Technology & Infrastructure Innovation 2.4.26

Hey, good afternoon, everybody. Our apologies for a little bit of a disconnected start. Happy to have the first meeting of TII this year. We have two on the agenda. Members of the committee, we're gonna hear nine four nine first from chairman Kemp, and I believe she has a substitute, but I will allow chairman Kemp to speak to that.

And then we're gonna hear nine eight six, which is the PDD bill. So at this time, if it's possible, chairman Kemp.

Comfortable chairs in any building in this complex. So I bring to you today l LC four nine zero nine, s as in Sam. It is a substitute to house bill nine forty nine. This bill came to be because I do live on a 125 acre agriculture farm, and we raise pine trees, and we raise cows. And, the pine trees are much easier.

But something that, has been brought to my attention is people have begun more and more to use drones. And this is something that probably impacts more than just agricultural land, but when you're on your own private property and someone were to fly a drone over, especially in an agricultural operation. For example, it is standard practice to work with the Georgia Department of Forestry to cut trees every so often to reforest the the property. They, they come to maturity. They're they're cut, in accordance to with standard practices for pine trees.

Someone could come and potentially disrupt or misconstrue what is happening on that property. Animals are sick at times. Veterinarians come out and perform various things. Again, that is a livestock agricultural operation. And, again, things can be taken out of context.

Not to be too graphic, but I am a certified artificial insemination tech for cattle. Just a fun fact. You know?

So is that the new AI and TII?

I believe it's the old AI.

The only AI in TII. Alright. Exactly.

And and so, once again, this this could be very much taken out of context. Additionally, when I when I introduced this to my colleagues and asked for their support, representative Osteen talked about that they actually use drones on their property to to spot spray herbicides and and pesticides when things arise in very small areas. She said that she appreciated me bringing this bill simply because someone could come in and destroy her entire crop with coming on their property illegally with a drone. So for those reasons, this bill came to be. The first page, simply number one, simply gives a definition of agricultural land.

On page two, the policy of a local government regarding the testing or operation of an unmanned drone. It just kinda goes through some language. On, page three, it includes, within 400 feet, of or above a ticketed entertainment event. I believe that that, also could come into play for a number of reasons. Rodeos, if you're talking about agriculture, but there's a lot of other things.

The masters and, you know, we have wonderful truist for Braves Baseball and, you know, all those things could certainly be applied. And then furthermore, there was, the reason you have a substitute today is it kinda talks about, on page three towards the bottom. Alright. So sometimes things break down. And the last paragraph, two paragraph one of the subsection shall not apply the landing of unmanned aircraft systems by an operator who is in compliance with federal regulations when such operator deems the landing reasonably necessary to preserve safety including not but not limited to in the event of a technical malfunction.

Malfunction. So if someone honestly is flying a drone on property that they're authorized to fly a drone on, and, I mean, it crashes. Let's have let's just face it. It happens. They're not going to be in penalty of law for doing such because simply it is, it's just an unavoidable accident.

It was in the the best interest of the situation. And there is a penalty for flying without permission and landing and operating without permission on our culture land. It is punishable, for a misdemeanor, and I'm open for any questions.

Thank you, chairman.

Thank you, chairman. Representative Oliver.

Thank you. I'm trying to figure out if there are any other statute that have a specific alternative definition to trespass. What you've done is create a special trespassing statute, and are there any others? And in the in traditional trespass statute, you have to tell somebody to get off your property before you can charge them with a misdemeanor. And here, I don't think you're telling them to get off my property before you can charge them with a misdemeanor.

I could be very, very easily wrong about any of this. So I'm looking around to see if anybody else knows if there's another

Well, the the challenge is these drones are sometimes very long range drones. I'm, you know, I'm on a 125 acres. I may never see the person who is actually physically trespassing or on a public road in landing, taking off these drones. It would be almost impossible, short of me being fast enough to run after a drone. And to keep up to to tell someone, please don't do this on my property.

And people hunt on property all the time without permission and that's they're committing a crime. They're not committing a crime until you tell them to get off the property. I think I'm right about that.

Well, if

you have no trespassing signs up, isn't that telling them to not to stay on the property?

That's a good question.

Additionally, going back to the agricultural purposes, we do have cows. And if any of you have ever been on a a farm or or watched a show, you can easily spook animals with anything that's out of the norm, and you can antagonize animals. You could cause people or the animals themselves to become very hurt. But again, I I don't know how you would notify someone in some manner to not trespass. I mean, surely to goodness, if they're flying a drone over an area they can't see, they'd have to know that they're not in the right place.

Does your bill include flying a drone over the property, or is it just landing and launching? I think it's just landing

and launching. Just landing and launching. Yes. It does say let's see. Yes.

The 400 fetus is is just for the ticket entertainment events. So I guess that might be an I I

think you should definitely be able to prohibit somebody from landing or launching. They're on your property. They're trespassing. Correct. I'm just trying to figure out if

there are any other exceptions to the do not do it rule before you can do a misdemeanor. I'm just trying to figure out if there are any other exceptions to

the do not do it rule before you can do a misdemeanor. I'm just trying to figure out if there question you're asking us.

Representative Oliver, are you done?

I'm done.

Okay. Oh, Representative Cox.

Thank you. I would like to take a second to thank our two representatives from the great state of North Carolina. These are people that were in the chamber this morning, just so you know, right here on the second row. Great people. Questions.

Do and this is a question for anyone maybe. What is the height regulation that a drone can be at? I mean, if I'm walking on my property with a gun, I might think it's a bird. But my question would be, are we able to regulate the height? I mean, when where's your personal property height wise?

Does anyone have an answer to that question?

I think representative Cox, I don't are you this is proffering the idea, like you said, this is land and launch. It's not flyover. The FAA controls flyover.

Yep. Well, I see.

They're the ones that determine restricted space.

Do we know the restrictive space just for our because we're talking sporting events and everything else.

Well, this was excluded. I I bespoke. It's excluding exporting events. I believe that last year, representative Richardson had a bill regarding this.

Right.

And, and it was very specific, and this carves out because he had specific. He had a very specific bill related to that. I think because he lives in a very specific place that has an event every April.

Small little golf tournament.

Yeah. Very small. Thank you.

Representative DeNu.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thanks for bringing this bill. I had a couple of questions. So, first, we know drones have started delivering from Walmart. I you know, actually used one. But how do they distinguish between this particular drone operator distinguish between an agricultural farm or a farm in your case and a residence.

Well, there's probably the reason why this bill is specific for landing and taking off is my guess.

Okay.

Because as it was noted by chair Thomas and, chair Jones, the FAA regulates the airspace above, like, how far or how low which you can fly over. And isn't there I mean, you guys are science and technology. Right? You know more than me on this one. But isn't it true that, basically, all flight I don't know whether it no matter flight I don't know whether it no matter what's flying in there, isn't that regulated in the FAA?

Yeah. In The United States, everything I mean, there's a couple exceptions. There's obviously temp temporary flight restrictions and things like that for but general rule, the FAA controls the the the air. And I think to your question, if you don't mind me answering it, chairman Camp, if you look at the definition of Ag Land on lines 14 to, yep, 14 to 17

Okay.

I think that's how an individual should know if it's ag land or not. Another way to say it is is let's just assume in the middle of Atlanta, this doesn't apply. Obviously, downward showing when we camp set it most likely is going to apply.

Well, realistically, Walmart has no reason to land or take off from a farm unless the portion that was put in at the end, it was an extreme situation, which this bill would not apply to to if it was for the safety of the what the drone or a person involved in the drone.

K. Thank you.

Chairman Crow.

Thank you, mister chairman. Just to to try to help representative Cox's question. So the FAA controls the airspace, and it differs in different areas. Class g is generally uncontrolled airspace, and that's either from the ground to 700 feet or the ground to 1,200 feet depending on where you are. Certain more populated areas around airports down, in the Hampton area around Speedway Airport where I fly out of, That's, that area, class e, goes down to 700 feet.

Other areas, it only goes down to 1,200 feet, and then above that, everything else is controlled. But, you know, class c class b is around the Atlanta Airport, and that class steps up and down. And so everybody who flies a drone now has to get the, basically a license or certification through the FAA to fly that. So

So far away?

Anywhere. Anywhere. Anywhere. But, generally, if you're below 700 feet, that's considered uncontrolled airspace unless you're in, class b, c, or d that goes down to the ground, and that's only in a certain area right around that airport.

And I would like to point out, if if it's okay, mister chairman, that, there is a Christmas tree farm very close to the airport in which you're speaking of, which is the agricultural land.

Representative Evans.

Thank you, mister chairman. My question is, the example you provided earlier, I think that maybe representative O'Stein was concerned about where, you know, someone could spray something over her land and that that being a concern, this doesn't address that. No. Because if it's just takeoff and landing and I'm wondering I guess that goes back because I I hear that and that that makes sense. What is the is this happening where people are launching and landing just launching and landing?

I've had it actually happen on my property.

Okay.

And I don't know the circumstance because I never knew who had the drone. But in representative Osteen's case, they farm hundreds of of acres of row crop land. And essentially someone likely would have to land and take off. The drone very likely would not have the capacity to go deep into her property to do damage. I see.

So that was that was the discussion.

That makes sense. And then my other question, and it may not be a question for you, it may be more along the line of Representative Oliver's question because this is not duty non civil. I'm not sure that this isn't already a trespass. I mean, if you've got a sign and this is I'm I'm thinking out loud here. And and the reason I'm concerned that it might already be a trespass, I wouldn't want us to make a law to to create an extra hurdle for somebody to go through to do something about an actual trespass by making it look like we were setting new standards because it seems like if you've got a new trespass sign on your property that may be the warning and if you're if you're on somebody's property with a drone, if you take off and you land or you spray something, I think that's trespass under just traditional law.

So I'm I'm just wondering if we make it worse.

Well, playing devil's advocate. Just out of curiosity, if the signs that we have face the road, So if someone were to take off from an adjacent property, they may never see the sign if they go straight up and over because we have no signs that are facing the sky. So their argument could be they saw no no trespass signs.

And I I and I I'm out of my depth here. I'm not sure that you ever have to see the sign. I mean, because you could be illegally hunting on somebody's property and never see a sign either, but you're still gonna be trespassing. And ignorance of the law is no excuse, all that stuff. Very true.

I don't know. I don't know. I just want my concern is I just don't wanna make it worse for what sounds like a real problem by trying to be overly specific.

Thank you. That's an excellent point.

Representative, you chairman Crow.

Yeah. To that point that you made about trespass, it could be criminal trespass, but, you know, oftentimes, the person has to be given a warning first. Right? If there's no signage or anything like that. One of the things that that we've been seeing, a lot in some other areas that I work in are drones being launched from random rural areas, agricultural farms and fields and things, and being used to deliver contraband into our prisons.

And so if you are there's a real problem with contraband being delivered into prisons using drones. And it's very hard to track those back. But if you do and it's being launched from a piece of property that's owned by somebody else, that doesn't really do us any good. Right? And so if they are on somebody's land, they may be trespassing, but there may not be anything they can be charged with because they haven't been given a warning to remove themselves from the property.

So I think this would if they're accessing that property and using it to launch a drone from, it would be especially helpful to have some teeth that we could use to stop them from doing that.

That would be a time separate.

They come back and they're launching this drone and coming back, and we don't have proof that they have been we can't say that they dropped something off at the prison. Right? But we know they launched this drone within a certain specific area from the prison. We need to be able to stop them even if we can't, catch them with that certain contraband on the way in.

Representative Emmons, I I I have your your mic live if do you need to respond or no?

I mean, I I I hope that we can catch these folks, but I have a really hard time just intellectually thinking that we won't be able to that that that's a scenario I just find it really hard. That's not the reason that we're having this bill. If somebody's dropping contraband off at a prison and we can't figure that part out, I don't think tracing them back to a empty farm is what's gonna get them. And then we give them a misdemeanor and it doesn't really help. So I get it and and I think that's a real problem that we need to deal with, but I don't think that's what this bill is dealing with.

And I don't think if if we can't get the bigger problem, this is not gonna help us with that. I'm just, I just I'm out of my depth and I just worry a little bit about making it worse and wonder if we might not wanna talk to somebody in the duty non civil world.

Chairman Kemp, would you be adverse to holding this until next Wednesday? Maybe get some of these questions answered, and then we can come back and kind of knock them all out. I promise you, you'll be first again on the committee list and hopefully be able to get this onto rules next week.

Thank you, mister chairman. And I certainly would like to have all the questions answered. Exactly. You know, we certainly wanna make sure we're doing the most prudent thing, and make sure that there's nothing missing from this bill that needs to be included. So and thank you very much for the very alluring offer of being first next week.

So thank you. Yes. And now rep representative Kendrick shouldn't have left because she was first. Now she's second. Yeah.

So that's her penalty. So I'm just kidding. Okay. Alright. Thank you, chairman chairman King.

Alright. Members of the committee, I'm just gonna go ahead and do nine eighty six from here, if that's okay. The the science and technology committee four years ago, took this up, and we effectively put PDDs, into what we now see all over Atlanta and other areas within our state. But if you see what are basically coolers on four wheels moving around, that's what a PDD is. So if that gives you an idea, you'll see in your packet from the Georgia Restaurant Association a letter of support for this bill.

But what we did was and I hope this committee and its legacy of this committee will be when we move something, we come back to it three, four, five years later and figure out, you know, did the tech change? Did things change enough that we wanna go back and revisit what we thought was right four years ago and doesn't need to be, quote, improved now. So what we did was we worked with GDOT, ACCG, GMA in our state, and then we looked at a few other states who had passed PDD bills after us. So we took the lead on it. Others passed it.

A lot of them have moved the speeds to 12 miles an hour. I'll be frank with you. You'll see in the bill in section two, I'm only suggesting a move to seven. My thought was, let's kind of meet in the middle. We're at four.

Others have moved to ten to twelve. Let's go to seven. You'll see with the restaurant association the theory there. But one of the main things for us really is around crosswalks. We wanna make sure that we get folks through what's occurring especially in our areas of congestion.

They're moving, but maybe not fast enough and it's actually causing traffic to back up especially on right turns. So we wanna move them across them a little bit more. Finally, the end of section one, you'll see four years ago, we thought that we should just have an audible sound when it was approaching. Now we're saying it's gonna be constant. Now that does not mean a 90, you know, decibel sound.

So I wanna be assure you guys, it's the same sound, but it's just gonna be constant more along the lines of, you know, 50 decibels. So at the end of the day, what was occurring was we wanna make sure, especially those with disabilities know exactly what's happening and we wanna make sure that that that is constant sound rather than just I'll say when they were approaching. Those are the three changes. Section one is the approaching. Section two is moving forward to seven in subsection two and subsection three.

Other than that, happy to take any questions.

Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for this, Bill. I think it's great that we increase the speed. I'd actually like to see it go up to 12, but incrementally, as we become more dense and as people get used to seeing these devices, we can slowly increase the speed on them. My biggest concern right now is liability.

Should someone get hurt by one of these devices? And it may be addressed in another area of law, but as we increase the speed, the impact of damages is gonna be a little bit greater, especially once we break the 10 mile mile per hour mark, and may actually damage someone riding a bicycle if it sideswipes a bicyclist.

So we basically, our civil law handles that. We we learned about this four years ago in terms of our civil law handling almost all in terms of approximate cause. And then in terms of criminal in terms of criminality, obviously, there's criminal code in terms of who was controlled of it and if they did anything criminal. Of course, I'm not assuming they did, but I'm just saying if that that was to occur. But our current law, both on the civil and criminal side, four years ago, we felt as if we had the guardrails there to be able to do that.

Okay. Okay. Follow-up question.

Sure.

I think our golf carts that are used in some of the neighborhoods Mhmm. Required to have some kind of insurance coverage on them now in Georgia Mhmm. If I'm correct. Would we reach a point with these personal delivery devices in which they would have to carry insurance on it?

So my belief is every one of so Chick fil A, DoorDash, etcetera, are all carrying general liability and all and umbrella policies in terms of not just their PDDs, but I'll just say the other ways, in fact, that they're doing their deliveries and actually how they're doing in restaurant operations. Okay?

Thank you. Okay.

Representative Cox?

Due time, I make a motion, due pass.

Thank you. Hold one second, please. Mhmm. Oh, thank you. But I wanna recognize Whit Park.

I don't want him to feel like he got blocked out.

Thank you, mister chairman. Just, two questions. One of which I think you already addressed, but, the, the emitting sound when in motion or this kinda constant sound component. You know, minors I don't know the difference between 50 decibels versus 90 decibels, but just the concern with respect to nuisance. You know, has this been tested?

There there's and folks aren't concerned with respect to this constant emission of sound and in other states, do they have something similar?

And that's where we got the idea from. So other states have not as long as us, not not the four years, but two and three years and there there have not been quote any issues. The sound is I can't do it that well. If it was up to me, we would be playing something along the lines of Back in Black by ACDC, but I'm told that I'm not allowed to put that into statute. Maybe Stairway to Heaven, you know, but in my mind, no.

It's it's low enough low enough not to be a nuisance, but loud enough especially with those with disabilities to know that there's a PDD around.

Mhmm. And then, again, likewise, you know, I don't have I don't have a physics major. I'm not a physics major, but four miles per seven miles, with respect to, you know, differences in injury if it does run into someone, car accident, what have you. Is there any substantial difference between four miles versus seven miles to your to your understanding?

No. And the reason why is the physics of it. If you've seen these coolers on wheels, I don't know the exact pound, but we put that into the original bill, and I guess I should have memorized that from the original bill, and I apologize. But we have them low enough that just from the physics itself, an extra three miles an hour isn't going to cause, I'll say, significant challenge. Again, I wanna stress, other states are at 10 to 12 right now and we're not hearing a rash of challenges there.

We kept it at seven, so we're still gonna be a good 30 to 40 to 50% lower. I mean, not 50, but 30 to 40% lower.

Thank you, mister chairman.

Okay. Thank you. Representative Cox, I'll rec I'll recognize you for the motion. Yeah. Do pass.

Is there a second?

Yes. I have a second.

I have a second. Any discussion?

All in

favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you very much. And we're adjourned.