BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 868
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Ed Chau, Chair
SB
868 (Jackson) - As Amended May 31, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 25-12
SUBJECT: State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act
SUMMARY: Establishes the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act,
which governs where and how unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) may
operate, and establishes state-level regulatory and enforcement
authority over UAS for the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), the California Office of Emergency
Services (OES), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the
California Highway Patrol (CHP). Specifically, this bill:
1) Prohibits the operation of a UAS in the following
circumstances, as specified:
a) Within 500 feet of critical infrastructure, as
designated by Caltrans in consultation with OES, without
first obtaining the consent of the owner or operator of
the critical infrastructure, unless:
SB 868
Page 2
i) the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
authorized by permit, license, or rule the UAS
operator for a commercial purpose and the UAS operator
complies with the authorization; or
ii) the UAS operator is a journalist acting under
the California Shield Law, which provides protections
to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality
of an unnamed source, and the operator does not
unreasonably interfere with or pose an imminent and
credible threat to the safety or security of the
critical infrastructure;
b) Within 1,000 feet of a heliport, without first
obtaining consent of the owner or operator of the
heliport, or without first obtaining a waiver, exemption,
or other authorization, whether by permit, license or
rule, for its operation from the FAA;
c) Within five miles of an airport, without first
obtaining consent of the owner or operator of the airport,
or without first obtaining a waiver, exemption, or other
authorization, whether by permit, license or rule, for its
operation from the FAA;
d) Within any other area where Caltrans, in consultation
with OES, determines that unrestricted use of UAS presents
an imminent danger to public health and safety;
e) Within the airspace of the state park system, without
first obtaining a permit authorizing UAS use, or the unit
of the state park system being overflown has, by rule or
regulation, authorized the launching, landing, or
operation of UAS;
SB 868
Page 3
f) Within the airspace of lands or waters managed by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, without first obtaining a
permit authorizing UAS use or the Department has, by rule
or regulation, authorized the launching, landing, or
operation of UAS over those lands or waters; and
g) Within 500 feet of the State Capitol or other building
housing state legislative offices and chambers, unless the
operator has obtained a permit or the CHP has, by rule or
regulation, authorized the launching, landing, or
operation of UAS within 500 feet of the building, unless:
i) the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
authorized by permit, license, or rule the UAS
operator for a commercial purpose and the UAS operator
complies with the authorization; or
ii) the UAS operator is a journalist acting under
the California Shield Law, which provides protections
to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality
of an unnamed source, and the operator does not
unreasonably interfere with or pose an imminent and
credible threat to the safety or security of the State
Capitol.
1) Notwithstanding the above provisions, this bill authorizes
UAS operation:
a) In any airspace designated for the taking off or
landing of aircraft at an airport or heliport when the UAS
operator is both authorized to and engaged in taking off
from or landing at that airport or heliport;
SB 868
Page 4
b) Upon or above any property to which the UAS operator
has a right of entry;
c) Above property for which the UAS operator has received
a permit from the California Film Commission provided that
the UAS operator adheres to all terms and conditions
specified in the permit; and
d) In any airspace deemed necessary by the operator to
avoid imminent danger to the life and safety of another
person or the public.
1) Prohibits the weaponization of UAS and the operation of a
weaponized UAS.
2) Prohibits the operation of a UAS in a manner that:
a) Interferes with manned aircraft;
b) Is prohibited by federal statute or regulation;
c) Is careless or reckless that endangers life or
property;
d) Constitutes a nuisance, as specified;
e) Violates an individual's right to privacy under the
California Constitution; and
SB 868
Page 5
f) Constitutes trespass under California law.
1) Requires that UAS must always give way to manned aircraft.
2) Prohibits the knowing and intentional operation of a UAS,
without authorization, in a manner that interferes with the
safe operation of amusement parks or ski resorts, as defined.
3) Requires UAS operators to first comply with all licensing,
registration and marking requirements required by the FAA.
4) Requires every commercial UAS operator and any person using
a UAS with permission from a commercial UAS operator to
maintain adequate protection against liability for payment of
damages for personal bodily injury, including death, and
property damage as a result of a UAS accident.
5) Requires Caltrans to establish, after a public hearing, the
amount of liability insurance reasonably necessary to
adequately compensate for damages incurred through a
commercial UAS accident.
6) Authorizes Caltrans to develop and publicly disclose rules
and regulations to govern the conditions under which UAS may
be operated for the purpose of protecting the public interest
and safety and the safety of UAS operators, and authorizes
Caltrans to make and amend general or special rules, orders,
and procedures and to establish minimum standards consistent
with this bill as needed.
7) Requires Caltrans to cooperate with and assist the federal
SB 868
Page 6
government, political subdivisions of the state, and others
in the development of UAS aeronautics in developing rules and
regulations.
8) Authorizes Caltrans to:
a) Represent the state in UAS matters before federal and
other agencies;
b) Participate as plaintiff, defendant or intervenor on
behalf of the state or any political subdivision or
citizen in any controversy that involves the state's
interest in UAS aeronautics;
c) Assist political subdivisions and their law
enforcement agencies in learning and enforcing the
Caltrans regulations to be developed under this bill;
d) Enter into any contracts necessary to the execution of
Caltrans's powers under this bill; and
e) Exercise any of its powers under this bill in
cooperation with any political subdivision, state agency,
other states or their political subdivisions, or the
United States; and
f) Enforce the provisions of this bill and the rules and
orders Caltrans issues under this bill by injunction or
other legal process in federal, state, and local courts or
using the federal, state or local administrative hearing
process.
9) Makes a violation of this bill or Caltrans' rules and
regulations subject to an infraction with a fine of $250 or
subject to a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $1,000,
and imprisonment of up to six months, or both.
SB 868
Page 7
10)Authorizes an officer of Caltrans and any peace officer to
enforce and assist in the enforcement of this bill, and
authorizes Caltrans to designate officers or employees to
exercise the powers of arrest to enforce this bill.
11)Provides that the provisions of this bill may not be
construed to impair or impede any other rights, causes of
action, claims, or defenses available under other laws and
that the remedies in the bill are cumulative with any other
remedies available at law.
12)Provides that the provisions of this bill are severable, and
that if any part of this bill is found to be invalid, the
remaining parts of the bill are unaffected.
13)Provides that this bill may not be construed to limit any
power of the state or a political subdivision to regulate the
operation of UAS if the regulations do not conflict with the
bill, including any local ordinance that regulates UAS if
consistent with these provisions, nor may these provisions be
construed as prohibiting, restricting, or permitting the
prohibition of the takeoff, operation or landing of UAS,
except as specified.
14)Makes statements of legislative intent regarding the need to
further and protect the public interest in remote piloted
aircraft.
SB 868
Page 8
EXISTING LAW:
1)Vests, pursuant to federal law, the FAA with the authority to
regulate airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic
control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise.
(49 U.S.C. Section 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735)
2)Requires, under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,
the FAA to safely integrate UAS operation into the national
airspace system by September 30, 2015, and to develop and
implement certification requirements for the operation of UAS
in the national airspace system. (Public Law Number 112-095)
3)Requires, under FAA rules, as of February 19, 2016, federal
registration of a UAS before first flight outdoors for any UAS
weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55
pounds (approximately 25 kilos), including payloads such as
on-board cameras, and requires UAS owners to be at least 13
years old to register and to provide name, home address, and
email address. Upon registration, UAS owners receive a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration/Proof of Ownership along
with a unique identification number, which must be marked or
affixed to the UAS. (14 CFR Parts 1, 45, 47, 48, 91, and 375)
4)Authorizes certain persons who are not peace officers to
exercise the powers of arrest under certain
circumstances, if they have completed a specific training
course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training. (Penal Code Section 830.7)
5)Establishes a Division of Aeronautics within Caltrans.
(Public Utilities Code (PU) Section 21001 et seq.)
6)Makes a violation of the State Aeronautics Act a misdemeanor
SB 868
Page 9
with a penalty of up to six months in jail and/or a fine of
not more than $1,000 plus penalty assessments. (PU 24400)
FISCAL EFFECT: 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.
SB 868
Page 10
(Special funds)
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the bill . This bill seeks to comprehensively
regulate UAS use in California by establishing numerous
prohibitions, restrictions, and penalties on the use of UAS
(also known as drones) in ways that would invade privacy,
endanger personal safety, interfere with critical
infrastructure or harm nature. The bill tasks several state
agencies with enforcement of these responsibilities and also
requires commercial UAS operators to obtain liability
insurance in order to mitigate potential harm to people,
property, and nature. This bill is author-sponsored.
2)Author's statement . According to the author: "The development
of small unmanned aircraft systems - known as "unmanned aerial
vehicles," "remote piloted aircraft," or simply "drones" -
promises to revolutionize the way Californians interact with
each other and their environment. Drone technology may
transform the way California's farmers and ranchers manage
livestock and agricultural resources. Drone technology could
also fundamentally alter the way goods move across the state
and greatly improve the capacity of emergency personnel to
respond to disasters.
"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
SB 868
Page 11
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. This bill creates a
comprehensive set of sensible and intelligent drone
regulations that strike an appropriate balance between
protecting public safety and privacy, and encouraging
innovation and technology.
"SB 868 continues to allow local governments to regulate drone
use in their communities, and provides certain exceptions for
operators who have received authorization from the Federal
Aviation Administration to fly in otherwise restricted areas.
SB 868 avoids the threat of frivolous litigation by vesting
primary enforcement authority with the Division of Aeronautics
within the Department of Transportation. The bill also
directs the Division of Aeronautics to work cooperatively with
local governments, state agencies, and the federal government
to enforce this regulatory framework."
3)Growth in commercial and recreational uses of UAS . UAS are
widely available to the public for recreational use. Retail
UAS devices outfitted with cameras now range in price from
roughly $300 to $1,500. The Consumer Electronics Association
estimates that hobbyists in the United States bought 700,000
drones in 2015.
At the same time, a wide variety of commercial applications for
UAS are being rapidly developed and tested. UAS can give the
news media economical and environmentally-friendly access to
aerial views of traffic, storms, and other events when
compared to the current use of helicopters and other manned
aircraft. UAS can also be used in the agricultural industry
to observe and measure crops while conserving resources and
avoiding the use of heavy equipment. And UAS may be a future
delivery system for mail-order and Internet companies as well.
SB 868
Page 12
4)The growing number of UAS incidents causing injury and damage .
While California has had no fatal drone accident to date,
less serious accidents are on the rise. For example, in
October 2015, 647 residents in West Hollywood went without
power after a hobbyist UAS flew into a power line. In
September 2015, a falling UAS in Pasadena cut and bruised the
head of an 11-month old baby in a stroller during an outdoor
movie screening. Also in 2015, during the North Fire in San
Bernardino County, five separate UAS prevented firefighters
from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for twenty
minutes over a wildfire that leapt onto a Los Angeles-area
freeway. Other incidents include drones falling into the
stands at the 2015 U.S. Open, crashing into a moving car in
Canada, and hitting a toddler in the UK that left the youth
blind in one eye.
Between December 2013 and September 12, 2015, the Center for
the Study of the Drone at Bard College collected records of
921 incidents involving drones and manned aircrafts in the
national airspace. 158 incidents were classified as instances
in which a drone came within 200 feet or less of an airplane,
28 of which required a pilot to maneuver the aircraft to avoid
a collision with a drone. ("Drone Sightings and Close
Encounters: An Analysis," Center for the Study of the Drone at
Bard College, December 2015)
Under federal law, operators are prohibited from flying above
400 feet or within five miles of an airport. More recently,
on April 18, 2016, a drone collided with a British Airways
plane as it was coming in for landing at London's Heathrow
Airport - Europe's busiest air terminal.
The FAA's Aerospace Forecast report projects that the number
of UAS in the U.S. will increase from 2.5 million in 2016 to 7
million in 2020 (4.3 million hobbyist and 2.7 million
commercial).
SB 868
Page 13
5)Current regulation of UAS . Under current federal law, the FAA
has broad authority to regulate the national airspace. State
and local jurisdictions may seek a Temporary Flight
Restriction from the FAA to protect public safety for certain
events, such as the Superbowl.
In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012 (Act). The Act required the FAA to establish a
framework for safely integrating UAS into the national
airspace, and authorized the FAA to establish interim
requirements for the commercial operation of UAS. While the
FAA is not expected to finish its final rulemaking for another
year or two, the FAA's interim rules require entities that
wish to conduct commercial, governmental, research or
educational UAS operations to meet certain standards and apply
for a Certificate of Authorization from the FAA in order to
operate.
In February 2015, the FAA proposed regulations on commercial
drone users. Among the proposals was a 55-pound weight
limitation, a line-of-sight operation requirement, 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. The FAA has said it will release
the final version of those regulations in Spring 2016, so
industry experts expect the FAA to publish its new regulations
soon.
However, in December 2015, the FAA issued rules requiring any
UAS weighing between half a pound and 55 pounds to be
registered with the FAA by February 19, 2016. The new FAA
registration rules apply only to "model aircraft," i.e.,
recreational UAS. Upon registration, the FAA issues a unique
identifier, which must be affixed to the UAS in a "readily
accessible and visible manner." The unique identifier can
then be used to look up the UAS owner in the event of a
SB 868
Page 14
problem or accident. Recent reports indicate that 460,000
drone users have registered with the FAA, with many users
likely to have more than one drone. This number already
exceeds the total number of registered airplanes and
helicopters in the United States. (Baltimore Sun, "Small
Drones in Maryland, Nation, Outnumber Other Kinds of
Aircraft," May 31, 2016.)
The Legislature considered 11 UAS bills in 2015, five of which
reached Governor Brown's desk. Only one bill was signed into
law: AB 856 (Calderon), which expanded the scope of physical
invasion of privacy claims to include using a UAS to enter the
airspace over private property for the purpose of taking
photos or other recordings. Governor Brown vetoed several
other UAS bills on the grounds that, "Each of these bills
creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to
characterize and criminalize conduct that is already
proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of
criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without
commensurate benefit."
In the meantime, several California cities and special
districts have enacted their own ordinances restricting UAS
use. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles enacted UAS
restrictions similar to the FAA's proposed regulations. In
December 2015, the city filed the first criminal charges under
the ordinance, citing two UAS operators for interfering with a
Los Angeles Police Department helicopter, causing it to change
its landing path. In Northern California, the Golden Gate
Bridge Highway and Transportation District banned UAS near the
Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the roadway.
Other California jurisdictions that have enacted local UAS
ordinances include the City of West Hollywood, the East Bay
Regional Parks District and the City of Rancho Mirage.
Others, including the City of Encinitas, are considering
adopting UAS ordinances.
6)The federal preemption issue. Once the FAA has finished
SB 868
Page 15
promulgating regulations governing the commercial use of UAS,
a future court may find that those regulations preempt certain
state laws - such as the provisions of this bill, if passed -
but much remains uncertain.
In Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, the Ninth Circuit held in 2007
that federal law preempts state law aviation safety standards
in areas in which the FAA has issued "pervasive regulations."
In discussing the Montalvo case, the Ninth Circuit found that
the specific FAA regulations relevant in the case were
"pervasive" in that they were "specific," detail[ed],"
"complete," "thorough" and "comprehensive" and that this
pervasiveness evidenced Congressional intent to broadly
preempt state law. The Montalvo court held that "federal law
occupies the entire field of aviation safety. Congress'
intent to displace state law is implicit in the pervasiveness
of the federal regulations, the dominance of the federal
interest in this area, and the legislative goal of
establishing a single, uniform system of control over air
safety." Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 473 (9th
Cir. 2007) But two years later, in Martin ex rel. Heckman v.
Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., the Ninth Circuit limited the
scope of FAA preemption and held that state law was only
preempted if the specific area covered by the plaintiff's tort
claim was the subject of pervasive federal regulations. (555
F.3d 806, 811 (9th Cir. 2009))
The FAA itself recently took a more concrete position on the
issue of preemption of state and local UAS regulation.
According to a December 17, 2015, FAA white paper entitled,
"State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS)," the FAA stated that "[l]aws 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." The FAA cited the
following as examples:
SB 868
Page 16
Requiring police to obtain a warrant before using
UAS for surveillance;
Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism;
Prohibiting the use of UAS to hunt or fish or
interfere with someone hunting or fishing; and
Banning the weaponization of UAS.
However, the FAA fact sheet identifies other areas for which
it recommends consultation with the FAA, such as "operational
UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational
bans; any regulation of navigable airspace. For example - a
city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within city
limits, within the airspace of the city or within certain
distances of landmarks."
The FAA fact sheet states further that "federal courts
strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight"
and that "[s]tate and local restrictions affecting UAS
operations should be consistent with the extensive federal
statutory and regulatory framework pertaining to control of
the airspace, flight management and efficiency, air traffic
control, aviation safety, navigational facilities, and the
regulation of aircraft noise at its source."
Many of the provisions of this bill would create no-fly zones,
place restrictions on overflight, and impose other operational
restrictions, which appear to fall into the above category,
which requires consistency with the FAA's extensive federal
regulatory framework pertaining to control of airspace and
flight management in order to avoid preemption.
SB 868
Page 17
Because the FAA regulations have not yet been finalized, it
would be difficult - even for the FAA - to determine whether
and in what ways the provisions of this bill conflict with the
FAA regulatory framework. A coalition of technology companies
and industry associations oppose this bill as premature and
likely to be preempted by the FAA's broad authority to
regulate navigable airspace. Industry experts, such as the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
(AUVSI), contend that while state and local governments may
have authority to regulate in the area of takeoff and landing
of UAS in instances involving public safety and local police
power under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, UAS
flight path and overflight of both manned and unmanned
aircraft are squarely within the FAA's jurisdiction.
1)Requiring Caltrans, OES, CHP, and the Departments of Fish and
Wildlife and Parks and Recreation to regulate UAS . This bill
requires the development of implementing regulations by
Caltrans and involves several other departments in the
oversight of UAS operation in California. Caltrans currently
has a 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 the author contends Caltrans is
therefore the best location to place the broad, new UAS
regulatory duties created by this bill.
SB 868 provides that, along with peace officers, the Director
of Caltrans and the department's officers and employees, as
designated by Caltrans, may enforce this bill and any rule or
order issued under this bill, provided the officer has
received the specified POST training.
2)Requiring commercial UAS operators to carry liability
insurance . This bill requires every commercial UAS operator,
and any person using, operating, or renting a UAS with the
SB 868
Page 18
permission of a commercial operator, to maintain liability
insurance. Caltrans is tasked with holding a public hearing
on the issue and ultimately determining the amount of
insurance necessary to provide adequate compensation for
liability or damages incurred involving operation of a UAS.
Recreational and other non-commercial drone operators are not
required to obtain insurance under this bill, although many
may have coverage through existing homeowners' insurance
policies. AB 2724 (Gatto), which this Committee heard and
approved earlier this year, requires hobbyist UAS operators to
carry adequate liability insurance.
3)Arguments in support . The California State Association of
Counties, states in support of this bill, that "the increased
use of unmanned aircraft technology in recent years offers a
variation of benefits, but also presents a series of
challenges for state and local government regulatory
authorities. The lack of clear regulations with this
technology has led to multiple problems with the interference
with first responders, firefighting efforts, near collisions
with aircrafts, and invasion of privacy. SB 868 takes a
critical step in addressing these issues."
The League of California Cities (LCC) states in support, that
"this measure is a reasonable effort to establish
comprehensive state regulation of [UAS]. It thoughtfully makes
use of existing enforcement resources by identifying state
entities with current law enforcement responsibilities and
tasking them with roles in the regulatory process." LCC
states further, that "there is clearly a need for regulations
in light of the vacuum represented by weak FAA requirements
with respect to recreational [UAS]. The FAA itself has
identified a definite role for local ordinances within the
regulatory framework on [UAS] in its December 2015 Fact Sheet
released by the Office of its General Counsel."
The California League of Conservation Voters states in support
that "The bill limits the use of drones over state parks and
wildlife refuges while empowering land managers to allow drone
SB 868
Page 19
use inappropriate circumstances, like conducting wildlife
surveys or monitoring the health of particular species.
California needs to act swiftly to protect our natural
resources, and SB 868 provides a framework to ensure that
these resources are preserved for future generations."
The California Police Chiefs Association states in support
that, "[UAS] technology is evolving rapidly and it is
important that our laws be updated to protect our citizens'
privacy and ensure public safety. SB 868 provides for both by
establishing clear state guidelines for [UAS] operations,
while empowering law enforcement and state agencies to enforce
these rules."
The City of West Hollywood, states in support that this bill
"will complement the City of West Hollywood's recently adopted
local ordinance...regulating [UAS]. The new ordinance imposes
strict limits on flying [UAS] and specifically prohibits [UAS]
from taking photos, video or audio recordings of people where
they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as their
homes or hotel rooms."
4)Arguments in opposition . A coalition of UAS manufacturers and
industry organizations led by the California Chamber of
Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association contend that
the bill needlessly addresses already prohibited conduct
(e.g., eavesdroppers and Peeping Toms), creates a new
insurance requirement without justification, and is preempted
by federal law. The coalition states that "to the extent
legislation is adopted, it should clarify the scope of
existing law and its application to UAS. State statutes that
conflict with federal law, redundantly address
already-forbidden conduct, or attach burdensome regulation to
UAS operations would undermine innovation and provide a strong
disincentive to the UAS industry regarding future
developmental and educational activities in California."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes this bill and
expresses concerns about how this bill would affect the
SB 868
Page 20
growing UAS hobbyist community. EFF contends that this bill
makes an artificial distinction between non-commercial and
commercial UAS uses, and in doing so "makes operations by
non-commercial operators illegal when the very same operations
would be legal if they were commercial in nature." EFF notes
that while the bill contains numerous exceptions for
commercial operations authorized by the FAA, not every
operation authorized by the FAA is commercial. EFF writes,
"The FAA distinguishes between hobby/recreational and
non-hobby/non-recreational use, not between commercial and
non-commercial. As such, many non-commercial yet
FAA-sanctioned operations will be illegal under S.B.
868-including operations by non-profits, which the FAA has
explicitly said fall under its authority."
5)Related legislation . AB 56 (Quirk) bans the weaponization of
drones and regulates the use of UAS by public agencies,
including law enforcement. AB 56 is pending on the Senate
Floor.
AB 1662 (Chau) protects people from hit-and-run UAS accidents
by requiring UAS operators to remain at the scene of an
accident and provide their name and address along with valid
identification to the victim and the police. AB 1662 is
pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 2320 (Calderon/Low) clarifies that using a UAS to enter the
airspace within which a person is prohibited from entering
under a given protective order is a violation of the
protective order, permits a judge to prohibit a registered sex
offender from operating a UAS, prohibits operating a UAS in a
way that interferes with emergency response in an emergency,
prohibits using a UAS to stalk another person, and prohibits
using a UAS to deliver contraband into a prison. AB 2320 is
pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 2724 (Gatto) requires UAS makers to include with the UAS a
SB 868
Page 21
copy of FAA safety regulations, and if the UAS is required to
be registered with the FAA, a notice of the registration
requirement. The bill also requires UAS with GPS technology to
be outfitted with a geo-fencing feature and requires UAS
owners to have adequate liability insurance. AB 2724 is
pending in the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee.
6)Prior legislation . 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.
SB 142 (Jackson) of 2015 would have extended liability for
wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person
who without permission operates a UAS below the navigable
airspace overlaying the real property. SB 142 was vetoed by
Governor Brown.
SB 168 (Gaines) of 2015 would have increased fines for UAS
interference with firefighting activities and granted civil
immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid
volunteers, and private entities acting within the scope of
delegated authority, that damage a UAS in the course of
providing a variety of emergency services. SB 168 was vetoed
by Governor Brown.
SB 170 (Gaines) of 2015 would have made it a felony to use UAS
to deliver contraband into a prison or county jail and creates
a misdemeanor crime for the use of UAS over a prison or
capture images of a prison. SB 170 was vetoed by Governor
Brown.
SB 262 (Galgiani) of 2015 would have authorized a law
enforcement agency to use a UAS if it complied with the U.S.
and California Constitution, federal and state law, and
provided the local governing board approved the use. SB 262
was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 868
Page 22
SB 263 (Gaines) of 2015 would have clarified that using a UAS
to enter the airspace within which a person is prohibited from
entering under a given protective order is a violation of the
protective order. SB 263 was held in the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
SB 271 (Gaines) of 2015 would have prohibited the use of UAS
at or less than 350 feet above a public school campus or to
use a UAS to capture images of school campus during school
hours without the written permission of the school principal.
SB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brown.
AB 1256 (Bloom), Chapter 852, Statutes of 2014, created a
cause of action for the capture of a visual image or sound
recording of another person with the use of an enhanced visual
or audio device liable for "constructive" invasion of privacy,
and made it illegal, and subject to civil liability, to
attempt to obstruct, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with a
person who is attempting to enter or exit a school, medical
facility, or lodging, as defined.
AB 2306 (Chau), Chapter 858, Statutes of 2014, expanded a
person's potential liability for constructive invasion of
privacy, by removing the limitation that the person use a
visual or auditory enhancing device, and instead made the
person liable when using any device to engage in the specified
unlawful activity.
SB 15 (Padilla) of 2013 would have imposed a search warrant
requirement on law enforcement agency use of a UAS in certain
circumstances, would have applied existing civil and criminal
law to prohibited activities with devices or instrumentalities
affixed to, or contained within a UAS, and would have
prohibited equipping a UAS with a weapon, and would have
SB 868
Page 23
prohibited using a UAS to invade a person's privacy. SB 15
failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
7)Double-referral . This bill is double-referred to the Assembly
Transportation Committee, where it will be heard if passed by
this Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Association of California Water Agencies
California League of Conservation Voters
California Police Chiefs Association
California Ski Industry Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Beverly Hills
City of Camarillo
SB 868
Page 24
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Redding
City of Santa Maria
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of West Hollywood
League of California Cities
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
Ventura Council of Governments
One individual
Opposition
SB 868
Page 25
3D Robotics
Academy of Model Aeronautics
Airware
American Insurance Association
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
CompTIA
Consumer Technology Association
CTIA - The Wireless Association
DJI
Electronic Frontier Foundation
SB 868
Page 26
GoPro, Inc.
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Small UAV Coalition
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
TechNet
Yuneec USA Inc.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916)
319-2200