01 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton Legislative Platform 2016 • ea In regard to the question of federal pre-emption,there is no direct evidence that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) proposed rulemaking contemplates outright pre-emption of state regulation. On the contrary, a Fact Sheet released by the FAA's Office of the General Counsel on December 17,2015 makes specific reference to the parameters that potential state regulations in this area must observe. For example: • No state or local UAS re_istration law ma relieve a UAS owner or o.-rator from c.m.l in: with the federal UAS registration requirements. • No state or local government may impose an additional registration requirement on the operation of UAS in navigable airspace without first obtaining FAA approval (emphasis added). The strongest evidence that the FAA contemplates both state and local regulation in this area is that its December 2015 Fact Sheet goes on to lay out examples of state and local laws in this area that are within state and local government police power. It cites"laws traditionally related to state and local police power, including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations" and explicitly states that such local regulations"generally are not subject to federal regulation"i.e.federal pre-emption. Local regulations may include, but should not be limited to,specific examples which the same document cites: • Requirement for police to obtain a warrant prior to using a UAS for surveillance. • Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism. • Prohibition on using UAS for hunting or fishing,or to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting or fishing. • Prohibitions on attaching firearms or similar weapons to UAS. Cities have a compelling interest in preserving their ability under current law,as interpreted by the FAA. to adopt regulations pertaining to the use of unmanned aircraft systems in the areas of allowable land uses,zoning,privacy,trespass and regulation of their own law enforcement operations. We do not intend to cede this authority for convenience of the industry. Finally,there is ample precedent in the transportation arena of local regulations overlaying both state and federal regulations. For example,automobiles in this country must be manufactured to specific safety and other standards. Within California,there is a requirement for registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of their operators. But there are additional regulations at the municipal level governing their use and literally directing where they may travel. These municipal regulations include speed limits,parking regulations(including periods in which parking is prohibited in certain areas for special events or to facilitate street sweeping),one-way streets,placement of stop signs,stop lights,speed bumps and physical barriers to control access to residential areas. The April 4th amendments therefore represent a clear and present danger to legitimate and necessary local regulation of unmanned aircraft systems, and an unjustified attack upon cities' constitutional police power. We will remain opposed to this measure so long as the pre-emption language of Section 7 remains in the bill. We request that the author strike this language and enter into meaningful discussions with the League and the Police Chiefs as well as industry stakeholders with respect to comprehensive regulation of unmanned aircraft systems that will enhance public safety. If you have any questions regarding our position on this bill,please contact me at(916)6584252. Sincerely, Tim Cromartie Legislative Representative League of California Cities cc: The Honorable Ian Calderon,Member,California State Assembly The Honorable Evan Low,Member,California State Assembly Members,Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection Jennie Bretschneider,Consultant,Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection Jared Yoshiki,Consultant,Privacy and Consumer Protection,Assembly Republican Caucus 39IPage