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 ****