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  ****