[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DRONES: THE NEXT GENERATION OF COMMERCE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 17, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-870 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Troy D. Stock, Information Technology Subcommittee Staff Director
Michael Kiko, Professional Staff Member
Mike Flynn, Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 17, 2015.................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Michael Whitaker, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, U.S Department of Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 8
John Cavolowsky, Ph.D., Director, Airspace Operations and Safety
Program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. Paul E. Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy,
Amazon.com, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Mr. Brian Wynne, President and CEO, Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Mr. Harley Geiger, Advocacy Director and Senior Counsel, Center
for Democracy and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 48
APPENDIX
Statement of Mr. Chaffetz........................................ 88
Statement of Mr. Connolly........................................ 89
RESPONSE: Whitaker-Faa to Chaffetz QFRs.......................... 90
RESPONSE: Misener-Amazon to Duckworth QFRs....................... 95
RESPONSE: Wynne-AUVSI to Duckworth QFRs.......................... 96
DRONES: THE NEXT GENERATION OF COMMERCE?
----------
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan,
Walberg, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais, Farenthold, Massie, Meadows,
Buck, Walker, Hice, Carter, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings,
Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Duckworth, Kelly, Lawrence,
DeSaulnier, Welch, and Lujan Grisham.
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
I'm excited about this hearing. I appreciate the panelists
that are here today. This is a first in a series of hearings
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee intends to have
as we talk about emerging technologies. One of the great
competitive advantages for the United States of America is our
leadership in information technology. It's our leadership in
creativity. It is the entertainment industry. We lead in a lot
of different areas. And one of the things that the United
States has done, has been a bastion, it's been a great place
for entrepreneurs to come up with creativity and allow those
ideas to enter the marketplace and thrive. And they create
whole new industries. They create literally millions of jobs
and billions of dollars in revenue and income. And there are
also some interesting public policy issues that we need to
discuss.
As you have new and innovative companies and ideas and
products and services that consumers are demanding and that the
public wants, then we have an opportunity, I think, to make
sure that we're fostering that growth and creating an
atmosphere where those businesses and entrepreneurs can thrive.
So today, we're going to start talking about drones, the next
frontier for commerce because it does offer some exciting
possibilities. But it also does create some challenges and some
things that as the public and as a society we need to talk
through.
Right now, drones are being widely used. First responders
are using them to deliver food and medical supplies in areas
hit by disaster. Law enforcement envisions using drones to
locate missing persons. I, in the State of Utah--we have, State
of Utah, for instance, with a very big rural component, where
we have, at times, raging wildfires and massive public lands.
We have people who travel from out of State and want to enjoy
our national parks, like Arches and Canyonlands, and yet they
get lost sometimes. And it's terrain that's very difficult and
very expensive for a helicopter to traverse. Maybe drones are
the way to do that.
Companies big and small are finding new and innovative ways
to use drones for inspecting and ensuring the safety of
infrastructure, railroad tracks, and telecom systems. I think
about Alaska and the pipelines. And there are other great
places where drones can be of great help. These drones are
being used to monitor oil and gas pipelines, as I mentioned,
crops and livestock. They're using them at music festivals and
giving the real estate industry a whole new perspective on
property and real property, as people look at potentially
purchasing things. You have the big, innovative companies that
just a decade or two weren't even a business, weren't even
around, companies like Amazon or Google, who are researching
and developing systems that would allow merchants and customers
to deliver and retrieve packages via drones.
This is a huge, massive opportunity for the United States
of America. On February 15 of this year, the FAA released a
proposed rule on the commercial use of drones. This came after
years of delays on the heels of a June 2014 report by the
Department of Transportation inspector general that criticized
the FAA for being significantly behind its efforts to integrate
drones into the National Airspace System. The IG concluded that
it was unlikely that FAA would meet the statutory deadline of
September of this year, 2015, to integrate drones into our
airspace.
In addition, under current FAA regulations, as well as the
proposed rule, it is very difficult for companies that are
interested in developing transformative drone technology to
even go through the testing of these ideas. Developers have
been forced to either limit their testing to small confines of
indoor spaces in the United States or to test overseas in a
country where the rules are more flexible.
In March of 2014, Google's so-called Project Wing started
testing deliveries of drones but did so in Australia. A year
later, in March of 2015, Amazon began testing drone deliveries
in Canada and the United Kingdom, after months of waiting for
an approval here in the United States of America, so that they
could test real-world environments in the United States.
According to the UAV trade association--and, yes, there is
UAV trade association--every year that integration is delayed,
the United States loses more than $10 billion in potential
economic impact. I recognize that privacy and safety concerns
exist. And I personally share many of those. I don't want my
neighbor flying a drone over my backyard, peering in my window.
And I certainly don't want law enforcement using drones for
constant surveillance, particularly on private property. But
are there appropriate uses for drones in the law enforcement
atmosphere dealing with large crowds and large events, say, the
Super Bowl or a Major League Baseball game or whatever it might
be? Yes, I think there are appropriate uses. But can they be
overused? Yes. And that's why we need to talk about, candidly,
about the parameters of that.
I also do believe that there are states' rights; States
have a say in this. At what point does the airspace start to
become a Federal issue? What is the Federal nexus? At what
point is it a State issue? Because maybe these drones are going
to land. I think the States and municipalities probably want to
have a say in that as well.
But I would like to think that we can get this right. In
fact, we must get it right. The opportunities truly are
limitless. And this is why we're having the discussion today.
We have a leader in the transportation industry, the former
chairman of the T&I Committee, Transportation and
Infrastructure, T&I Committee here in the United States
Congress. He's the chair of our Subcommittee on Transportation
and Physical Assets. I would like to yield some time to Mr.
Mica for his comments.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I'll be brief. You've covered
quite a bit, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for conducting this
hearing, particularly at the full committee level because this
does demand not only the Congress' attention but the Nation's
attention.
Drones are here. And UAVs are here. And they're here to
stay. When we worked on FAA reauthorization back in 2003, which
is not that long ago really, a dozen years ago, we never even
talked about drones. In the last FAA reauthorization, about 6,
7 years ago, we did direct FAA to move forward with rules. And
we--it's important, it's important, first, for safety. I think
we've been very fortunate. We've had some near misses, and
we've had some hits. But I think you can have the potential of
having deadly, involving fatalities incidents with so many--we
now have so many of these UAVs and drones in the air. We now
have thousands of them flying. The rules are sketchy. The rules
of incomplete.
Looking over the progress that has been made and the rule
has been semifinalized. It's not finalized. People have had a
period to comment. But it's still going to take, I'm told, at
least another year to finalize that rule and get it in place.
In the meantime, again, we have the safety issue. Today, we're
focusing on commercialization use of the drone.
And I'm told that we lose as much as $10 billion a year in
revenue for possible use of this, with this technology with
commercial applications. So we can't delay. I think this is
good timing for the hearing. We'll find out where we are with
the progress of the approval and then some of the applications
and then try to stay ahead of the game, which is our
responsibility in Congress, particularly on the
commercialization side and the benefit of the American people.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlemen.
Now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr.
Cummings of Maryland, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing.
This is a really interesting hearing and one that I think
is extremely important. Drones are an exciting new technology
with a lot of potential uses in the not so distant future.
Companies are developing new technologies to use drones to
fight forest fires or even to deliver pizza.
However, Mr. Chairman, I share the same concerns as you and
many other Americans. I want the use of drones to be safe. And
I want to make sure that the privacy interests of the American
people are protected. As with any new, groundbreaking
technology, our regulatory regime has not yet fully caught up
with drones. And existing rules do not fully address the
concerns Americans have. Our goal must be to balance these
concerns in a way that allows for the robust development of
these new technologies while ensuring that necessary safeguards
are in place.
In 2014, there were more than 9.5 million commercial
airline flights carrying more than 850 million passengers in
the United States, according to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. Our aviation system is among the safest in the
world. And, obviously, we must ensure that drones do not
imperil the operation of our commercial airlines. Allowing
drones to fly in the airspace used by commercial jets is a
long-term aspiration rather than an imminent possibility.
However, although the FAA has approved only a small number
of drones to operate in the United States airspace, the
assistant inspector general of the Department of Transportation
has testified to Congress that airline crews have already
reported seeing unmanned aircraft around airports, in some
cases at altitudes above 2,000 feet.
Right now, there does not appear to be a proven technology
to ensure that an unmanned aircraft can act on its own to
identify and avoid other aircraft. There also does not appear
to be a proven technology to ensure that radio links between
drones and their operators are maintained consistently. This
could cause drones to crash or, equally dangerous, fly out of
control. Our aviation system does not allow a wide margin of
error. A system to manage drone traffic, even at low altitudes,
is still in the very early stages of development and is not
really for deployment.
Recognizing the limits of existing technology, the FAA has
proposed new regulations that would allow drones weighing less
than 55 pounds to operate only during daylight hours, under 500
feet, and less than 100 miles per hour. These rules would also
require that drones fly within the line of sight of their
operators, who would be allowed to operate only one drone at a
time.
The use of drones in the United States airspace also raises
significant privacy concerns. Drones have been used to gather a
wide variety of film footage of people and property. They have
been used to gather real-time data on the movements of people
without those people even knowing the drones were present. This
data can be stored indefinitely. And it can be analyzed and
integrated to create very detailed pictures of almost every
aspect of a person's life. These possibilities raise a host of
privacy concerns that have not been fully addressed by current
law or legal precedent.
Once it has been lost, privacy is not easily regained.
Successfully introducing drones into U.S. airspace will require
all parties to strike a balance that threads numerous needles
carefully. I'm confident that this can be achieved. But I'm
certain it will take time and thoughtful analysis.
And I certainly appreciate the opportunity to consider
these issues today. And I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right. We have to get this
right. And we have to get it right in a bipartisan way. And I
look forward to doing that.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I'll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
members who would like to submit a written statement. I now
recognize our panel of witnesses. And we do appreciate all five
of you participating with us today.
We are pleased to welcome the Honorable Michael Whitaker,
Deputy Administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration of
the United States Department of Transportation; John
Cavolowsky--did I pronounce that properly I hope--PhD, he's
also the Director of the Aerospace Systems Program Office at
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Mr. Paul
Misener, who has been with us before, I think yesterday, the
vice president of global public policy at Amazon.com; Mr. Brian
Wynne is the president and chief executive officer of the
Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International--we are
pleased that you're here with us as well; and Mr. Harley Geiger
is the advocacy director and senior counsel at the Center for
Democracy and Technology. He'll give us an interesting
perspective, particularly as it comes to privacy issues.
Welcome all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn
before they testify. So if you would please rise and raise your
right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate
it if you would limit your verbal comments to 5 minutes. You'll
see a light there that will give you an indication. And then
your full written statements will be entered into the record.
We also anticipate that members after the hearing will have
additional questions. We call them QFRs, questions for the
record. We would appreciate your response to those as well.
But for your verbal comments, we'll start with Mr. Whitaker
who is now recognized for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL WHITAKER
Mr. Whitaker. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
Cummings, members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to discuss the safe integration of
unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, as we refer to them, in the
national airspace.
Aviation has always been an industry driven by new
technology. Unmanned aircraft are born from that same spirit of
innovation. As you've noted in your opening remarks, this
technology has thousands of potential uses, from agricultural
to news gathering to firefighting and border patrol.
But it also introduces new risks into the Nation's
airspace. At the Federal Aviation Administration, our challenge
is to allow for this innovation while maintaining the highest
level of safety. I'm pleased to report that we've made great
strides over the past year towards safely integrating UAS into
what is the largest, most complex aviation system in the world.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 laid out a
framework of the safe integration of UAS into the airspace by
September 2015. And FAA has made significant progress in
meeting those milestones. Perhaps most important among these
accomplishments is the publication of the ``Small UAS Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.'' This rule, as proposed, creates one of
the most flexible regulatory frameworks in the world for UAS
operations. We've received thousands of comments to the NPRM.
And we're in the process of reviewing those now. Issuing a
final small UAS rule remains one of our highest priorities.
At the same time, we are taking other steps to enable
industry to take advantage of this new technology now. The FAA
continues to issue exemptions under section 333 of the 2012 act
to allow for commercial activity in low-risk, controlled
environments. Currently, the FAA is, on average, issuing more
than 50 section 333 exemptions each week. We also continue to
work with our partners in government and industry to overcome
the largest technical barriers to UAS integration, while
ensuring the continued safety of the airspace. There is still a
lot to learn about the capabilities and risks posed by UAS.
That is why we are leveraging a variety of research tools to
give industry greater flexibility and provide FAA additional
data that could inform future standards.
In December 2013, the FAA selected six cites to test UAS
technology and operations. These test sites are providing
valuable data to our tech center in New Jersey. And we recently
announced the Pathfinder Program to study UAS operations in
circumstances beyond those currently being approved. For
example, BNSF Railroad will explore the challenges of using
these aircraft to inspect rail infrastructure beyond visual
line of sight in isolated areas.
These partnerships with industry will help us determine if
and how we can safely expand unmanned aircraft operations
beyond the parameters set forth in the proposed rule. Beyond
commercial applications, UAS's have become increasingly
available and affordable to the average consumer, most of whom
are not trained aviators. Accordingly, the FAA is taking a
proactive approach to educate the public on the safe and
responsible use of UAS's. We partnered with members of industry
and the modeling community to initiate the Know Before You Fly
outreach campaign, providing recreational operators with the
information they need to fly safely and responsibly. This
outreach has been successful. And several UAS manufacturers now
voluntarily include educational materials in their packaging.
The FAA also initiated a No Drone Zone campaign to raise
awareness of the prohibition of flying unmanned aircraft near
outside sporting events. In May, we built on that success and
launched a public outreach campaign for Washington, D.C., to
reinforce the message that the city itself and all communities
within 15 miles of National Airport constitute a No Drone Zone.
While our preference is to educate amateur operators about
legal compliance, we will use administrative and enforcement
action to gain compliance when appropriate. Local law
enforcement is often in the best position to respond quickly.
The FAA recently issued guidance to first responders on how
they can best assist us. The United States has the safest
aviation system in the world. And our goal is to integrate this
new and important technology while maintaining that high level
of safety. The FAA has successfully integrated new technologies
in our aviation system for more than 50 years. And we will do
the same with unmanned aircraft. We look forward to continuing
to work with Congress and industry to achieve these common
goals.
Thank you. And I'm happy to take questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Whitaker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. [presiding.] Thank you.
And we will withhold questions until we have heard from all
the panelists.
Next, we will hear from Dr. Cavolowsky. He is the Director
of Airspace Operations and Safety Program at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Welcome. And you're recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CAVOLOWSKY, PH.D.
Mr. Cavolowsky. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
and members of the committee, good morning. And thank you for
this opportunity to testify on NASA's Aeronautics Research
Program and the R&D challenges associated with the operations
of unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace.
NASA's strategic thrust and assured autonomy defines our
vision and approach for supporting the integration of UAS in
the NAS. Our near-term research builds the foundation for the
more extensive transformative changes that autonomous systems
will bring over the mid and far term. UAS and autonomous
systems hold great promise for the transformation of our
aviation system. And we are witnessing the dawn of a new era of
aviation innovation, ushering in flight vehicles and operations
that are unimaginable today and opening up entirely new
commercial markets, much the way jet engines did 60 years ago.
NASA is performing research and transitioning concepts,
technologies and knowledge to the FAA and other stakeholders to
help them define the requirements, regulations, and standards
for safe, routine NASA access. Still, there are significant
barriers and research challenges associated with the
introduction of autonomous systems and technologies into our
aviation system. Addressing these requires the complex systems
to be comprehensibly evaluated to verify and validate they're
operating as designed, thus allowing the FAA to establish
operations and equipment standards.
Now, a significant part of NASA's near-term research work
towards safe UAS integration is focused in three areas: First,
our sense-and-avoid research is helping to determine
performance requirements for a certifiable system to ensure
safe separation of UAS with all vehicles operating on the NAS.
Second, we're developing secure, robust, reliable communication
systems and protocols. And, third, we're addressing the design
of ground control stations and displays to maximize pilot
effectiveness and safety.
Now, to transfer our research findings, NASA has built
effective partnerships with key stakeholders, certainly the
FAA, but the Department of Defense, also the Department of
Homeland Security, and industry and academia as well. In these
partnerships, NASA is playing a significant role, supporting
critical activities from the executive level down to our
subject-matter experts.
Now, for mid-term applications, NASA is researching novel
concepts and technologies to facilitate safe operation of the
UAS at altitudes that are not actively controlled today, such
as small UAS, 55 pounds or lighter, operating at altitudes of
500 feet or below. In order to safely enable widespread
civilian UAS operation at lower altitudes, NASA is developing
an air traffic management-like system called UAS Traffic
Management or UTM. You can think of this much like today's
surface traffic management where vehicles operate within a
rule-based system, consisting of roads, lanes, signs, and
traffic lights. Similarly, the UAS system would provide
services, such as airspace corridors, terrain avoidance, route
planning, and separation management.
Working alongside many committed partners, NASA will lead
the research, development, and testing of the UTM, utilizing a
series of prototypes or builds, each increasing the capability.
In fact, the first build will be evaluated in a demonstration
in August of this year. Also, in late July, NASA is holding a
UTM convention to explore and define the needs of low-altitude,
small UAS operations. Over 500 attendees representing the UAS
stakeholder community, Federal, State, and local government,
and the general public have registered to attend.
So through game-changing, long-term research, NASA enables
growing, sustainable, and transformative aviation systems.
Achieving this through partnerships built upon clear roles and
responsibilities, on long and productive working relationships,
and in close and continuous coordination for the specific needs
of UAS integration. As the challenges of UAS integration evolve
and emerge, NASA Aeronautics will continue to advance the
research and develop the enabling technologies that will assure
the safe realization of the transformative benefits of UAS and
increase the competitiveness of the U.S. Civil aviation
industry.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. And
I'll be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Cavolowsky follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Again, we'll withhold questions until we've heard from all
witnesses.
Let me recognize now Paul Misener, vice president of Global
Public Policy with Amazon.
Welcome. And you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF PAUL E. MISENER
Mr. Misener. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cummings, very
much for inviting me. Drones will provide the next generation
of commercial delivery service when permitted. So policymakers
should expeditiously adopt rules of operation that emphasize
drone safety and system performance. Thank you for your
attention to this important topic and for holding this hearing.
Amazon Prime Air is a future service that will deliver
packages of up to 5 pounds to customers in 30 minutes or less
using small drones, also known as unmanned aircraft systems or
UAS. Flying beyond line of sight, under 500 feet, and generally
above 200 feet for takeoff and landing, and weighing less than
55 pounds total, Prime Air small UAS vehicles will take
advantage of sophisticated sense-and-avoid technology, as well
as a high degree of automation to safely operate at distances
of 10 miles or more, well beyond visual line of sight.
No country in which we have distribution facilities has yet
adopted rules that would allow commercial UAS package
deliveries. So we are working with government agencies to
develop appropriate rules for small UAS operations. Such rules
must allow SUAS operations to take advantage of a core
capability of UAS technology, which is to fly with minimal
human involvement beyond the visual line of sight of a human
operator. Such rules of operation should be proportionate to
risk, setting a level of safety but not mandating how that
level must be met.
Safety is Amazon's top priority, a top priority I know we
share with the FAA and NASA. And we are committed to mitigating
safety risks. Key aviation authorities outside the United
States are rapidly pursuing regulatory frameworks and
operational rules for UAS. Their approach is risk and
performance based and is mindful of the tremendous
opportunities for innovation and economic benefits that UAS
present.
Here in the United States, the FAA also is taking its UAS
responsibility seriously. And Amazon is grateful for the
attention the agency is giving to this new, innovative
technology. The FAA's small UAS NPRM is a step forward, as it
speaks to the need for a performance-based approach to
rulemaking. We are fully supportive of this approach and agree
with it.
At the same time, the NPRM has shortcomings, mostly because
some of the prohibitions maintained are not actually
performance based. And if adopted as drafted, the rules would
not establish a regulatory framework to permit Prime Air
operations in the United States.
More specifically, we respectfully disagree with the FAA's
current opinion that extending see-and-avoid principles to
small UAS, as well as the potential loss of positive control of
small UAS present, ``unique safety concerns,'' which, thereby,
warrant delayed consideration. Although these safety concerns
present particular engineering challenges to be sure, such
challenges are not qualitatively different from the other
engineering challenges facing small UAS designers. So they
should be assessed starting now, ultimately resulting in
performance-based operating permissions.
Granted, regulators here and abroad cannot quickly adopt
actual rules for operation beyond visual line of sight. That
may take time. But American policymakers should quickly propose
regulatory frameworks and rules for future commercial SUAS
operations. Amazon believes that the FAA should act
expeditiously and asks that Congress provide legislative
guidance to the agency and, if necessary, provide additional
legal authority.
First and foremost, SUAS regulations must be risk and
performance based. That is, SUAS rules should take into account
the risks of operation, including, for example, the absence of
passenger and crew, the lower kinetic energy of aircraft, and
the very low operating altitudes, and evaluate how UAS
performance mitigate these risks. Categorical prohibitions--for
example, no nighttime operations or no operations beyond visual
line of sight--make no sense and must be avoided. Likewise,
highly automated UAS vehicles should be allowed to fly if they
meet performance-based safety requirements. And, thus, a single
UAS operator should be able to oversee simultaneous operation
of multiple highly automated small UAS vehicles.
Given the interstate nature of commercial SUAS operations,
States and localities must not be allowed to regulate SUAS that
the FAA has authorized, including with respect to airspace,
altitude, purpose of operations, performance, and operator
qualifications. Uniform Federal rules must apply.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
you and your committee and the FAA to help the United States
expeditiously adopt rules for SUAS operations that emphasize
safety and system performance and, thereby, permitting drones
to provide Americans the next generation of commercial delivery
service safely and soon. Thank you. I welcome your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Misener follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
And we'll now hear from Mr. Brian Wynne, president and CEO
of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
Welcome. And you're recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cummings, members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. I represent the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the world's largest
nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to advancing the
unmanned systems and robotics community.
AUVSI has been a voice of unmanned systems for more than 40
years. And currently we have more than 7,500 members, including
over 600 corporate members. The unmanned aircraft industry is
poised to be one of the fastest growing in American history.
Our economic impact study found that the first decade following
UAS integration will result in more than $82 billion in U.S.
economic activity and create more than 100,000 new high-paying
jobs. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 established
a foundation for government and industry collaboration to
advance this emerging sector.
As part of this, the FAA is currently working on finalizing
rules for commercial and public use of this technology. The
Agency is also granting permission for limited commercial use
on a case-by-case basis under section 333 of the 2012 act. But
more can and should be done.
Despite these positive steps, we need to permit expanded
uses of UAS technology that pose no additional risk to the
airspace system. For example, whether within the context of the
rule, through the reauthorization, or by other means, we need
to allow for beyond visual line of sight, nighttime operations,
and operations over congested areas. Otherwise, we risk
stunting a still nascent industry.
UAS technology is advancing rapidly thanks to collaboration
between industry and government. In order to continuing
encouraging innovation and promoting safety, we need to pass
and sign into law an FAA reauthorization measure before the
current authorization expires in September.
Let me highlight a number of specific directions that we
would like to see reflected going forward. First, the industry
supports a risk-based technology-neutral framework. This means
regulations should be based on the risk profile of a particular
UAS operation rather than the platform being flown. For
example, low-risk operations, such as aerial surveys above
rural farmland, would be regarded as safe with minimal
regulatory barriers, regardless of the specific technology or
platform used. This flexible framework will accommodate
innovations rather than requiring new rules each time a new
technology emerges.
Second, we support a comprehensive industry government
research plan. There is a lot of good work already being done
and better coordination will ensure we're maximizing the impact
of these efforts. While the recently announced Pathfinder
Program and UAS Center of Excellence show great progress, we
need better visibility on how they will fit into the larger UAS
integration picture.
Third, Congress should consider making the FAA UAS tests
sites eligible for existing Federal funding. While these test
sites have been active for over a year, access to funding will
help give industry guidance and an incentive to better utilize
the test sites.
Fourth, we support the development of a UAS traffic
management system. Some commercial UAS operations will occur at
low levels. And this airspace may become complex. A traffic
management system will integrate UAS into the existing national
airspace infrastructure and ensure the continued safety of the
airspace for all users, manned and unmanned.
Finally, knowing that UAS integration must be done in
coordination with the NextGen Air Transportation System, there
is also an opportunity to consider linking the two efforts and
their resources more effectively. We are pleased to see the FAA
recognize the need for more senior-level attention, with a new
director and a new senior adviser position on UAS integration
and look forward to working with those individuals once they
are aboard.
In closing, UAS technology is at an exciting and pivotal
stage, with new applications being contemplated nearly every
day. Unmanned aircraft systems increase human potential,
allowing us to execute dangerous or difficult tasks safely and
efficiently. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify
today. And I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
And we'll get back to you for questions.
Mr. Harley Geiger, he is advocacy director and senior
counsel for the Center of Democracy and Technology.
Welcome. And you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF HARLEY GEIGER
Mr. Geiger. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee, thank you very much for giving me the
opportunity to testify today on the subject of unmanned
aircraft systems, also known as drones. I am Harley Geiger,
senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. CDT
is a nonpartisan, nonprofit technology policy advocacy
organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties, such as
privacy and free speech, while enabling government agencies to
provide security and companies to innovate.
I have three overarching points that I want to make with
regard to drones. My testimony focuses on privacy, although
clearly there are many other policy issues that are associated
with unmanned aircraft. First, unmanned aircraft systems are a
promising technology but have potential to erode civil
liberties by enabling pervasive surveillance.
Second, current laws do not provide strong privacy
protection from government or private unmanned aircraft. And
the lack of privacy protection undermines public trust, which
holds back the industry.
Third, to earn public acceptance of UAS, which will promote
its commercial growth, both government and the UAS industry
should fully address civil liberties issues through a
combination of legislation and an industry code of conduct.
In my time remaining, I will expand on these points. The
CDT wants to see UAS used for commerce, for journalism, for
disaster relief, scientific research, and more. However,
neither the government nor the UAS industry should ignore the
potential for UAS to enable pervasive surveillance that
undermines civil liberties.
Here is a nightmare scenario for civil liberties. Law
enforcement establishes a broad-based drone dragnet that
constantly tracks individuals in populated outdoor areas,
chilling the public's right to free expression, free
association and assembly. At the same time, a network of
commercial unmanned aircraft record footage of virtually every
American who steps out of her home, even if that individual
remains on private property.
This may seem like a far-fetched future to some. However,
few existing laws would stand in the way. And the public does
not yet trust the discretion of the government or the UAS
industry to prevent this scenario from becoming a reality.
When it comes to government UAS, CDT believes that
prolonged, physical surveillance of individuals in public
places violates Fourth Amendment principles. However, the
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Americans have no
expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance. The Supreme
Court has even held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated
when a police helicopter looks into the interior of a private
building through a hole in the ceiling without a warrant.
Bottom line, there's very little protection in terms of
privacy from government use of UAS outdoors. Law enforcement
use is perhaps the most acute concern that the public has with
UAS. And to address the public's concern, Congress should pass
legislation that, among other things, establishes due process
standards for law enforcement use of UAS. And Congress should
limit law enforcement use to instances where the government has
a warrant or exigent circumstances or other narrowly tailored
reasonable exceptions. CDT believes that the Preserving
American Privacy Act from Representatives Poe and Lofgren, as
well as Senator Wyden's Protecting Individuals from Mass Aerial
Surveillance Act, which was introduced today, would provide
strong due process protection without unreasonably burdening
non-law-enforcement uses, such as scientific research. CDT
supports these bills and urges Congress to pass them swiftly.
When it comes to private sector UAS, common law privacy
torts provide Americans with some protection from private
sector UAS out of the home, but only if the conduct is highly
offensive to a reasonable person. However, any government
regulation of private UAS must not violate our First Amendment
right to take photographs from public places. An industry code
of conduct would help provide privacy protections from private
UAS where direct regulation cannot. But it will be effective
only if the industry agrees to adopt a strong and enforceable
code. The code proposed by AUVSI does not cut it.
The code should establish reasonable limits on UAS
collection and retention of personally identifiable
information. And the code should also create a publically
accessible registry of UAS data-collection policies, though
there should be reasonable exceptions for that registry. And
the code should also establish cybersecurity standards to
prevent hijacking and unauthorized damage to UAS systems.
And, finally, CDT recommends that the industry explore
technical measures to protect individual privacy in physical
space, as well as enhanced transparency for private UAS
systems. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. And I
look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Geiger follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I thank all of the witnesses.
We'll go right to questions.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, having been
involved in this a little while, back in 2003, when we did one
of the first FAA reauthorizations, there was nothing in the
bill--it's amazing how technology does change our lives. And
it's amazing how government does fail to keep up with changes
in technology and craft a law to match that. We fall further
and further behind it seems. In 2012, when we did the last FAA
reauthorization, I tried to get specific and hold people's feet
to the fire. And we do that by putting some milestones and
deadlines.
And in the law, we said--for example, Mr. Whitaker--we said
required planning for integration, this is the law that was
passed, comprehensive plan not later than 270 days after the
enactment of this act, the Secretary of Transportation in
consultation with representatives of the aviation and Federal
agencies basically would come up with a plan. Was that deadline
met?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, sir. Both a comprehensive plan and a 5-
year roadmap were developed. They were both published in
November of 2013.
Mr. Mica. 2013. Okay. To further hold the feet to the fire,
and some things have been done, as we pointed out and I
mentioned earlier, we put a deadline, the plan required under
paragraph 1, shall provide the safe integration of civil
unmanned aviation systems into the national airspace as soon as
practical but not later than September 30, 2015. That's the
deadline we put in there. Is that deadline going to be met?
Mr. Whitaker. You certainly won't have full integration of
UAS----
Mr. Mica. But the deadline is not going to be met?
Mr. Whitaker. No.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Okay. When do you predict the deadline will
be met?
Mr. Whitaker. We're taking the issue in manageable bites if
you will.
Mr. Mica. Yes. And you testified that you're granting
exemptions and waivers at a pretty rapid rate. What did you
say, 50 a week or something?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Yes. But is that, that's not what we intended. We
intended for, basically, to have the rule in place by
September. It's not going to be met. Now we're going to do an
FAA bill, guys and gals, and we should hold their feet to the
fire again.
I don't know you hold their feet to the fire because we've
already, we've missed the deadline that we set in here. But
we're going to have to do something. Is there something we're
missing, that we haven't done that could provide you with the
assets to move forward or make certain this happens as soon as
possible? And what is your deadline now?
Mr. Whitaker. We have broken the task into pieces, if you
will.
Mr. Mica. When will it be done, what was directed by law?
Mr. Whitaker. So the rule was issued earlier this year in
February. Comments were closed in April. We received 4,500,
approximately 4,500, comments.
Mr. Mica. All that is part of the record. When will we be
done?
Mr. Whitaker. So the rule, we have to adjudicate those
comments. We'll clear the rule out by the end of the year.
Mr. Mica. 2016? 2017?
Mr. Whitaker. The rule will be in place within the year.
Mr. Mica. Within a year?
Mr. Whitaker. That's correct.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mark that down, staff. We could do a hearing a year from
now and see if they've completed the task.
The problem we have in the meantime is, again, you're
granting exceptions and waivers. It's sort of a spotty policy
that's in place. And some folks talked about addressing risks.
And that's the most important thing, wouldn't you say, is
avoiding risk?
Mr. Whitaker. Safety is certainly our priority, yes.
Mr. Mica. But by the same token, we're falling a little bit
further behind than some of the other countries.
Mr. Misener, what have you seen? This hearing is about
commercialization and moving forward. Are we, is the U.S.
falling further behind? I cited $10 billion, I guess $1 billion
a year for the next 10 years we would lose by not having
commercial rules in place for operation of drones.
Mr. Misener. U.S. planning is not as aggressive, Mr.
Chairman, as it in other countries.
Mr. Mica. Okay. But there are a host of issues, privacy,
and we had this little question here with the staff and some of
us. Who basically is in charge of setting the rules for
privacy? Is it the individual States and law enforcement? Is it
the Department of Justice? Is this an FAA responsibility in the
rules that you're crafting? Mr. Whitaker, maybe you could shed
some light on how we protect people's privacy.
Mr. Whitaker. The President issued a Presidential
memorandum in February designating the National
Telecommunication Information Administration as the lead on
this issue. They have opened for public comment. I think that
has closed. We are certainly a stakeholder in this
conversation, but we do----
Mr. Mica. So we need to call them and ask them when they'll
have their rules in place for protecting privacy.
Mr. Whitaker. They have the lead on this issue.
Mr. Mica. But it is multijurisdictional, it's beyond just
the Federal level to protect privacy, isn't it?
Mr. Whitaker. Aviation has always been a Federal initiative
and preemptive of State authorities, and I would assume----
Mr. Mica. Well, a drone that is operating under 500 feet,
whose responsibility would that be? Also Federal? Or can you, I
mean, local law enforcement is already using some devices, and
other folks are using it. Who controls the--and that's probably
the biggest concern of privacy is somebody within 500 feet over
people's homes, property, surveillance capability of these
drones.
Mr. Whitaker. By statute, even at those altitudes, it's
Federal airspace.
Mr. Mica. Still our responsibility. So we'll wait to see
the development of that and specifics on that rule. I predict
that there will be--you know, sometimes we don't move until
there's an incident. There will be an incident. There will be a
crash. There will be probably fatalities because you have so
many of these things flying. I hope it doesn't take down a big
commercial aircraft. I hope it doesn't have a lot of
fatalities. But I think it's inevitable. How many thousands of
these drones are now flying on the--I've heard different
figures, from several thousand to 20,000 flying.
Mr. Whitaker. I don't know the exact figures. Perhaps Mr.
Wynne does. But I think it's important to distinguish the vast
majority of those are amateur operations. They're not covered
under the rule. And we're prohibited by statute from regulating
that sector of the----
Mr. Mica. So that still remains the primary risk. Did you
want to comment, Mr. Geiger?
Mr. Geiger. To your question on who is in charge of privacy
here, so the FAA is regulating safety. And safety is very
limited, a very limited mandate when it comes to also providing
privacy regulations. So I have some question as to whether or
not the FAA could actually put forth rules on privacy.
Mr. Mica. And that's what's interesting because when we
were talking about this several years ago, when we crafted this
legislation, I was told it was the Department of Justice or a
judicial matter that privacy and it was outside of our realm to
regulate. But maybe in this FAA bill, do you think we should
have, rather than the President set by edict or whatever--
however he did it, what was it, executive order?
Mr. Whitaker. Presidential memorandum.
Mr. Mica. Presidential memorandum. Should we have something
in the Federal law? Final question.
Mr. Geiger. We do think there should be standards in
Federal law. The 2012 bill mentioned privacy exactly zero
times. And the privacy issue has absolutely plagued the
discussion----
Mr. Mica. You said that 2012----
Mr. Geiger. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act.
Mr. Mica. And I just explained to you, when we started down
that path, concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle
about privacy--it's a big deal--that we were told it was
outside our realm; it was really a judicial matter and outside
the purview of the Transportation Committee that was
considering the legislation at the time. So we're basically
without anything except what the President has set forth. And
maybe that should, some parts of that should be codified. Is
that what, that would be a summary or----
Mr. Geiger. Some parts of it. Although what the President
set forth is also quite limited. The Department of Justice
essentially says that, there's some good things in the policy
guidance from the Department of Justice. But it is also very
limited. It says they'll respect laws, they'll use UAS for an
authorized use and harmonized with the Fifth Amendment. But it
doesn't provide any additional protection really beyond what is
in current law. The NTIA process is focused just on commercial
drones. So the NTIA process is not going to touch government
use.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, let's go to the ranking member, Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Geiger, the expectation of privacy, you talked about
that. And certainly we know that in court cases, a lot of the
question comes down to what is expected of the person. I guess
when you have drones, it really broadens the expectation, is
that right? It kind of throws it, it just opens the door to all
kinds of surveillance. Are you following what I'm saying?
Mr. Geiger. I do. And I believe this is----
Mr. Cummings. Can you speak a little louder please.
Mr. Geiger. I do. And I believe that this is how courts
will interpret that in the future. Right now, the Supreme Court
has interpreted the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine
to not include aerial surveillance from the publicly navigable
airspace. And I can only imagine that that reasonable
expectation of privacy standard or in common law torts what
accounts as highly offensive to a reasonable person, I will
only imagine that that will shrink as more and more UAS take to
the skies.
This is one reason why we are arguing that current Federal
law does not provide adequate privacy protection. We should not
just rely on common law or the fourth Amendment, that there
ought to be something in Federal law that provides a due
process standard.
Mr. Cummings. And what would you, if you were trying to put
that law together to try to balance allowing drones to operate
but at the same time trying to maintain some reasonable
semblance of privacy for citizens of our country, what would
that look like? I mean, do you have something that you all,
that you put together that you--what elements would you be
looking at.
Mr. Geiger. There are a couple of bills out there right now
which provide a good starting point, Representatives Poe and
Lofgren's Preserving American Privacy Act, Senator Wyden's
Protecting Individuals from Mass Ariel Surveillance Act provide
good starting points. And both of those bills are focused
largely on law enforcement use. And this is, as I said, in my
opening statement, in part because the public's concern with
privacy and UAS is most acutely felt with law enforcement use.
I don't think that people are quite as concerned with uses for
research, disaster relief, and so forth. On the commercial
side, any regulation would have to be aligned with the First
Amendment and, therefore, will be limited. So I think in
combination of a due process standard and an industry code of
conduct could provide meaningful privacy protection to
individuals.
On government use, we think there ought to, generally
speaking, be a warrant standard with exceptions for exigent
circumstances and other reasonable exceptions for law
enforcement use, as well as a registry of government UAS
applications that is publicly available, much in the same way
that the FAA currently has the registry for small aircraft.
Mr. Cummings. You know, with all of the cameras everywhere
on light posts, on buildings, and, of course, as you well know,
many crimes are solved, people don't even know that they're
being observed. And it seems to me there would be, there's an
argument that with all of that now, the technology out there,
that why would one want to differ from, I mean stray away, from
the idea that a drone is going too far. And just as I'm
talking, I'm figuring out the argument, the drone can follow
you, as opposed to the light post.
Mr. Geiger. We do have civil liberties concerns with a
ground-based, large-scale surveillance system. Our concern is
largely tech-neutral. But drones do have unique capabilities
mostly because of their vantage point. If you're taking about
ground-based CCTV, then if you turn a corner or enter your
fenced-in yard, then the ground-based CCTV can no longer see
you. But it would be very hard to escape the scope of
observation of a sophisticated and high-flying UAS. So the
privacy intrusion is potentially greater.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Misener, can you tell me, tell me about
how Amazon, I just want to know the logistics, how that works.
I mean, what are you all trying to do? Somebody has a package
that they want in Iowa tonight. So what happens?
Mr. Misener. Well, the customer places----
Mr. Cummings. And the package is in Washington. Go.
Mr. Misener. Mr. Cummings, I have 3 seconds.
Mr. Cummings. I just want to picture how it works.
Mr. Misener. It's a very fast delivery system. We have
distribution facilities throughout the country. What we would
like to be able to do is enable that network of facilities to
deliver packages to customers more quickly than is currently
possible using the ground transportation network.
We looked into all different kinds of functionalities of
how to get things to customers on a 30-minute-or-less basis.
And what really works are drones. And so in this way, our
customer will be able to order something off of our Web site
and have it delivered in less than 30 minutes to his or her
home. That means that she doesn't even have to go to the store,
hop in the car, or try to get a delivery truck to bring it. It
just gets delivered to her house.
Mr. Cummings. So it just pops up on a drone right in front
of your door.
Mr. Misener. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Okay. Mr. Wynne, the FAA's proposed
rulemaking lists some----
Voice. We have got a basket of fresh fruit headed your way
right now, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. --potential uses of drones such as crop
monitoring, bridge inspections, and aerial photography. Can you
give us a few other examples of potential commercial use of
drones?
Mr. Wynne. There are, there's all manner of infrastructure
that needs to be inspected in the country. For example, natural
gas pipelines, high-utility, high-voltage lines, et cetera.
That would be another example of large industries that are just
chomping at the bit to embrace this technology. So there's
small uses. There's large uses. There's visual line of sight
when it comes to taking pictures of a house from a different
angle for a real estate agent, all the way through to insurance
companies inspecting after a Hurricane Sandy event what is
going on in a particular area, areas that are inaccessible to
agents, for example, and gaining information as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Cummings. You know, Mr. Whitaker, FAA's mission is,
``to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the
world.'' Can you explain some of the challenges of integrating
drones into our Nation's airspace.
Mr. Whitaker. One of the challenges is we have a much more
complex and diverse airspace than any other country and a
busier airspace. So in addition to four of the biggest airlines
in the world and dozens of hubs, you have business aviation,
you have nearly 200,000 general aviation operations,
helicopters, rescue vehicles that fly in all airspace. So
integrating, instead of just setting aside a space to operate,
but actually integrating into the airspace requires that these
new vehicles be able to stay clear of the existing vehicles. So
detect and avoid, or sense and avoid, that's a major
technological challenge that has to be solved. And you also
have to solve the communications challenge, how the operator
communicates with the vehicle, what the spectrum is that is
allocated for that, and what happens if that link breaks. So
these are some of the technology issues that are being
researched in various venues that we need to fully understand
and then build standards around so we can fully integrate this
into the system.
Mr. Cummings. You know, not long ago, the fellow had a,
flew a drone in the vicinity of the White House. And all of us
were very concerned about that. And I know that that's a
significant concern of many. And I'm just trying to figure out,
I mean, if you've got all these objects flying around and then
you've got a lot of people on the ground and you've got to
protect airspace, it just seems to me like we are headed
towards disaster at some point.
Mr. Whitaker. Well, we're going to try to make sure that
doesn't happen. There are actually very robust technologies
that will allow this to happen, and they're being tested in
various----
Mr. Cummings. That will allow what to happen.
Mr. Whitaker. They will allow the vehicles to stay clear
from humans and other vehicles. We just need to make sure that
that technology is robust enough to incorporate into our air
system.
Mr. Cummings. And I see my time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitaker, I'm glad to see that we have a proposed rule
here. We've been waiting on it for a long time. I serve on the
Transportation Committee, and we've been pushing for this. I'm
excited to see this. And I think it does allow a large class of
operations that, heretofore, have not been able to operate.
Mr. Wynne, can you talk about the types of commerce that
won't be facilitated by this rule, particularly the requirement
that at all times, there has to be an operator that's got
visual line of sight to the drone? Can you talk about some of
the--some of the applications that can't be practiced because
of that rule?
Mr. Wynne. The easy one, as Mr. Misener, the application
that he was talking about earlier, that does require beyond
visual line of sight.
There is all manner of inspections that I was mentioning as
well. BNSF was mentioned earlier, being able to check for split
rails in advance of trains, other infrastructure, et cetera.
And just, if you imagine, one of the early applications, early
adopters of this technology will be agricultural interests,
farmers, et cetera, looking to do all manner of inspection of
their property. Some of these farms are large, of course, and
someone could easily be flying over their property but have
that well beyond line of sight, again, basically flying a
pattern that a computer is controlling, very low altitude.
So these are the types of operations that we think--some of
them are more complex than others. We think that there's a way
to advance the technology, to test the technology. The more
we're flying, again, equivalent level of safety to the current
aircraft system, airspace system that we have today, the more
data we can collect, the more we can test technologies like
detect and avoid, sense and avoid, et cetera. There are a
number of those things, low-hanging fruit so to speak.
Mr. Massie. So, Mr. Whitaker, is there any chance before
this rule comes out to have a category of drones that are
authorized in low-risk situations like agriculture or power
line inspection or rail inspection? Is there a chance to get
something in the rule for that category?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, what we've done while the rule is
pending is we issue exemptions. And we've done over 600
exemptions for commercial operators. And we've done even more
than that for public sector operations, for fire and rescue,
that type of thing. The rule, as you mentioned, will take care
of a very large subset of operations and will allow a lot more
commercial innovation without our involvement.
We've tried to include in the rule the issues where we
think we have a clear understanding of the safety risks and how
they can be mitigated. The issues that are outside of the rule,
like beyond of sight, we think we'll get there, and we're going
to try to get there as quickly as we can, but there are still
technology issues and standards that have to be developed. So
we will have to work very diligently to keep that moving as the
rule progresses.
Mr. Massie. All right. Thank you. On to the privacy aspect
of this, it does present some new challenges. One question that
I have is, should there be a floor? I mean, we're talking about
a ceiling of 500 feet. Should there be a floor for operation of
drones? Do you own the property an inch above your lawn, is a
question that I have. If you have a gate, a locked gate, on
your property and somebody climbs over the gate, your
expectation is they are violating their privacy. What if they
fly over the gate? And what if they're hovering an inch above
the ground?
Mr. Geiger, could you talk to that. From a personal
property aspect, when is your--when are your property rights
being violated?
Mr. Geiger. Courts have generally said that you own a
reasonable amount of airspace above your property. The 400-foot
level is more or less arbitrary. An inch above your property?
Yeah, you probably own that. Thirty feet above your property?
Not sure. And what counts as reasonable, again, as more and
more UAS fill the sky in tens, hundreds of thousands, which is
what we predict in the coming decades, what counts as
reasonable will probably shrink. And it's not clear what the
floor will be.
But, generally, if you can--you have an expectation of
property ownership and as much airspace as you can use. And so
the drone would have to violate your--or reduce a substantial
interest or use in your property in order to be liable for a
trespass claim.
Mr. Massie. Maybe the floor is the range for number 12-
gauge with six shot in it.
Mr. Geiger. You know, it's interesting that you bring that
up because the concept of shooting down drones, I think,
demonstrates the depth of concern that people have. And this is
a privacy-based concern with drones. Now, this happens on a
pretty regular basis. Right? I mean, just--and 2 weeks ago,
there were firefighters that were tending to a house fire and,
in the aftermath of that house fire, used their hose to spray a
drone that was watching them. The drone was not directly over
them. So it was not like a safety issue. But it was watching
them.
And, you know, I'm absolutely not condoning that type of
activity. I think that it's very risky. But it demonstrates the
need for the depth of public concern regarding privacy and I
think the need for a baseline.
Mr. Massie. So maybe we need rules of engagement in terms--
in addition to rules of privacy.
I see my time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must say, we're in the infancy of everything here, the
infancy of regulation, the infancy of the technology. We saw
that when the drones landed--a drone landed in the White House
and indeed on these very Capitol Grounds.
And, Mr. Whitaker, I appreciate that, on May 13, there's a
release that indicates that you're trying to make the public
understand that there's a 15-mile radius around the Nation's
Capitol, that you're not supposed to fly anything. So
everybody's playing catch up here.
Now, on one of my other committees, I must tell you, where
we're really playing catch up is NextGen. So that when I look
at your regulations and it says ``must yield right of way to
other aircraft, manned or unmanned,'' I mean, if we had NextGen
and we knew where even aircraft were flying, then, of course,
then we might expect drones to somehow operate within our
airspace safely, more safely. The assistant inspector general
has testified about the integration of drones into commercial
airspace, and that's what interests me.
Does the FAA receive from commercial pilots each month or
on any regular basis whether they have seen unmanned aircraft
of any kind?
Mr. Whitaker. We do receive reports of sightings of
unmanned aircraft. They typically will come in over the air
traffic control communication network, and we do track those.
Ms. Norton. Are those required to be reported, Mr.
Whitaker?
Mr. Whitaker. They are required to be reported, yes.
Ms. Norton. Have any close calls of drones or unmanned
aircraft with commercial aircraft been reported?
Mr. Whitaker. We--I don't have any recollection of any
evasive maneuvers being taken as a result. Mostly what we
receive is sightings of unmanned aircraft in controlled
airspace, usually near airports.
Ms. Norton. Is there any system of licensing these unmanned
aircraft? I mean, do we even now how many there are in our
country?
Mr. Whitaker. We believe that these typically are involving
the amateur operators of what we tend to call model aircraft,
but the kind that you can buy and operate anywhere. They are
unregulated, and we're prohibited by statute from regulating
that sector of the operation.
Ms. Norton. Should somebody be regulating that sector? And
who should be?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, what we have is we do have areas where
these operators are prohibited from flying. And so they're
wandering into prohibited airspace. So, in that sense, they are
violating law. So our focus, as you have pointed out, has been
to have an education campaign to let people know where they can
fly, where they can't fly. We're working to develop an app that
people can use to see if they're in restricted airspace or
whether they can fly their unmanned air system. And we work
with local law enforcement to give them guidelines on how to
interact with people who are operating in an inappropriate
fashion.
Ms. Norton. In light of these proposed rules, Mr. Misener,
and Amazon's interest it says an operator should be capable of
seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other
than corrective lenses. In other words, I suppose you are
supposed to be within--somehow you're supposed to be able to
see these drones that you have let loose upon the universe.
How's that going to work commercially?
Mr. Misener. Thank you, Ms. Norton. It won't, at least for
packaged delivery services. We don't disagree that it's a more
difficult use case to fly drones beyond visual line of sight.
It is it. It requires a higher degree of automation in
vehicles, and we are working on that. That kind of technology
is being developed. Our respectful disagreement with the FAA is
that we believe that that kind of operation can be considered
right now on the same risk-based approach. The risks are
higher----
Ms. Norton. You think the technology is--the technology
would allow that now?
Mr. Misener. Oh, it's in the works, Ms. Norton. And all I'm
saying is--I'm not saying that the rules for operation need to
be adopted right now, but the serious planning for those future
rules need to be undertaken right out. And what the NPRM did
earlier this year is essentially list that as a prohibited kind
of a category of operation. And what we're trying to say is
that that ought to be considered right now, just like other
countries are considering beyond-visual-line-of-sight
operations right now.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Whitaker, this notion of lost link
scenarios, what's the current state of technology on the links
between the operator and the drone and the possibility of the
drone getting beyond the vision or, for that matter, the
control? I'm sure that the drone that went into the White House
grounds was beyond his control, for example.
Mr. Whitaker. So there's research that goes on. There's a
lot of research that goes on at NASA, at DOD, various sectors,
on loss of control. We have a center of excellence now at
Mississippi State, where there'll be research along these
lines. And as I mentioned----
Ms. Norton. I mean, if you see a drone going too far, is
the technology now such that you can call it back?
Mr. Whitaker. There is technology there that can be used
for that. And that is the technology that's being tested. As
that technology is tested, we also have to develop standards
for operation, particularly in the radio communications
spectrum and how that gets defined.
Ms. Norton. Standards, for example, that would link--that
would make sure that you didn't lose--lose control of your own
unmanned aircraft.
Mr. Whitaker. Right. And there are procedures that could be
followed when that happens.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank each of your for your testimony.
Mr. Misener, let me come to you because I think you were
indicating that the United States is falling behind on this
particular use of drone technology to some of competition that
may be in Europe and other places. Is that correct?
Mr. Misener. Yes, Mr. Meadows, it is.
Mr. Meadows. So if we are falling behind--obviously, Mr.
Whitaker says, we have a vary complex air system, which I would
agree with that, more complex than Europe--but from a
regulatory standpoint, do you see that we could perhaps have
had in this rulemaking going a little bit further to anticipate
new technology to allow for greater innovation so that we don't
get beat out by our competition in other parts of the world?
Mr. Misener. Yes, Mr. Meadows. I firmly believe that, and I
acknowledge that the U.S. airspace is complicated. But it's
also complicated around Heathrow and other places around the
world. And so we need to acknowledge that other countries are
just taking a more forward-looking planning approach. Again, I
don't blame the FAA for not having rules in place. This is a
big challenge, and NASA and the FAA and private industry are
working together to address the technical challenges. What I'm
suggesting is that the risk-based approach taken throughout
much of the NPRM also could be applied to these beyond-visual-
line-of-sight and highly automated operations that we foresee.
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Whitaker, let me come back to you,
then. I serve on the T&I committee. We've had a number of
hearings, and we've talked about these six regional test areas
across the United States. And what I have found interesting is,
as we have come out with this proposed rule, is that most of
this seems to be a rule that is looking backwards, not forward.
For example, I mean, looking at not being able to operate these
other than line of sight or at night is extremely shortsighted,
I believe, in terms of a rule. And so it's almost like in order
to meet some of the deadlines, you've put forth a rule that is
very restrictive instead of really saying that if there's the
technology, which we have the technology, to manage this other
than line of sight, could we not do that in a safe manner?
Mr. Whitaker. So we had a lot of debate around this as the
rule was put together, and I think initially there was an
attempt to boil the ocean, if you will, and take on all
possible issues in the rule. And the decision was made to come
up with a less onerous rule that covers the majority of the
types of operations that we know people want to undertake, that
the technology is there, it's proven, and it can happen.
So we defined an envelope of operation, if you will, and
the things that are in that envelope, it will unleash a lot of
the commercial needs that's there. The issues that are still
out there to be worked out and to have standards built around,
we do have regulatory tools to allow those to go forward
without waiting for a rulemaking through exemption.
Mr. Meadows. But, Mr. Whitaker, if we're talking about--you
say that it would provide for most of what we're talking about,
I would disagree with that if we're talking about line of
sight. Because what Mr. Misener and Mr. Wynne are talking about
really is not line of sight.
You know, Doctor, you know, you work for NASA. Can you put
something out in space or on the moon without--in a safe way
and do it without line of sight?
Mr. Cavolowsky. Well, I work----
Mr. Meadows. Be careful how you answer.
Mr. Cavolowsky. Working in the aeronautics mission at NASA,
I won't speak to the space applications.
Mr. Meadows. Well, can't some of your colleagues do that, I
guess? I mean, do they have to view that the whole way to where
it lands in order for it to be safe?
Mr. Cavolowsky. That is certainly not the case.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So I guess, Mr. Whitaker, coming back to
you, I'm going to encourage you, as we are looking for a FAA
re-auth in less than 60 days, I am encouraging you to be a
little bit more forward thinking as it comes to the line of
sight and some of the technology that is available to us
today--the stakeholders, I mean, it's all over--and because if
not, your regulations become the throttle or the choke that
keeps innovation from moving us forward, and ultimately, we
will lose out to competition abroad. Do I have your commitment
that you will look at that aggressively?
Mr. Whitaker. We will. And I think granting the BNSF
Railroad authority to operate beyond line of sight is part of
that effort to lean forward.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panel members for your help this
morning. I think all of your have contributed well to this--to
the understanding that we are gaining regarding this
technology.
Mr. Geiger, I think some of the ramifications that you've
brought to mind are very, very helpful.
Mr. Whitaker, the problem that I have, the greatest concern
I have is the interface or the fit between FAA and a technology
which might become ubiquitous at some point in the near future.
And in your testimony or in one of your answers, you said that
the system being developed will allows us to keep drones away
from people and other sensitive areas.
The problem I have is with what you're doing now with
aircraft. I represent Logan Airport, that area, myself and Mr.
Capuano from Boston, in the Eighth and Seventh Districts, we
represent a semicircle around the airport. So we're airport
communities. And I hate to put this on you, but I would have to
say that out of all the--of all the agencies that we deal with
on this committee--and we deal with everybody, NSA, CIA, DOD,
you know, Defense Department and others, IRS--FAA is probably
the most unresponsive agency that we deal with in government
from this committee. And that's just a fact. And I want to give
an example.
I am--the FAA has adopted a--since 2013, has adopted a new
navigation system around airports, NextGen RNAV, they call it.
I don't know what that means. But I do know that the result of
that program is that instead of flights being spread out over a
number of communities, which I represent all of them, and Mike
does too, Mike Capuano, now we have a different system where we
have a tractor beam system where all of the flights come over
the same, I swear, square foot of land, every day, every night.
And so the people who live underneath that tractor beam, I'm
worried about their health. Based on the volume and the spirit
of the calls that I get continually from those neighborhoods
and those towns, this system is not working. And it is
detrimental to their health. So, as an elected Representative,
I tried to get a meeting with the FAA in the town of Milton,
Massachusetts, which is under that tractor beam. And I wrote a
letter to Mr. Huerta, who is the regional administrator in my
area. He refused to come. First, they agreed to come in the
meeting that I had with them, and then, once they got out of
the meeting, they changed their mind and said they'd never
agree to that.
So I'm trying to get FAA--look, I understand how difficult
it is to operate, you know, the airport and do your job, but we
have a basic responsibility to meet with the people that we
work for. And some of the folks at FAA have said: Those folks
have yelled at us.
They have yelled at me too. That's--that's part of the job.
And sometimes they have a good reason to yell at me and you,
and I think they have one now.
But so I have been so frustrated with this process of just
getting a meeting in the town of Milton that I had to go on the
floor the other day and put an amendment on the floor to cut
$25 million from FAA's budget because we give you money to do
outreach. Well, outreach is not happening in the Eighth
Congressional District of Massachusetts, I can tell you right
now. So I figured since you're not doing that job, I'll take
that money and put it somewhere else where somebody will
actually use it. So that's where we're at right now, you and me
and Mr. Capuano and the FAA.
You're not treating--you know, I don't mind being dissed
myself. I can deal with that. That's--look, Congress'
popularity is at 6 percent. I'm used to that. However, when you
refuse to meet with the people that I represent, then I get
mad. I can't have that. Nobody here can have that. We all
represent--look, I represent 727,514 people. Those are my
bosses. I go to work for them every single day, and I can't get
a meeting with a group of them and the FAA. So we got a
problem.
And now here we are talking about, like I said, this new
technology at some point could become ubiquitous. So I'm
nervous because when we have a problem with drones, I'm going
to have to go to the FAA for a meeting. And they're probably
going to tell me: Sorry, pal. You know, we're busy. We can't
meet with you.
I can't have that answer.
All right. So you got 3 seconds to answer me.
Mr. Whitaker. Okay. So, first of all, I apologize if the
FAA has been unresponsive.
Mr. Lynch. Apology accepted.
Mr. Whitaker. I'm not familiar with the issue, but I will
vow to get back with you directly with a response to that. And
I think community outreach and engagement is one of the most
important things that we do. And if we don't do it,
particularly as we redesign airspace, it does lead to trouble.
So let me make sure that we get back with you shortly.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker.
I appreciate the chairman's indulgence. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. All politics is local.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Wait a second. Mr. Walker was next. I apologize.
You haven't been heard, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Hice.
Mr. Mica. I'm sorry, but you are recognized, Mr. Walker.
And we'll get to Hice next.
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much.
As a member on the Committee of Homeland Security, we have
had several classified briefings as far as the concerns, even
locally and regionally. And I know there's a lot of issues that
have to be worked out, particularly with the UAVs and UAS's.
I want to take a little bit of a turn here and talk about
some of the pros, some of the positives, from possibly the new
technology as we move forward. I always--if you look back
historically, anytime there's something that's new that
developed, there's always a lit bit of a pushback and a
reactionary--even in my 46 years, I can remember several
different times--timelines when it comes to technological based
industry or other aspects.
I want to talk about--maybe start with Mr. Wynne. According
to your data and your department there, believes that the U.S.
Could be in line to lose more than $10 billion in potential
economic impact every year that U.S. integration is delayed.
Would you take just a minute to speak to that. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir. And that's in the community that I
represent, the commercial--commercial UAS community. That
goes--I think there's additional value to--that can be added to
other industries that want to utilize the technology that go on
top of that.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Mr. Misener, what steps--well, let me
back up just a little bit.
According to Amazon Prime Air, you have been doing more
testing in other countries. Can you speak to that as--do you
have less restrictions? Why is--why do you seem to be doing a
little bit more testing in other countries as opposed to here?
Mr. Misener. Thank you, Mr. Walker. I think we have turned
that corner with the FAA. The FAA has streamlined their tests--
approval process in a way that is beneficial to the industry.
It's going to accelerate the amount of testing that can be done
here domestically. We had some difficulties getting that
approval last year and early this year, but I think we've
turned that corner now.
The real direction we need to take now is sort of the
planning for the operational rules, and we look forward to
working with the FAA on that, that we're eager to do so. But on
testing, I think we're able to do it in multiple locations,
including within the United States.
Mr. Walker. What is the objective of Amazon, if you give me
a timeline over the next year to 18 months, where are you
wanting to see this go, providing that things are worked out
with the FAA?
Mr. Misener. Well, we'd like to start delivering to our
customers as soon as it's approved regulatorily. So we are
working on the technology as quickly as we can. We've got an
advance team. Amazon doesn't sound like an aviation company,
but we certainly have staffed up with aviation experts,
including, on my team, I've got an 8,000-hour--military and
commercial pilots on my team. We're taking this very seriously.
The safety aspect of it is front and center. The team is trying
to develop this service as quickly as possible.
Now, there are other things that are going on here. It's
not just the aviation aspects of it. We have to get our
fulfillment center and our distribution facilities right
because to get that 30-minute promise down, we have to get that
item somewhere in a very large building ready to get to the
drone. And that--so that presents another set of engineering
challenges that we're working on for our----
Mr. Walker. And are--you said ``you're working.'' Do you
have the technology in place to move forward providing that all
the other restrictions are given the green light?
Mr. Misener. Today, no. But we will have it in place by the
time any regulations are ready. We are working very quickly.
The iteration process in a company like ours and in a robotics
mission like ours is very rapid. And so we're confident that we
will have it in place. And this is why we look forward to
working closely with the FAA on preparing for those rules.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Mr. Wynne, what specific solutions can
you provide this committee that we could act on or--as to not
only help the development of the commercial UAS but also
satisfy the FAA's concern for safety?
Mr. Wynne. Well, I think, as I mentioned in my testimony,
there's a lot of research and development that's required to
prove out equivalent level of safety for the more complex
operations that we can envisage today but can't possibly--or
can't quite do yet. And NASA plays an important role in this.
The FAA plays an important role in this. The DOD has
successfully flown unmanned and manned aircraft in theatre for
many, many years successfully and safely. They can learn from
one another, and industry brings a lot of resources and
technology to the table.
So one of the key things is to make certain that all of
that is well coordinated. And I think some outside pressure
from--for the agencies to work together, I think, is always
important. That's beginning to happen now, and we're very
pleased with that, but I think there are resources, ultimately,
that will be required.
I know the fiscal constraints on the system require--make
it difficult for new resources to be brought to the table, but
we think that with the right coordination, with the right plan,
we can do that, and I think that's an appropriate role for
Congress and this committee.
Mr. Walker. Thank you.
I see my time is almost expired. So I will yield back to
the chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, Mr. Walker.
Ms. Duckworth, you're recognized.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to follow up on the see-and-avoid rules.
Mr. Wynne, I think that your comparison to the military use
is a little bit off mark because I was actually in charge of
the State of Illinois National Guard's attempt to establish the
rules for flying shadow UAVs stateside. And we certainly had to
comply with the keeping the aircraft in sight at all time rules
under the FAA on flying it over restricted airspace only as
well. And so the military actually has to--if we're going to be
flying those UAVs, actually follow the UAV in the air with
another aircraft. And I don't think that is something that the
commercial entities are willing to do at this point. And I
could be wrong.
I do want to talk about the safety issue, and I think I'm
going to direct most of my comments--my questions to Mr.
Whitaker with the FAA.
I was flying my aircraft over the Eastern Shore in the
Patuxent Naval airspace area in contact with air traffic
control the entire time. And I had an aircraft, a model
aircraft, bust through the airspace 10 feet off the nose of my
aircraft about 10 feet away in front. And I was flying at 2,500
feet. If this can happen with recreational model aircraft
usage, I have real concerns about UAVs out there flying around.
And I understand that you have commercial operations. This
is something where they--what you're trying to do is actually
make it more regulated. And I would expect that commercial
entities would be much more responsible about how they fly the
aircraft.
Are there any moves to require for commercial use the use
of transponders on UAVs?
Mr. Whitaker. So you raise a lot of interesting issues. I
think. In the small UAS rule, of course, there would be an
aeronautical knowledge test requirement so your operators would
be more sophisticated than the amateur operators. A lot of the
operators on the amateur side are just not from the aviation
sector and don't even realize that they've entered the world of
airspace when they open a box for this device. And that's a
real issue, which is why we have focused on public education
and that type of thing.
As far as the use of transponders, these devices, of
course, come in all sizes. When you get to the small UAS, it--
we're not sure there's going to be a technology that would
allow that kind of equipage. If you're flying in airspace that
requires a transponder, a UAS would have to have a transponder.
Same for the new ADSV rules. But I think when you get to the
smaller vehicles, you are really looking to systems that talk
to each other and to vehicles around them to achieve that sense
and avoid.
Mrs. Duckworth. Okay. So if I'm out there on my single-
engine 1959 Comanche, not with the most sophisticated--I'm
going to have the correct transponders on it, but even a small
UAS hitting the propeller of my aircraft will take me out.
Mr. Whitaker. Right.
Mrs. Duckworth. Even a small bird will take me out. Are you
saying, then, that we are not looking to require some--it's
just--explain what you mean by--is it a transponder? Is it
interrogating my aircraft? What is it doing? Because I want to
know--here's what I want. I as a pilot want to know if there's
UAS flying in my vicinity so I can see so that it shows up and
I know that they're there. And, two, if I get hit by one
ofthese aircraft, I want to know who's flying it. I want a
serial number on that aircraft. I want the FAA to be able to
find them and say: You just flew into actual general aviation
or commercial aviation airspace.
What is--is there anything in that rule--is there any
attempt to go after that--those safety concerns?
Mr. Whitaker. So, right now, we are looking at rule
separation and procedure separation. So, under the small UAS
rule, the proposal would be below 500 feet. So you're always
going to be above 500 feet, unless you're around the airport.
And the rule would require the UAS to be 5 miles away from an
airport. So as long as they're following the rules and you're
following the rules, you have separation. And you also have
visual-line-of-sight VFR basic operations. That's all that the
rule contemplates.
The other issues that you're raising are some of the issues
that we've been talking about that need additional research,
need standardization, and a separate set of rules around those
expanded operations.
Ms. Duckworth. Okay. Thank you. With the 30 seconds left
that I have, I just want to put this out there, and I'll put in
a question for the record. If we're going to talk about
external load operations, I used to fly sling loads in
helicopters. There are some significant restrictions. I would
want to know what Amazon--and, Mr. Wynne, also--what your
positions are on what are your jettisoning procedures for those
loads, all of the issues that a helicopter with sling load
operations would have to follow and adhere by as well.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitaker, just kind of a point of clarification for me.
I think the answer is yes, but I just want to be sure. Does the
FAA or the administration actually have a plan for directing
the traffic concerns, or is this something that's being
developed and still in process? Is there an actual plan?
Mr. Whitaker. There are two things I think you could put in
that bucket. There's a comprehensive plan that was developed in
2013, and then there's a 5-year roadmap that gets updated
periodically that provides sort of a master planning document,
if you will, for----
Mr. Hice. So there is a plan.
Mr. Whitaker. Yes.
Mr. Hice. Okay. I thought that was going to be the answer,
but it was a little confusing.
Let me go, Mr. Cavolowsky, to you. Of course, we all know
about the gyrocopter that went down here in the restricted D.C.
area this past April. The technology that is being developed
with you guys, would it have detected that gyrocopter?
Mr. Cavolowsky. So the research we're doing regarding this
UAS traffic management system is to enable the user of the
system to be able to track and manage and plan flight routes
within a very confined airspace. Others that are working--that
are operating within that airspace would also be detected, but
if they choose not to file a flight plan, they would not be
managed by the UTM. So the opportunity for that system to
identify that there is an operator who is not filing plans and
not flying within the system can be alerted to the
authorities--or, you know, through the system such that actions
could be taken in order to address that.
Mr. Hice. All right. Well, that's no different than what we
already have. It was detected with the technology we currently
have. They thought it was an anomaly or some such kind of
thing, and you're saying, with your technology, it would be
detected, but still nothing necessarily would have prevented
what happened?
Mr. Cavolowsky. With the technology we are putting in
place, that is correct. What our technology does is allow for
the safe use of aircraft that are participating in the system
to manage their trajectories, to be aware of other aircraft,
general aviation aircraft, traffic helicopters and the like
that are flying there so that they can be safely avoided and
the missions and the business objectives can be met.
Mr. Hice. Does your technology differentiate between drones
and, say, movement of birds or weather patterns of what have
you?
Mr. Cavolowsky. There are radar systems that are being
developed as part of this that would be able to detect other
flying things of particular size. At this point, I'm not sure
exactly how small that detection goes, but it would allow for
identification, certainly, of small drones.
Mr. Hice. All right. Mr. Whitaker, back to you, again. Just
if I may ask different ones this question, but end of the day,
who should control, own, manage the traffic management of UAS?
Does this come down to NASA? Does it come down to the
government? Does it come down to private enterprise or
nonprofits? Where does this belong?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, we would envision that as NASA develops
this UTM, we would go through a normal handover process and it
would become part of our airspace that we would manage.
Mr. Hice. All right. So you say FAA.
Mr. Cavolowsky. Yes. If I may, sir. That's exactly correct.
We have a very formal process we've developed with the FAA. We
refer to them as research transition teams. We work closely
with NASA researchers, NFA researchers. At the earliest stages
of our development of concepts and technology, to be able to
hand to them at determined times that we work by plan for that
technology at technology readiness levels such that they have
the opportunity to fit it into their overall program planning
and the requisition process. So it's very rigorous activity. We
have had great success with that with other NextGen
deliverables over the last half a dozen years.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So NASA's developing the technology but the
FAA would be using it, and ultimately the buck would stop
there.
Mr. Whitaker. That's correct.
Mr. Hice. Okay. All right.
Mr. Geiger, let me go back to you real quickly, just
because I think the issues you've brought up are a great--grave
concern constitutionally and to many others. And I've just got
20 seconds, but preemptively, what actions do you believe
Congress needs to take in order to assure that both the First
and the Fourth Amendment are not violated to U.S. citizens?
Mr. Geiger. For government UAS, we recommend legislation
that establishes a due process standard for law enforcement
use, and we think that, generally speaking, with some
exceptions, that that standard should be a warrant when the UAS
is used to surveil individuals in a personally identifiable way
or private property.
When it comes to commercial UAS, we think that the First
Amendment is going to constrain the scope of any sort of
privacy regulation, and you could start with common law privacy
torts, which have a highly offensive to a reasonable person or
a reasonable expectation of privacy standard. But beyond that,
it should be an industry code of conduct, which will, because
it is voluntary, avoid the First Amendment issues. And I think
that the goal ought to be to provide a reasonable privacy
assurance to the public so that applications that have a low
impact on civil liberties, such as commerce or scientific
research, can grow and the industry itself will take off, so to
speak.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Sir, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Ms. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you. Do we have--Mr. Whitaker, do we
have a proposed timeline for the--officially accepting these
rules or the process to go through to modify them, make any
corrections? Do we have a timeline?
Mr. Whitaker. So there's a statutory 16-month timeframe
from the close of comments, which was in April. We plan to move
more quickly than that. We've got 4,500 comments that we're
adjudicating now, and our internal working target is to have
the FAA portion of this finished by the end of the year so it
can go into coordination with the administration and be out
early next year.
Mrs. Lawrence. So many of you are aware that there is an
app: I can call Siri, and I can say, ``What's flying above
me,'' and it will tell me what flights are above me in the sky
and where they're going, what airline it is. Do you anticipate
any such app because my concern right now is, as a citizen, and
there's drones flying above me, how do I identify what they are
and why they're there and who they belong to?
And that piece--it was interesting to me when this
application was introduced to me. And I'm wondering if
something similar to that will be required of the--this type of
flying vehicle.
Mr. Whitaker. Well, in today's world, if there's a drone
flying above you, it's probably an amateur operator, and
there's no system to track who that is and where they're going.
It's an unregulated--by statute, an unregulated sector of the
market.
As you move forward with more fully integrated operations
in the controlled airspace, you would expect to have some
ability to know who's out there.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, you said you would expect. I want us
to move toward the point of if there is a drone flying in my
personal property space, that I as a citizen have the right to
know who owns it, what's their purpose, and there would be a
way for me to, if I have any issues, to have a way as a citizen
to process that concern. And that, to me, is a very high
concern of mine and people that I talk to.
So getting back to the public, what will be the process of
educating the public? And I would like to ask Mr. Geiger.
Mr. Geiger. Geiger.
Mrs. Lawrence. What is the proposed process so that when
we--I anticipate an increase in the number of drones that we'll
see. Where's the education process? When we adopt the rules and
we get them accepted, where's the education of the public?
Mr. Geiger. I think that you'll see education of the public
from both government and private entities, and certainly
there's been a lot of media attention about it to--if the
question is how will the public know when there's a drone in
their----
Mrs. Lawrence. What are my rights?
Mr. Geiger. Well, your rights are evolving, and I--as I
said in my testimony, I think that your rights ought to be
strengthened by Congress.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Geiger. When it comes to being able to tell whether or
not--or what--identify a drone that is in your vicinity and
where it's going and so forth, we think that the industry and
government ought to work on technology that will enable that
sort of transparency for citizens. There--transponders would be
one option, but I understand that there are technical
limitations due to their weight. I understand also that NASA is
working with Verizon to leverage cell towers and that may hold
some promise, although that also depends on the network. In
addition, we think that there are other technical measures that
individuals could use to signal their privacy preferences. One
is geofencing. So, for example, noflyzones.org is sort of
nascent effort in that regard where you can delineate some
property and say: We would prefer if you did not fly here.
And I think there's a variety of technologies that could
get you there. I think that they are not quite yet ready for
prime time, but I think what's important is that industry and
government continue to work on them.
Mrs. Lawrence. The other question, I have a few minutes, to
Mr. Whitaker, in the rules, it talks about reporting an
accident or damage within a certain amount of time. Will there
be a requirement if you are licensed as a drone operator that
you have insurance because if you--if your drone disables and
then crashes on my property, or if there is a package being
delivered and it destroys my prized rose garden or something,
what will be the requirement for insurance?
Mr. Whitaker. Typically we do not regulate insurance
requirements in aviation so we leave it up to individual
operators for insurance.
Mrs. Lawrence. I just want to say for the record that if we
are going to allow--I find it interesting. You don't require
airlines to have insurance?
Mr. Whitaker. Airlines have insurance for their own
reasons, and most general aviation pilots have insurance for
their own reasons. We're prohibited from regulating model
aircraft, amateur aircraft operations. So we would not be
allowed by statute to have that provision. But as a rule, we
don't get into that area of requirement.
Mrs. Lawrence. So if there was an accident, it was reported
in 10 days, what happens?
Mr. Whitaker. What happens with respect to?
Mrs. Lawrence. FAA would just have a record of it. It would
not be any--any requirement for drone operators to be insured?
Mr. Whitaker. And there typically is a--will be a reporting
requirement for accidents, and we investigate the cause of
accidents but don't get involved in adjudicating liability.
Mrs. Lawrence. My time is up, but I just want to say for
the record that that is a concern of mine. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We'll now recognize long-suffering waiting and senior
member and also former chairman of the Aviation subcommittee,
the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
don't have any questions, but I do want to express some
concerns, and to do that I want to read a couple of--read from
a couple of articles that have come out just in the last few
days.
I've read several articles about drones over the last year,
year and a half, but Bari Weinberger, who's a lawyer who
specializes in this area wrote a few days ago: For example,
will a drone scheduled to deliver your overnight package be
allowed to collect information about you during drop off. And
if so, what kind of data? With drone technology advancing at a
fast and furious pace, there are now UAVs with the ability to
record video and audio, use facial recognition technology and
collect electronic data, including signals from cell phones,
garage door openers and radio frequency identification data,
RFID, a technology used in consumer credit cards.
And he mentions a case in--and some cases in which they are
now using drones in divorce cases.
And then Jeramie Scott, who is the head of an organization
called the Electronic Privacy Information Center, wrote a few
days ago: The FAA has also failed to consider the data
collection implications of commercial drones. In an age of Big
Data, companies flying commercial drones will likely look to
surreptitiously collect data as they fly around performing
other tasks, such as delivering packages. We saw a similar
occurrence when Google Street View cars collected WiFi data
while taking images for Google Maps. One company has already
tested using drones to pinpoint cell phone and WiFi signals in
order to identify customers for location-based advertising.
And he goes on to say: There exists a lot of potential for
the commercial use of drones, but there needs to be rules in
place to protect against broad surveillance and data
collection. That's why more than 100 experts and civil
liberties organizations petitioned the FAA to develop privacy
rules for drones. The FAA denied the petition, and Epic has
subsequently filed suit again the agency to force it to
consider privacy. Currently voluntary best practices are being
developed, but best practices will not establish meaningful
privacy safeguards.
There's a lot of concern out there. Most people feel that
we really don't have much privacy left anymore anyway due to
the Internet and all the modern technology and not just drones.
But to show you how much concern there is, I understand that 10
states have now passed laws. And my own home State of
Tennessee, which is a very pro-law-enforcement state, very pro-
law-enforcement, the legislature passed a law banning law
enforcement agencies from using drones to collect evidence, to
do surveillance, except in extremely limited circumstances. And
so what I'm hopeful is, is that to maybe the FAA and some of
your organizations will take a look at all these State laws,
because the States seem to be sort of taking the lead in this
so far, and see if you can't pick out some good things out of
those State laws.
And I think that, Mr. Misener, even companies that want to
use this technology extensively, that because there is so much
concern about privacy that you would be--your company would be
well advised to try to come up with every possible way that you
can to protect what limited--what little privacy or what very
limited privacy people still have.
And that's all I've got to say, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for making those points.
Did you want to response to any of that, Mr. Misener, or
Mr.----
Mr. Misener. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan, I agree that a company like ours has to take
privacy extremely responsibly. We've done it for 20 years now,
and we'll certainly extend those kinds of privacy protections
with respect to Amazon Prime Air, which, of course, is a
delivery service, not a surveillance operation.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Geiger.
Mr. Geiger. If people don't think that they have much
privacy now, they should just wait for the new class of
technologies that will enable very intrusive physical
surveillance. That's just coming. The examples that you read
are indeed troubling, and I glad that you mentioned in those
passages that there are other types of surveillance that can be
enabled by drones besides just video observation. They can be
outfitted with an array of sensors that include, for example,
cell phone tower emulators that we saw the Federal Government
use these on tens of thousands of individuals just in the past
year.
In terms of how to provide individuals with that kind of
privacy, you know, the privacy torts get you some, but, again,
it's limited because it's limited to a reasonable--reasonable--
what is highly offensive to a reasonable person standard. And
it is unclear the degree to which Congress can directly
regulate those kinds of uses without violating the First
Amendment right to collect data in public places.
However, we think that the industry should take the lead
and in a strong and enforceable code of conduct. And,
unfortunately, the existing codes of conducts are not
sufficient for that purpose.
You mentioned your State laws. States are indeed taking the
lead on privacy laws, but the--and part of that is because of
Federal inertia in response to the concerns of their citizens.
But the patchwork of State privacy laws is also going to be
difficult for the industry to navigate, particularly for a
technology like UAS, which could fly between the borders of
individual States. So I think that providing some sort of
regulatory certainty with regard to privacy will benefit both
individuals as well as commerce.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for holding this hearing. It really raises
some pretty fundamental questions about the future and values
and parts of our philosophy we thought were settled.
And I think, Mr. Geiger, you're quite right to raise the
flag on, what does privacy mean as we move toward the future? I
mean, even a commercial drone whose mission is purely the
delivery of a good could be equipped with surveillance
equipment and actually penetrate the walls of a house and look
into what's going on. Now, technology isn't far away from being
able to do that. I'm not arguing anyone would do that, but
we're going to--you know, and the proliferation of drones is
going to make it very difficult to enforce even those
regulations we ultimately adopt. So it's a fascinating frontier
kind of issue for us, and I don't think we have easy answers
yet. But I thank you so much for helping highlight them.
Mr. Whitaker, I was listening to Mrs. Lawrence, and before
I ask Mr. Misener some questions about Amazon and their
operation, what is--if I'm a homeowner, how high up do I go in
my property control? Can someone fly 500 feet from my roof?
Mr. Whitaker. So I think, as Mr. Geiger has----
Mr. Connolly. I'm going to ask all of you please to speak
into the mic and move it closer.
Mr. Whitaker. So I think Mr. Geiger articulated earlier,
it's a bit unsettled. Clearly, if it's 500 feet above your
house, it's federally regulated airspace. And when federally
regulated airspace was defined decades and decades ago, there
was no thought of a gray area. But I think now we're probably
facing a gray area. But by statute, all the airspace is Federal
airspace and regulated federally.
Mr. Connolly. So if a commercial drone is flying within 3
feet of my roof, is that federally regulated airspace?
Mr. Whitaker. I think you're pushing at those gray areas.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. Yeah. I just think we're going to have
to revisit that too because, I mean, presumably if somebody's
flying in to deliver fine chocolates and French bubbly to my
neighbor, did I mention fine chocolates and French bubbly, you
know, they may need to get close to land, if that's what
they're doing, and they may be violating, from my point of
view, my--they're trespassing. They're trespassing on my
property, including above my roof.
Mr. Whitaker. I think these are real issues and the legal
structure hasn't had to address them----
Mr. Connolly. Okay. So we've got legal issues, and we've
got privacy issues, and we got constitutional issues, and we
got commercial issues, and we got economic issues, and all
kinds of issues.
Mr. Misener, Amazon's been vocal about its concerns
regarding the FAA proposed rule, and Amazon argues, ``Overly
prescriptive restrictions are likely to have the unintended
effect of stifling innovation and, over time, will fail to
offer any corresponding safety benefits as small UAS technology
evolves.''
How do you believe the proposed rule stifles innovation?
And I'm going to ask you particularly to speak into the mic.
Thank you.
Mr. Misener. Mr. Connolly, I will speak directly in. Thank
you.
We believe that it's overly prescriptive in the sense that
it draws distinctions between--within visual-line-of-sight and
beyond-visual-line-of-sight kinds of operations in a way that
is just artificial. I mean, both should be subjected to a risk-
and performance-based analysis. Certainly the risks involved in
beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations are greater than those
within visual line of sight. Highly automated operations
require higher performance than less automated operations.
Those are very clear.
But the method of analyzing the different kinds of
operations should be identical, and so we are concerned that
the NPRM tends to just cut those ones off and proscribe them,
just basically say: We're not going to deal with them.
Now, Mr. Whitaker said the FAA is going to get to them.
We're just suggesting that they get to them now and consider
all these types of operations simultaneously, acknowledging
that there are different risks involved and different
performance requirements necessary to mitigate those risks.
Mr. Connolly. I understand that Amazon's offered to
actually show on a pilot basis that some of the concerns being
discussed in the rulemaking can be managed without overly
prescriptive regulation, including a line of sight, including
multiple drone operation, and other such issues.
Is that the case, that you've offered to do that kind of
pilot program?
Mr. Misener. Yes, sir, in a variety of ways. We're working
closely with NASA. In fact, we'll be a keynote presenter at
your conference at the end of July, and, you know, the
Pathfinder Project being undertaken by BNSF, that's something
looks interesting to us. Some--figure out a way to----
Mr. Connolly. But, I mean, have you made that proposal to
Mr. Whitaker and his colleagues that why don't you let us show
you how it can be done safely before you adopt a final rule?
Mr. Misener. Yeah, I think these are parallel paths. One is
to show the technology, the other is to work on the rules.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Whitaker, is your--are you and your
agency open to that kind of demonstration to at least evaluate
the parameters and scope of what is doable and what is
problematic?
Mr. Whitaker. I think the Pathfinder Program, which did
that with BNSF, is the kind of program we need to have to prove
those technologies. So we certainly are open to that.
Mr. Connolly. And I--if the chair will allow one final
question, another provision you have expressed concern about,
Mr. Misener, Amazon, that is to say, is the requirement that
one operator control no more than one drone system at a time.
Why do you believe that's too restrictive?
Mr. Misener. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Because the
technology exists so that a single operator could allow--could
oversee the operation of multiple UAVs, and it--just to
restrict one drone to one operator is just overly restrictive
and certainly unnecessary, from a technological----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Whitaker that sounds reasonable on
Amazon's part. I mean, I look at FAA controllers. We don't say
to an FAA controller: You follow one plane coming in or going
out. That's it. Because, otherwise, we don't believe you've got
control, and it taxes the system.
Maybe that's not a perfect analogy, but technology kind of
does allow us to do more than one thing at a time. What's wrong
with Amazon's point of view on that?
Mr. Whitaker. I think that we will get there in certain
circumstances. I mean, right now, you have two pilots in each
airplane and you have controllers, and in a new system, you--if
it's a large aircraft, certainly there will be one per
aircraft, but if it's quite small, there could be scenarios
where it's multiple units, but the technology has to be proven,
standards have to be developed, and then it comes into play.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
so much for having this hearing. I hope we have more of them,
frankly, because I think we've just begun to look at new
territory.
Mr. Mica. It's an important subject.
Mr. Hurd.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 2001, when I was under the tutelage of Ambassador Hank
Crumpton and we were prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, the
CIA, the Counterterrorism Center and Special Operations
Division kind of was the innovator in the use of drones in
operations. Right? You know, we had Air Force bird Army
ordnance under the operational control of the CIA. Something
like that had never happened. And almost 15 years ago, when we
were doing that, I never would have thought that I'd be sitting
somewhere talking about using UAVs to monitor, you know, the
herds of cattle in west Texas or having fine chocolate or
bubbly delivered to Mr. Connolly's neighbor. So this is an
exciting time.
But one of my concerns is, you know, one of the things
that's made this country great is we're always on the edge of
innovation. You know, we have the greatest entrepreneurs in the
world, and my question is to Mr. Wynne. Are--in the development
of this technology, is the U.S. leading on this? Do we have
other competitors? Are there other countries that are beating
us?
Mr. Wynne. Well, it's a great question, sir, and thank you
for your service.
I would say simply that this is a global phenomenon. UAS
are really being taken up at very rapid pace around the world
for a variety of different reasons. And, ultimately, we want
global harmonization of the regulations so that there is safe
and responsible flight everywhere.
I would say that we are--we have the potential to continue
to lead in aviation innovation in this country. I think we're
on the right path to getting back to that. I think there had
been a little bit of a culture clash from the technology world
into the aviation world. I'm an aviator myself, as are some of
the other panelists, and we appreciate the fact that, you know,
that this is a different--a different type of approach to
aviation. But there's a lot of sky up there that can be used
efficiently for an awful lot of things, and a lot of lives,
frankly, that can be saved doing things that are very dangerous
today that don't need to be done by humans. So we call that
enhancing human potential.
Mr. Hurd. So my next question is to Mr. Misener. You know,
the possibility--when I came up to D.C. from Texas this week, I
forgot my running shoes. And the idea of possibly having those
delivered by an Amazon UAV within a couple of hours is pretty
interesting.
But you've heard a lot of these privacy concerns that we've
talked about here. And they're valid. And this is going to
continue to be an issue. How are you all, I think one of the
things you all are leading in this area in commercial
development, how are you planning to gain the trust of the
American people?
Mr. Misener. Thank you, Mr. Hurd.
It's a core question about this service for anyone who is
responsibly pursuing the commercial activity here. We have to
engender trust. And the trust on privacy matters that we've
garnered over the past 20 years is because--has been a result
of our focus on consumer information privacy. And we will
continue to that when it comes to Amazon Prime Air.
We are strongly supportive of the NTIA process. And we're
going to be participating in that and, hopefully, developing
solid, serious, best practices for an entire industry.
Mr. Hurd. I appreciate that.
Mr. Cavolowsky, the question to you is on this UAS traffic
management system that you all are working on, what are kind of
the main challenges you all have left that are the barriers to
the deployment of the system?
Mr. Cavolowsky. So many of the same concerns that have been
brought up by other panelists are things that we need to
address in a technological fashion. So these are very complex
software systems where there is coordinated interaction among
the aircraft. Being able to verify and validate that they are
safely, providing that safe separation is a critical challenge.
Ensuring safe operations for all UAS but also other general
aviation aircraft in that airspace is also a technical
challenge we need to step up to, certainly beyond line of
sight.
And another key element that has been brought up by the
panel is the challenge of the first and last 50 feet of flight.
In particular, the last 50 feet, if you will, with the
interaction or potential interaction with property and people.
The elements of the control of the management of that safely in
an environment that can be unpredictable is a major element of
what we're trying to develop technology solutions around and
procedural solutions around.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
And, waiting patiently, I want to recognize the lady from
New Mexico, Ms. Lujan Grisham.
Thank you for your patience. You're recognized.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
thank you for the hearing.
And I agree that we ought to have potentially more of the
hearings because there's a broad base set of issues that do
need to be addressed. And there needs to be a regulatory
environment to do that.
I certainly agree that we want to deal with the public
safety issues. We want to deal with the privacy issues. But
there's a real opportunity to enhance the economic benefits and
making sure that that's addressed in a meaningful and balanced
way.
I represent a State that has been very slow to recover from
the 2008 recession. In fact, we've got the slowest recovery
rate in the country. And we've got a company, Volo Pervidi,
that has just gotten FAA approval. Our office worked with you
all to do that, to do the kind of mapping and the kind of work
that we're hearing a lot about in today's hearing. And not only
are they talking about the vast economic opportunity in our
State, and whenever I have an opportunity to talk about jobs,
that's the number one priority, but they talk about nationally
that the billions of dollars that could be generated--so I
appreciate having Google here at the table--by these
investments.
There's also a public safety factor that I don't want to
ignore, not just in the regulatory environment that we need to
proceed with for unmanned aircraft, but if we're using them to
assess problems on the Golden Gate Bridge or we're using them
to inspect power lines, we're creating a public safety benefit
by not having to use workers to do that work directly and
physically, which is high risk and continues to be problematic.
When I think about liability for companies and governments and
local governments and utility companies, it's significant. So
I'm seeing great opportunity. And, with that, there is risk.
I have really two questions. You've been working to address
that you recognize there's got to be a thoughtful but balanced
approach. And as a former long-time and I would like to think
effective bureaucrat for 17 years, bureaucracies don't always
find themselves in the most flexible environment. And the
problem here is that this technology is changing every minute,
probably every second, as all technology does.
And in the thoughtful process that you all have to address
privacy and public safety and managing that airspace
productively and encouraging companies to come forward and give
you ideas so we're not thwarting those economic, valuable
economic investments, by the time you make those rules,
arguably, they could be outdated.
What is your process for thinking about making sure that
this is a fluid, ongoing environment so that we avail ourselves
of every opportunity without mitigating our responsibility to
manage productively for my constituents and for the country
real risks associated with any aircraft?
Mr. Whitaker, maybe that's something for you.
Mr. Whitaker. I think several times this morning it's been
mentioned that we need a risk-based and a performance-based
regulatory system. And that's very much, we're all very much
aligned on that point. We don't want to necessarily tell you
how you're going to achieve certain levels of safety, but we
want to define what those are and what the necessary standards
are to get there. So when we, for example, get to a final rule,
then it will provide parameters. And in the operations within
those parameters, we don't have to guess what they might be.
They'll be allowed as long as they continue to be safe. As we
continue to expand the acceptable range of operations, that
same principle will apply.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And maybe, Mr. Wynne, what can Congress
do that is more productive in this environment, that provides
both productive resources and investments in just exactly this,
this sort of risk assessment and performance model? What is
Congress' role here? And what can we do to enhance these
efforts?
Mr. Wynne. I appreciate the question. I think the point
that I've been laboring to articulate here is that the economic
opportunity is not just immediate, it needs to be sustainable.
And so all of the questions that we're discussing, in
technology, we call it a binary conversation. Really cool
technology can do a lot of good stuff, but we have safety, we
have security, we have privacy questions. We go through this
with every technology pretty much. And the same kinds of
questions Mr. Geiger is bringing up can also be applied on a
technology-specific basis to license-plate readers. They can be
applied to body cameras. They can be applied in a whole bunch
of technology contexts.
The industry needs to do this in a way that's sustainable.
Otherwise, it won't work. And I agree with Mr. Misener when he
said it's in our customer--it's in our interest to make certain
that our customer's privacy is protected. And it's in our
interest also, as an industry, to make certain that we can do
this on a sustained basis. Incidents, mishaps, et cetera, while
they are common in aviation and we learn from them, we don't
want them. And we're doing our best to make certain that we
maintain the extremely high level of safety going forward.
To your question, ma'am, I think all of this comes back to
FAA reauthorization, which is an extremely important matter
before Congress immediately. And we have submitted for the
record of the Transportation Committee what we think is
important in that regard. So I won't enumerate that here. But I
think it's also really important for the safety of the entire
system that we do that on time.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Fair enough. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you for the panel.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And thank you for your patience.
I want to thank our panel too.
I've got a couple of quick points. One, okay, Mr. Whitaker,
you testified today that it would, in 1 year, you would have
the rule out. Is that going to be September 30 of 2016? Or is
that going to be June 17 of 2016?
Mr. Whitaker. Hopefully before June 17, 2016.
Mr. Mica. That's 1 year from today. We'll note that in the
record. And I'll ask the staff to schedule a hearing in June of
next year. And we'll see how we're going there.
I think you got to have milestones to get things done. I
put a milestone in the bill, which was September of this year.
It's not going to be met. And we're operating on sort of a
helter-skelter basis with these waivers and exemptions. And you
told me you have been doing about 50 a week, is it?
Mr. Whitaker. That's correct.
Mr. Mica. So 50 a week. We've got 10 weeks; there's 500. By
the time of next year, we should be doing how many? Several
thousand at that rate. So we'll have a patchwork of exemptions
and waivers until we get to the final rule, I mean, if you keep
it up at that rate.
Whitaker. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Just an assumption. See, that's not totally
acceptable. I know you have to have something in the interim.
The other thing too is the Office of Inspector General
published this report June 26, 2014, with a list of
recommendations. I've got--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10--11
major recommendations by OIG. Now, I have a report as of June--
that's this month--of 2015. All of these are unmet. All of
these are unmet. Some were supposed to be achieved and
accomplished by--here's one, October 30, 2014. I'm going to
submit to you and FAA this list. And within the time, we're
keeping the record open for 10 days, I want a response that
will be in the record of--make certain--that this is your
response to OIG. But I want to make certain that that is in the
record and confirm when you will achieve the recommendations
that OIG put in their audit from 2014 that they're giving me
this report on, this month, 2015.
Mr. Mica. Do you see what I want? Any questions?
Mr. Whitaker. No.
Mr. Mica. In the record by the time--again, we're going to
do another hearing a year out. You said you're going to do
that. These are important milestones that OIG identified a year
ago to be completed. And I want that report in the record so
that we have these milestones met.
All right. The final thing, you talked about, Mr. Misener,
that sensor and avoidance technologies, now, they're important
because you can put these things up, you testified, and you
have technology either being developed or on the shelf that can
avoid collisions or incidents. Is that correct?
Mr. Misener. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Okay. But those systems have to be approved by
FAA for use, wouldn't they, Mr. Whitaker?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes. We'll have to verify the technology.
Mr. Mica. See, this goes back to my point at the beginning,
I think the last member, too, raised this technology is
changing dramatically. But we have a failure of the law to keep
up with rules and regulations to keep up. So we're going to
have to have some mechanism to make certain that, in fact, the
equipment that can avoid risk, avoid a disaster, avoid
collision is certified in a manner. Do you have a separate
office to certify this type of equipment?
Mr. Whitaker. We certify aircraft on a number of fronts.
And ultimately----
Mr. Mica. I know. But that is also, I hear lots of
complaints, how long it takes for certification, how further
behind we're falling. But we're doing an FAA bill, we're doing
FAA appropriations. We need to make sure that you have the
resources, that you set in place a mechanism to quickly certify
the technologies or do it in some reasonable fashion. The
problem you've got now is by the time they get the damn
technology done and you get it approved, there will be another
technology right behind it that is even faster. So we're
falling further behind in our certification of equipment that
will avoid disaster.
Do you see what I'm saying? FAA doesn't look very
prospectively or how they're going to sometimes handle these
things. If this is all just rolled into normal FAA
certification, I don't think it's going to succeed. So if you
have a recommendation or something you want to come back at,
what you need to beef up, if you need to separate out, if we
need someone in FAA focused on this for the future--at stake
is, one, safety, and two is our entering the commercial age,
which this is all about. But you can't do that unless you've
got the rules, the certification, and keeping up with the
technology.
They'll find a way to get that, I thought you said chopped
liver--Hurd said chopped liver, but it was fine chocolates to
Mr. Connolly. I had a little fun with that. But, in any event,
whatever we're delivering, it's a commercial opportunity and a
great economic boost.
Okay. So those are my quick questions. It's amazing what
we've done. They've already flown an unmanned vehicle--or an
aerial vehicle from Australia to Los Angeles, a cargo plane,
without a pilot. And then another thing too is certifying the
pilots because there are different categories of what is going
up there, but different categories of who should be qualified
if they're not in the drone but they're piloting the drone.
We've got to make certain we've got the rules in place so those
people also have the qualifications.
But I'm afraid we're not keeping up with it. And we've got
to be able to set it in law in the FAA reauthorization or
wherever. And then we haven't even talked about the privacy
issue here. Again, I go back to the problem we had when we
developed this, we were told no to privacy; it was a different
domain and jurisdiction. But that is very important. And I'll
look at the proposed legislation and the other things you
mentioned. But, again, the Transportation Committee was not
allowed to go down that path. But it's a serious one we need to
address.
I think that those are some of the major issues. And we'll
look forward to your responses. We'll make certain the staff
gives you a copy of this list. And we want that in the record.
Again, I thank each of you for participating, our members
for their patience. It was a productive hearing and hopefully
move this all forward together.
There being no further business before the full Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]