SB 1327 makes a single, technical edit to Section 21001 of the Public Utilities Code: it removes duplicated words in the statute’s short title and citation line so the Act can be cleanly cited as the "State Aeronautics Act." The bill does not change any regulatory or substantive provisions governing aviation in California.
The change is housekeeping: it clarifies how the Act should be referenced in legal citations, statutory tables, and electronic databases. Because it affects only the short title language, the bill carries no policy, fiscal, or compliance obligations for operators, regulators, or the public.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1327 amends Pub. Util. Code §21001 to correct duplicated words in the statute’s short-title/citation line so the statute reads cleanly as the "State Aeronautics Act." It does not alter any operative provisions or grant new authority.
Who It Affects
Entities that reference or publish the statute—state codifiers, legal publishers, law libraries, administrative agencies, and attorneys—are the primary audience for the change. Regulated aviation entities do not face new substantive obligations.
Why It Matters
Even small drafting errors produce downstream friction: inconsistent citations in databases, misrendered statutory headings, and confusion when cross-referencing. Fixing the short title prevents those administrative and research headaches without changing legal duties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1327 targets one sentence: the short-title provision in Section 21001 of the Public Utilities Code. The bill removes duplicated words that currently appear in the statute’s heading and citation line so that the law can be cited simply as the "State Aeronautics Act." This amendment is textual housekeeping rather than a substantive rewrite: it adjusts only how the law is named on the page.
Mechanically, the bill instructs the codified text to replace the existing string with the corrected short title. There is no change to definitions, powers, regulatory standards, enforcement mechanisms, or deadlines found elsewhere in the State Aeronautics Act.
Because the short title is what lawyers, judges, and databases use when generating references and metadata, the correction streamlines citation practices.Practically, the amendment means that future prints of the California codes, electronic legal services, and state agency references will present a consistent short title. Agencies and publishers that have already captured the older, erroneous text may want to reconcile their records, but they do not need to change substantive guidance, permits, or compliance materials.
The bill does not include penalties, effective-date special rules, or transitional provisions; it is purely a textual correction for statutory accuracy.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Public Utilities Code Section 21001 to correct duplicated words in the statute’s short title so it reads as the "State Aeronautics Act.", The amendment affects only the short-title/citation language and does not modify any substantive provisions of the State Aeronautics Act.
The legislative digest characterizes the change as nonsubstantive—this is a drafting/housekeeping correction.
SB 1327 contains no appropriation, no fiscal committee referral, and creates no new regulatory obligations.
Publishers, legal database vendors, and state codification offices may need to update metadata and citation records to reflect the corrected short title.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Corrects the statute’s short title and citation language
This provision replaces the existing short-title sentence in Section 21001 with a corrected rendering so the law is cited as the "State Aeronautics Act." The practical effect is limited to how the Act is labeled and referenced; the change does not touch any operative clauses that govern aeronautics safety, licensing, or administration in California. For anyone compiling statutory headings or generating legal citations, this is the only change to account for.
Updates for codifiers, databases, and printed codes
Because the bill alters the short title, the Secretary of State’s office, Legislative Counsel, and private legal publishers will update their published texts and metadata. Electronic legal services should reconcile any cached versions to avoid duplicate entries or mismatches in search results. The provision does not require revisions to cross-referenced substantive text, but organizations that surface statute headings (dashboards, compliance manuals) should map the corrected title to existing references to prevent lookup failures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Legal publishers and database vendors — They get a cleaner, authoritative short title to use in metadata and search indexes, reducing ambiguities and duplicate entries.
- State codification and legislative offices — The Legislative Counsel and Secretary of State gain a corrected official text that prevents administrative errata and reduces future drafting corrections.
- Legal researchers and courts — Consistent short-title wording reduces citation errors and simplifies statutory lookups, improving clarity in filings and opinions.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and private publishers — Minor one-time costs to update printed codes, online databases, and internal indexing to the corrected short title.
- Agency legal and administrative staff — Small administrative workload to ensure internal references, manuals, and web pages reflect the corrected citation.
- Law libraries and institutional repositories — Need to reconcile cataloging and digital records where the previous rendering created duplicate or inconsistent entries.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the clear benefits of tidy statutory wording and the administrative friction that even a one-line edit can create across distributed legal information systems: fixing a typo improves long-run clarity but forces short-run updates in many places that treat the existing text as authoritative.
The bill is functionally harmless from a policy perspective but presents ordinary implementation questions that often accompany technical amendments. The main operational work is administrative: updating official code files, search indexes, and agency references.
Organizations that track statutory changes should register this correction to avoid duplicate entries or misapplied string-matching rules in automated compliance systems.
A second practical issue is version control. Even a minor textual correction can produce divergent records across private databases, printed volumes, and archived PDFs.
That fragmentation can create confusion for automated compliance checks, legislative history research, or machine-readable law projects that rely on exact-string matching for short titles or headings. There is no mechanism in the bill to coordinate or notify downstream data custodians; updates will be decentralized and uneven.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.