BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1662 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 5, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Ed Chau, Chair AB 1662 (Chau) - As Amended March 3, 2016 SUBJECT: Unmanned aircraft systems: accident reporting SUMMARY: Protects people from "hit and run" unmanned aircraft system (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. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires a UAS operator to stay at the scene of any accident involving the UAS that results in personal injury or damage to property; 2)Requires the UAS operator to immediately land the UAS at the nearest location that will not jeopardize the safety of others and specifies that moving the UAS does not affect the question of who is at fault in the accident; AB 1662 Page 2 3)In addition, requires the UAS operator to do one of the following: a) Show valid identification (e.g., driver's license or passport), if available, as well as name and current address to the injured person; b) Locate and provide the owner of property damaged in the accident the name and address of the UAS operator, and show valid identification if the property owner asks the UAS operator to show identification; or c) Leave a written note on the damaged property that includes the UAS operator's name, address, and a statement of the circumstances of the accident as well as notify the police or sheriff's office. 4)Makes violation of the bill subject to a misdemeanor penalty, including up to six months in jail or a $1,000 fine, or both; 5)Exempts from the bill a UAS operated under specific authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in accordance with the terms and conditions of that authorization; 6)Exempts law enforcement from the bill, including police and fire agencies; and AB 1662 Page 3 7)Defines "unmanned aircraft" and "unmanned aircraft system" consistent with federal law. EXISTING LAW: 1)Vests 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. Sec. 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735) 2)Requires, under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act), the FAA to integrate safely 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 (approx. 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)Requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in personal injury to stop the vehicle immediately AB 1662 Page 4 at the scene of the accident and provide to the injured person and any police at the scene of the accident: a) his or her name and address; b) the name and address of any injured passenger; c) the registration number of the vehicle; d) the name and address of the vehicle owner (if different from the driver); and e) present identification, if requested. (Vehicle Code (VC) Sections 20001, 20003, 20004) 5)Requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in property damage to stop the vehicle immediately at the nearest location that will not impede traffic or jeopardize the safety and: a) locate and notify the owner of the property; b) provide his or her name and address; c) and present identification, if requested. If the property owner cannot be found, then the driver must: a) leave a note on the damaged property with his or her name and address along with a statement of the circumstances of the accident; and b) notify the police. (VC 20002) 6)Requires a person who parks and leaves a vehicle which then becomes a runaway vehicle involved in an accident to follow the same "hit and run" provisions that apply to other vehicle accidents. (VC 20002(b)) 7)Requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in personal injury or death to report the accident to the police within 24 hours, but if the vehicle is a common carrier vehicle (i.e., bus, taxi, etc.) then the accident must be reported on or before the 10th day of the month following the accident. (VC 20008) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: AB 1662 Page 5 1)Purpose of this bill . This bill seeks to protect people who are injured or whose property is damaged in a UAS (or "drone") accident by requiring UAS operators to remain at the scene of the accident and provide their name and address along with valid identification to the victim and to the police. Similar to California's vehicular "hit and run" law, if the accident involves property damage and the owner cannot be found, the bill requires UAS operators to leave their contact information on the damaged property. This bill is author-sponsored. 2)Author's statement . According to the author, "Despite the myriad practical applications for UAS, there is an undisputed need for clear rules to protect privacy and public safety as more drones enter the skies." "UAS equipped with cameras, microphones, Internet connections, and remote controls have enormous potential to invade personal space and cause personal injury and property damage if systems fail or operators use them irresponsibly over crowded public areas, such as city streets, parks and public events. "Under current law, motor vehicle drivers are required to stop and provide identification and their contact information if they are involved in a vehicle accident that causes injury or property damage. An involved driver who flees the scene of an accident may also be charged with a misdemeanor if the accident involved property damage or a felony if the accident involved personal injury." 3)What are UAS? The FAA defines a UAS as an unmanned aircraft system and all of the associated support equipment, control stations, data links, telemetry, and communications and navigation equipment necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft. More commonly referred to as drones, a UAS is flown either by a pilot via a ground control system or autonomously AB 1662 Page 6 through use of an on-board computer. 4)Proliferation of recreational UAS and new FAA registration rules . UAS are widely available to the public. Retail UAS devices outfitted with cameras now range from roughly $300 to $1,500. The FAA estimates that nearly one million UAS were sold during the December 2015 holiday season. In anticipation of the influx of UAS in the skies, the FAA issued new rules in 2015 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. According to FAA Commissioner Michael Huerta, who led a March 2016 panel on the future of UAS at the SXSW "South by Southwest" event in Austin, Texas, the FAA now has more than 400,000 UAS registrants, which surpasses the 320,000 piloted airplanes currently registered with the FAA. 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 an accident, for example. 5)Future commercial UAS operation . While mostly still in the experimental stages, the potential commercial applications for UAS are growing exponentially. 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 are beginning to be used in the agricultural industry to observe and measure crops while conserving resources and avoiding the use of heavy equipment. UAS also show great promise for use in commercial delivery and communications. AB 1662 Page 7 6)FAA regulation of commercial UAS in development . In 2012, Congress passed the Act which required the FAA to establish a framework for safely integrating commercial UAS into the national airspace no later than September 30, 2015, and authorized the FAA to establish interim requirements for the commercial operation of UAS. Under the interim rules, UAS operators must meet certain standards and apply for a commercial use exemption and an FAA Certificate of Authorization in order to operate in in "navigable airspace," which is generally above 500 feet. On February 15, 2015, the FAA proposed a new framework of regulations to allow the use of small UAS in the airspace from the ground up to 500 feet. If enacted, the proposed rules would limit flights to non-recreational, daylight uses and would require a commercial UAS pilot to maintain a visual line of sight with the UAS. Congress is currently considering FAA reauthorization legislation that contains a number of UAS provisions, including a proposed requirement that UAS operators pass an online test, a requirement that UAS contain certain safety features, and a new program to fund interception of UAS that fly to close to airports. 7)The federal preemption issue. Once the FAA has finished promulgating regulations governing the commercial use of UAS, a future court may find that those regulations preempt certain state laws - such as this one, if passed - but much remains uncertain. For example, 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 AB 1662 Page 8 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) 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. Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc. 555 F.3d 806, 811 (9th Cir. 2009)The FAA itself recently took a more concrete position on the issue of preemption of state 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: Requiring police to obtain a warrant before using AB 1662 Page 9 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. This bill would appear to fall within the police power, because it establishes safety and accident reporting standards to help law enforcement resolve personal injury and property damage accidents that occur when a UAS crashes with people or property on the ground. As such, the likelihood of federal preemption of this bill would likely be minimal. 1)Recent amendments . The author recently amended the bill to provide a specific exemption for fire agencies under the bill's general exemption for law enforcement agencies. 2)Arguments in support . According to UAS maker DJI Technology, "While injuries and property damage involving drones remain quite rare, AB 1662 ensures that the operator of any drone involved in such an incident can be held accountable. Accountability is an important ingredient to safe and responsible operation, and one that DJI fully supports. Moreover, we applaud the author's approach of modeling existing California law regarding similar incidents involving ground-based vehicles, establishing consistent and predictable policy for operators and local law enforcement alike." AB 1662 Page 10 The San Diego County International Airport (SDIA) Board voted to support AB 1662 because the bill "could assist airports by expediting our ability to obtain drone operator/ownership information, and to determine whether or not there may be a threat to SDIA operations, if a drone is involved in an incident at the airport. SDIA notes "several occurrences of drone activity at, and in close proximity to, the airport" and states "it is sometimes difficult to determine the origin of drones and whether they were being operated by recreational users or by individuals with criminal intentions." 3)Related legislation . AB 1680 (Rodriguez) makes it a misdemeanor to operate a UAS in a way that interferes with first responders. AB 1680 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a 7-0 vote and is pending the Assembly Appropriations 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. The bill also prohibits 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 before the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. AB 1662 Page 11 AB 2724 (Gatto) requires UAS makers to include with the UAS a 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 before the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. SB 810 (Gaines) increases fines for UAS interference with firefighting activities. SB 810 is pending before the Senate Public Safety Committee. SB 868 (Jackson) proposes the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act containing numerous UAS regulations. SB 868 is pending before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (and thereafter the Senate Public Safety Committee). 4)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. 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, AB 1662 Page 12 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 prohibited using a UAS to invade a person's privacy. SB 15 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. 5)Double-referral . This bill has been double-referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee, where it will be heard if it passes this Committee. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Association of California Water Agencies AB 1662 Page 13 California Police Chiefs Association DJI Technology San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by:Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200