five drones prevented firefighters
from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for twenty
minutes over a wildfire that roared onto a Los Angeles-area
freeway. Some of the other numerous drone crashes include one
into the stands at the 2015 U.S. Open, one onto a moving car
in Canada, and one in the UK that left a toddler blind in one
eye.
The potential for more catastrophic accidents is also looming.
Between December 2013 and September 12, 2015, the Center for
the Study of the Drone collected records of 921 incidents
involving drones and manned aircraft in the national airspace.
158 incidents were classified as instances in which a drone
came within 200 feet or less, 28 of which required a pilot to
maneuver the aircraft to avoid a collision with a drone. . .
Fortunately, technology exists to prevent drones from flying
into unauthorized areas. This technology, known as
"geofencing," utilizes GPS and other technologies to impose
geographical limits on drone movement. By default, a drone
will not fly into "geofenced" areas. 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.
To deal with the growing number of hobbyist operators,
effective December 21, 2015, the FAA requires registration of
any drone weighing more than 0.55 lbs. The $5, internet-based
registration process requires only an email address and a
physical address, and upon completion, operators affix the
given registration number to their drone(s). There are no
safety course requirements. The registration process serves
only to tie the drone to the operator in the event an accident
occurs and the drone is recovered.
This bill, to be known as the "Drone Registration Omnibus
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageF of?
Negligence Prevention Enactment," implements several measures
to promote safety during drone operation, [including the
following:]
requires manufacturers to include in the packaging a
copy of the FAA safety regulations;
requires manufacturers to include in the packaging
information on how to register the drone with the FAA;
requires drones equipped with GPS mapping capabilities
to also be equipped with "geofencing" technological
capabilities; and
by January 1, 2020, requires drone owners to purchase
liability insurance for damages caused by the operation of
the drone, including damages for property damage, personal
bodily injury and death.
1.Tools to prevent dangerous drone use
As noted in the Background, polling indicates that the majority
of Americans are concerned about the lack of sufficient
regulation governing the use of drones. While the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has made some progress toward
regulating the safe use of commercial drones, non-commercial use
- particularly by drone hobbyists - remain largely unregulated
and uncontrolled. This bill would implement specific
requirements designed to acquaint non-commercial drone users
with federal safety standards and registration requirements. It
would require manufacturers who sell drones in California to
provide purchasers with copies of FAA safety regulations and
guidelines, as well as information on how to register their
drone with the FAA, at the point when a drone is received by a
purchaser. Including these materials with drones sold in
California will likely help educate consumers about potential
risks associated with drones, and how to avoid those risks by
following basic safety guidelines. Additionally, these
materials will ensure that consumers are aware of their
responsibility to register their drones with the FAA, and may
even help drive compliance with this requirement.
This bill would also require non-commercial drone users to
obtain adequate protection against liability, at a level set by
the Department of Transportation, to cover losses associated
with their use of drones. Like with automobiles, requirements
to maintain financial responsibility ensure that individuals who
are harmed by another's use of a drone are able to recover
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageG of?
compensation for their injuries. However, recognizing that
there may be insufficient data to appropriately price risk
associated with non-commercial drone use, this bill delays the
enactment of its liability protection mandate until 2020.
Additionally, this bill requires manufacturers who sell drones
in California equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS)
receivers to also equip their products with "geofencing"
technology. Geofencing refers broadly to a technology that
prevents a GPS-equipped vehicle from entering into areas
pre-designated as off limits or out of bounds. This
technological solution ensures that drone users are not able to
inadvertently or intentionally pilot their craft into, for
example, restricted airspace over an airport or military
facility.
Together, these requirements will help ensure that
non-commercial drone users have access to educational materials
regarding the safe use of drones, that they cannot fly into
areas that have been restricted to drone pilots under local,
state, or federal law, and that, should an accident occur,
sufficient financial resources will be available to ensure that
injured parties are properly compensated for their losses.
2.Opposition concerns
A coalition of insurance organizations opposed to this bill
write:
AB 2724 would require all owners to procure insurance against
liability in order to operate a drone in the state. The
evolution of drone technology represents exciting
opportunities for both businesses and hobbyists. Drones will
be used for a myriad of purposes in the future. Like any
innovation, these devices also offer new and unknown risk
based on how they are used. Insurance will undoubtedly be one
part of managing these risks and, indeed, carriers have
already begun to explore how to best underwrite drones-related
risk to protect the public and policyholders.
Statutorily requiring insurance for drone usage, however, is
unwise as there is currently insufficient actuarial data to
effectively calculate risk. Insurers must be permitted to
develop the knowledge, experience, products, and pricing to
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageH of?
insure drone activities. To adequately insure such risks,
insurers need the freedom to develop products and underwriting
criteria for this new exposure. Without the ability to
accurately underwrite, the cost of drone insurance products
will be unnaturally high, deterring use and access to this
developing technology.
Recognizing these concerns, the author agreed to a series of
amendments in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
that would delay the enactment of this bill's protection against
liability provision until 2020, and that would enlist the
Department of Transportation to set liability protection amounts
adequate to cover anticipated losses and claims associated with
recreational drone use. The Committee has not received an
indication as to whether these recent amendments will satisfy
the concerns raised by these organizations.
Support : California Association of Highway Patrolmen; Peace
Officers Research Association of California; San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority
Opposition : American Insurance Association; Association of
California Insurance Companies; Consumer Technology Association;
Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California; National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; Pacific Association
of Domestic Insurance Companies; Personal Insurance Federation
of California
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
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 provides
similar immunity to emergency responders employed by private
entities or who are unpaid volunteers when those emergency
responders act within the scope of authority provided by a
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageI of?
public entity or a public employee. This bill is pending in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
SB 868 (Jackson, 2016) enacts the State Remote Piloted Aircraft
Act, which creates a regulatory framework that allows for the
deployment of drone technology under specified restrictions.
The bill, among other things, limits drone use near critical
infrastructure, heliports, and airports, without permission,
limits drone use over state parks, wildlife refuges, the State
Capitol, or other designated safety areas, without a permit or
permission, prohibits the weaponization of drones, and prohibits
the reckless operation of drones and drone interference with
manned aircraft. This bill is pending in the Assembly Privacy
and Consumer Protection Committee.
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. To use an unmanned aircraft
system, among other things, law enforcement agencies would be
required to develop and make available to the public a policy on
the use of the system, as well as comply with specified laws and
the unmanned aircraft system policy developed by the law
enforcement agency. This bill prohibits a law enforcement
agency from using an unmanned aircraft system to surveil private
property unless, among other things, the law enforcement agency
obtains a search warrant, and would require images, footage, or
data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system
under these provisions to be permanently destroyed within one
year, except as specified. This bill is on the Senate inactive
file.
AB 1820 (Quirk, 2016) 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. A law enforcement agency would be
authorized to use an unmanned aircraft system if it, among other
things, develops a policy on the use of unmanned aircraft
systems that meets specified requirements. The bill would
prohibit a law enforcement agency from using an unmanned
aircraft system to surveil private property, unless the law
enforcement agency obtains a search warrant or express
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageJ of?
permission to search the property, or an exigent circumstance
exists. This bill is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
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
is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Prior Legislation :
SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) would have clarified that the operation
of an unmanned aerial vehicle less than 350 feet above the
property of another, without permission or legal authority,
constitutes trespass. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown.
SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) would have provided that a person who
knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft on or
above the grounds of a state prison or a jail is guilty of a
misdemeanor, except as specified. This bill was vetoed by
Governor Brown.
SB 262 (Galgiani, 2015) would authorize law enforcement agencies
to use unmanned aircraft systems provided such use complies with
certain conditions, including: search and seizure protections in
the U.S. and California Constitutions; federal law applicable to
unmanned aircraft systems; and state law applicable to law
enforcement agency use of surveillance technology. This bill
would also require law enforcement agencies to receive approval
from their local governing body prior to using unmanned aircraft
systems, and would restrict the use of such systems for
conducting surveillance of private property. This bill is
pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) would have made it an infraction to
operate an unmanned aircraft on the grounds of, or less than 350
feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying, a public
school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12
during school hours and without permission of school officials.
This bill would have exempted specified media and news personnel
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageK of?
unless they receive a request from school officials to cease
using an unmanned aircraft above a school, and would also have
exempted law enforcement. This bill was vetoed by Governor
Brown.
AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) would create the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Task Force, which would be required to research, develop, and
formulate a comprehensive policy for unmanned aircraft systems
in California. The task force would be required to submit,
among other things, a policy draft and suggested legislation
pertaining to unmanned aircraft systems to the Legislature and
the Governor on or before January 1, 2018. This bill is pending
reconsideration in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 1327 (Gorell, 2014) would have prohibited public agencies
from using unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use
of these systems, with certain exceptions for law enforcement
agencies acting pursuant to a warrant and in certain other
cases, including when the use or operation of the unmanned
aircraft system achieves the core mission of the agency and the
purpose of use is unrelated to the gathering of criminal
intelligence. The bill would have also required notice by
public agencies intending to deploy unmanned aircraft, would
have required images, footage, or data obtained through the use
of such aircraft to be permanently destroyed within one year
except as specified, and would have prohibited equipping
unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill was vetoed by
Governor Brown.
SB 15 (Padilla, 2013) would have, among other things, required
law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants when using
unmanned aircraft, and would have required that an application
for the search warrant specify the intended purpose for which
the unmanned aircraft would be used. The bill would have also
restricted data collection by unmanned aircraft and would have
prohibited equipping unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill
died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 1524 (Waldron, 2013) would have required any entity that owns
or operates an unmanned aircraft to place identifying
information or digitally store identifying information on the
aircraft. The bill would have exempted model aircraft, and
would have made a person or entity that violates its provisions
liable for a civil fine not to exceed $2,500. This bill was set
AB 2724 (Gatto)
PageL of?
for hearing in the Assembly Transportation Committee, but the
hearing was cancelled at the author's request.
Prior Vote :
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 2)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 54, Noes 17)
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 10,
Noes 0)
**************