BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 868|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 868
Author: Jackson (D)
Amended: 5/31/16
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 7-2, 4/5/16
AYES: Beall, Allen, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NOES: Cannella, Bates
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines, Galgiani
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/19/16
AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill establishes rules on where and how remote
piloted aircraft (i.e., drones) may operate.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal regulations require all drone owners to
register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration
SB 868
Page 2
(FAA). Commercial drone operators, but not recreational drone
operators, must also obtain FAA authorization, which is granted
on a case-by-case basis.
Existing state law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
This bill:
1) Prohibits the operation of a drone in the following
circumstances without consent of the property owner or
manager or Office of Emergency Services (OES), as specified:
a) Within 500 feet of critical infrastructure designated
by the OES, unless the operator is an FAA authorized
commercial operator who does not interfere with the
operation of the critical infrastructure
b) Within 1,000 feet of a heliport
c) Within five miles of an airport
d) Within any other area where Caltrans or OES determines
that drone usage creates an imminent danger to public
health and safety
e) Within the airspace of the state park system
f) Within the airspace of lands or waters managed by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife
g) Within 500 feet of the State Capitol or other building
housing state legislative offices and chambers, unless the
operator is an FAA-authorized commercial operator who does
not interfere with the operation of the critical
infrastructure
1) Prohibits the operation of a drone in a manner that:
a) Interferes with manned aircraft
b) Is prohibited by federal statute or regulation
c) Is careless or reckless and endangers life or property
d) Constitutes a nuisance under section 3479 of the civil
code
e) Violates an individual's right to privacy under the
SB 868
Page 3
California Constitution
f) Constitutes trespass under California law
1) Prohibits the knowing and intentional operation of a drone,
without authorization, in a manner that interferes with the
safe operation of amusement parks or ski resorts.
2) Prohibits weaponization of drones.
3) Authorizes operating a drone:
a) Above any property to which the drone operator has a
right of entry
b) Above state property if the operator has received a
permit from the California Film Commission
c) In any airspace deemed necessary by the operator to
avoid imminent danger to the life and safety of another
person or the public
1) Requires:
a) Every commercial operator of a drone to maintain
adequate protection against liability
b) Every drone to give way to manned aircraft
c) Every drone operator to comply with all licensing,
registration, and marking requirements of the FAA
1) Provides Caltrans:
a) Shall develop rules and regulations to enforce these
provisions and shall cooperate with the federal government
and other political subdivisions in California
b) May represent the state in drone matters before
federal and other agencies.
c) May participate as plaintiff or defendant or
intervenor on behalf of the state
d) May assist political subdivisions and their law
enforcement agencies with the regulations
e) May enforce these rules and regulations by injunction
or other legal process in federal, state, and local courts
1) Provides violations of Caltrans' rules and regulations are
subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment by
not more than six months, or both. Appeals of these
SB 868
Page 4
violations shall be made to the California Transportation
Commission. OES is authorized to adopt regulations regarding
the prohibition against operating drones within 500 feet of
critical infrastructure or in any other area where
unrestricted drone operation presents an imminent danger to
public health and safety.
2) Provides operation of a drone in violation of the
prohibition against operation in the state park system shall
be enforced exclusively by the Department of Parks and
Recreation. Violations are either misdemeanors, punishable
by up to 90 days in jail, or a fine of up to $1,000, or both;
or infractions punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.
3) Provides operation of a drone in violation of the
prohibition against operation above lands or waters managed
by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be enforced
exclusively by that department. Violations are misdemeanors.
4) Provides operation of a drone in violation of the
prohibition against operation above the State Capitol and
related buildings shall be enforced exclusively by the
California Highway Patrol (CHP). Violations are
misdemeanors.
5) Provides 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.
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.
SB 868
Page 5
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. 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)." ( FAA Office of the Chief Counsel;
"State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS)
Fact Sheet"; December 17, 2015.) 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.
Comments
1)Current drone regulation. The FAA does not permit commercial
drone operation except on a case-by-case basis. However, in
February 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 by mid-year.
In December 2015, the FAA required commercial and recreational
drone users to register their drones. 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
SB 868
Page 6
Aircraft", May 31, 2016.)
2)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.
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.
This fuzzy jurisdiction has not prevented the creation of
rules in some local California jurisdictions. 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.
SB 868
Page 7
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)Insurance requirement. This bill requires every commercial
drone operator, and any person using, operating, or renting a
drone with the permission of a commercial operator, to
maintain liability insurance. The amount of insurance shall
be determined by Caltrans, after a public hearing, at a level
necessary to provide adequate compensation for liability or
damages incurred involving operation of a drone. Recreational
and other non-commercial drone operators are not required to
obtain insurance by this legislation, although many may have
coverage through existing homeowners' insurance policies.
Commercial liability insurance is generally broadly
encompassing, and large commercial businesses carry such
coverage or have deep enough pockets to cover most liability
or damages. Self-insurance is permitted. More risky are
small or new businesses which may not carry adequate insurance
for the potential risks they pose to the public.
5)Enforcement. The most difficult issue in the bill is
enforcement. Policing no-fly zones or tracking down nuisance
or dangerous drones is exceedingly difficult, given their
mobility and small size. Moreover, despite the federal
requirement, many, if not most, drones do not have individual
identifying markings. Locating the operator of an anonymous
captured drone would be very challenging, given that the
operator may be hundreds of yards away in any direction.
This bill provides enforcement authority to Caltrans, the
Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and the CHP, depending on the location of the
violation. Violations are misdemeanors which could involve
jail time, fines, or both.
SB 868
Page 8
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1)Estimated Caltrans costs in the range of $150,000 to $200,000
to develop and adopt rules and regulations governing the
operation of drones in California, should the department
exercise this authority. (State Highway Account)
2)Estimated ongoing costs, potentially in the range of $300,000
to $500,000, for additional staff to administer and oversee
state functions related to drone operations, including
coordination with state, federal, local, and private entities,
conducting training activities, and updating rules and
regulations as necessary. These costs could be higher to the
extent Caltrans exercises its authority to act as an
enforcement entity (including additional costs for personnel
to undergo specified peace officer training), or to
participate in specified legal actions that involve state
interests related to unmanned aircraft systems. (State
Highway Account)
3)Minor costs for OES staff to coordinate with Caltrans in
developing rules and regulations regarding drone operations
near critical infrastructure. (General Fund)
4)Minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)
to manage enforcement and permitting issues regarding the
operation of drones within airspace over the state parks
system or the lands and waters managed by DFW, respectively.
(Special funds)
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/31/16)
California League of Conservation Voters
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Camarillo
SB 868
Page 9
City of Redding
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of West Hollywood
League of California Cities
San Diego International Airport
Ventura Council of Governments
One Individual
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/31/16)
Academy of Model Aeronautics
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
California Chamber of Commerce
Consumer Technology Association
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Small UAV Coalition
3D Robotics
DJI
GoPro, Inc.
Yuneec USA Inc.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, the development
of small unmanned aircraft systems (i.e., 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
California's natural resources 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.
SB 868
Page 10
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of drone manufacturers and
drone users opposes this bill. They contend that the bill
needlessly addresses already prohibited conduct (e.g.,
eavesdropping and Peeping Tom), creates a new insurance
requirement without justification, and is preempted by federal
law. The coalition is concerned that this bill will deter
future innovation and investment in California in the drone
industry.
Prepared by:Randy Chinn / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
5/31/16 20:45:28
**** END ****