U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

26–594 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–62 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: INNOVATION, 

INTEGRATION, SUCCESSES, AND CHALLENGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 15, 2017 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 27 

Statement of Senator Fischer ................................................................................. 37 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 40 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 42 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 44 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 47 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 49 

Statement of Senator Inhofe ................................................................................... 52 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 54 

Statement of Senator Capito .................................................................................. 56 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 58 

Statement of Senator Duckworth ........................................................................... 61 

WITNESSES

Earl Lawrence, Director, Federal Aviation Administration’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office ......................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Diana Marina Cooper, Vice President, Legal and Policy Affairs, Precision 

Hawk USA, Inc. and President, SUAV Coalition .............................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Ben Fowke, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Xcel Energy ... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Brendan Schulman, Vice President, Policy & Legal Affairs, DJI Technology, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

John Villasenor, Professor, Electrical Engineering, Public Policy, and Management; Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles; 

and Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University .................. 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Emilio Gonza ́lez, Ph.D., Director and Chief Executive Officer, Miami-Dade 

Aviation Department ........................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

APPENDIX

Letter dated March 13, 2017 to Hon. John Thune, Chairman, and Hon. 

Bill Nelson, Ranking Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee from National Association of REALTORS® ........................ 67 

Letter dated March 13, 2017 to Hon. John Thune, Chairman, and Hon. 

Bill Nelson, Ranking Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee from Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) .......... 68 

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, prepared statement .......... 71 

Rodin Lyasoff, CEO, A3, prepared statement ........................................................ 72 

Response to written questions submitted to Earl Lawrence by: 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 75 

Hon. Roy Blunt ................................................................................................. 75 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 76 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 77 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 77 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 78 

Page

IV 

Response to written questions submitted to Diana Marina Cooper by: 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 79 

Hon. Todd Young .............................................................................................. 80 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 81 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to: 

Ben Fowke ......................................................................................................... 81 

Brendan Schulman ........................................................................................... 82 

John Villasenor ................................................................................................. 84 

Response to written question submitted to Emilio Gonza ́lez, Ph.D. by: 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 85 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 86 

(1) 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: 

INNOVATION, INTEGRATION, SUCCESSES, 

AND CHALLENGES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m. in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Fischer, Moran, 

Heller, Inhofe, Johnson, Capito, Gardner, Young, Nelson, Cantwell, 

Klobuchar, Markey, Booker, Peters, Duckworth, Hassan, and Cortez Masto. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Thank you for being here. I apologize for the tardy start. 

We had a vote at 10 o’clock. There are many things about our 

schedule around here that Senator Nelson and I do not control, and 

when we vote is certainly one of them. 

But we appreciate our panel being here today and participating 

as we revisit some of the issues surrounding the safe integration 

of unmanned aircraft systems, known as UAS or drones, in the National Airspace System. 

As all of you know, this exciting technology has the capability to 

change, and in some cases already has changed, the way companies 

in the United States and around the world do business. 

In addition to commercial UAS activities, hundreds of thousands 

of drones have been sold and registered to everyday consumers and 

recreational users around the country. Some of these users are 

long-time hobbyists and aviation enthusiasts, while many others 

have been engaged by this new technology and are excited to take 

flight for the first time. 

The same innovative energy that enables new uses of this technology is also driving advances in safety and accountability, often 

faster than the pace of regulations. That pace of innovation is a 

benefit we should protect as the regulatory framework matures. 

As we contemplate another FAA reauthorization, today’s hearing 

is an opportunity to receive an update on the FAA’s progress on the 

congressional mandates from 2012 and 2016. We will examine the 

2 

successes and the challenges the FAA has faced in the effort to 

safely integrate drones into the national airspace. 

We have a full panel here today, and I am eager to hear from 

them, and get into questions. So I am going to submit the remainder of my statement for the record, and recognize Senator Nelson 

for any opening statement that he might want to make. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thune follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Good Morning. Today we are here to discuss unmanned aircraft systems—a topic 

which received a lot of attention during last year’s FAA reauthorization debate. 

This hearing will examine the successes and the challenges we face with respect 

to the continued integration of unmanned aircraft systems, often referred to as UAS 

or drones, into the national airspace system. 

As all of you know, this exciting technology has the capability to change, and in 

some cases has already changed, the way many companies do business. 

Obtaining an easily accessible aerial view via an off-the-shelf drone for realtors 

or photographers, and collecting even more advanced data for farmers, energy companies, or first responders are just a few examples of how UAS can increase safety, 

expand opportunities, and create significant efficiencies. 

Innovators across the industry are continuing to find new ways to market services, solve technical problems, mitigate safety risks, and remain on the cutting edge 

of the future of this technology. 

In addition to commercial activities, hundreds of thousands of drones have been 

sold and registered to hobbyists and recreational users around the country. Some 

of these users are long-time aviation enthusiasts while many others have been engaged by this new technology and are excited to take flight for the first time. 

Drones have proven to be so popular, in fact, that the online registration system 

for small UAS, which went live in 2015, already has 750,000 unmanned registrations, compared to the roughly 315,000 registrations for manned aircraft. 

While unmanned aircraft systems have been employed by the military for decades, integration of both commercial and recreational drones into the national airspace was first addressed in law by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Since that time, we have come a long way in terms of adoption, research, technology, and public policy. 

More recently, Congress was able to continue to exercise oversight and provide 

clear direction on the FAA’s integration efforts with the passage of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 last summer. 

In an effort to increase safety and security, this legislation requires the Secretary 

of Transportation to establish a process for restricted airspace designations by the 

operators of critical infrastructure. 

Given the experience gained by the FAA in granting exemptions provided for in 

the 2012 legislation, the 2016 bill expands FAA’s authority to allow UAS operations 

beyond visual line of sight and at night for applicants who demonstrate a solid safety case. As was the case in the development of the small UAS rule, I hope that use 

of the expanded authority will give both industry and the FAA confidence in the 

safety of such operations, which will eventually allow for even more routine use. 

This legislation also included provisions requiring the development of remote 

identification standards that will enable individuals to identify an operator of a 

UAS. This ability is critical for FAA enforcement efforts and the ability of individuals to avail themselves of state and local laws that protect them from unwanted 

involvement with a UAS. 

The original Senate-passed FAA bill included numerous other drone-related provisions that didn’t make it into the final extension. I anticipate that, as we work toward another FAA reauthorization this year, these issues will continue to be advanced by members of this Committee and the aviation community at large. 

At the agency level, with the expansion of UAS technology, the FAA has had to 

reevaluate how it operates and how it engages with the aviation stakeholder community—a community that includes a new cohort of users who may be less familiar 

with the National Airspace System, but who can bring new talents to bear in addressing regulatory challenges and finding safety solutions. 

Through the establishment of the UAS Integration Office, the FAA has begun to 

collaborate with the UAS industry, other government agencies, research partners, 

and Congress to aggressively pursue safe integration in a timely fashion. 

3 

And while integration hasn’t proceeded as fast as many would like, the FAA has 

taken steps to accelerate collaboration with the establishment of the Drone Advisory 

Committee and the Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team—both of which are government 

and industry partnerships. 

In August of 2016, the FAA also finalized the long-awaited small UAS rule, 

which, for the first time, provided direction for the routine use of commercial drones. 

These regulations established clear ‘‘rules of the road’’ for certain operations and 

streamlined what was previously an onerous case-by-case approval process for operators. 

In addition to the online UAS registration system for commercial and recreational 

users I previously mentioned, the FAA has also expanded education efforts, through 

initiatives such as the ‘‘Know Before You Fly’’ campaign, designed to provide important safety information to UAS users. 

The FAA has also partnered with NASA on research and development of an unmanned traffic management system or ‘‘UTM.’’ This research may ultimately lead 

to a complementary system to today’s Air Traffic Organization for manned aircraft 

that will allow for drone fleet operations and package delivery. 

And importantly, the industry, from manufacturers to software developers to practical users, continues to innovate. 

While there is no silver bullet, safety technologies, including geofencing, altitude 

limitations, and sense and avoid capabilities, have the ability to continue to improve 

the safe operations of unmanned aircraft—technological achievements which may 

someday be used to improve safety in manned aviation. 

The same innovative energy that enables new uses for this technology is also driving advances in safety and accountability, often faster than the pace of regulations. 

That pace of innovation is a benefit we should protect as the regulatory framework 

matures. 

As we contemplate another FAA authorization, today’s hearing is an opportunity 

to receive an update on the FAA’s progress in implementing the Congressional mandates from the 2012 and 2016 legislation. In particular, we will examine the successes and challenges the FAA has faced in the effort to safely integrate drones into 

the national airspace. 

I am confident we can get there. It will likely take even more innovation and outof-the-box thinking on the part of the agency and the industry, and maybe even on 

the part of this Committee—along with appropriate direction and oversight. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses to being here today. I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will do likewise. 

You recall when we were doing the FAA bill, we put in a number 

of forward-looking provisions with regard to the potential of avoiding what is scaring us every day, which is a drone getting in the 

way of an inbound or outbound aircraft. And we have had a couple 

of near misses down in Miami. That is why I am happy Dr. 

Gonza ́lez is here who can speak to that. 

I have also seen a recent breakthrough in technology. It happens 

to be a Florida company that has produced a bird radar which is 

in use by hundreds of airports around the world, including the 

Kennedy Space Center. That technology has matured to where they 

are just about to be able to come out on the market with the detection of UAVs. 

So again, the advance in technology will help us as we confront 

this particular problem. 

And thank you for having this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

4 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today—especially for braving the 

winter weather. 

In the last several years, more and more individuals are purchasing unmanned 

aircraft systems—or ‘‘drones’’—and registering them with the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Drones for commercial use continue to hold great technological promise in many 

important areas—law enforcement, agriculture, disaster response, and perhaps even 

package delivery one day. 

However, advances in technology also raise important questions concerning safety 

and security, and the growing commercial uses for drones are certainly no exception. 

We’ve all read the headlines—a drone flying close to an aircraft or near an airport, used in smuggling contraband over a prison wall, or intruding on the personal 

property and privacy of neighbors. 

I also remain concerned by the prospect of drones being usurped by terrorists to 

target critical infrastructure and Department of Defense sites around the country. 

This Senator is certainly eager to embrace the innovations and technological 

breakthroughs of U.S. companies and manufacturers—including the commercial use 

of drones. 

But common sense dictates that we be mindful of the safety and security concerns 

associated with the integration of drones into our national airspace. 

This is why I worked with Chairman Thune to ensure that last year’s FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act include several key provisions on these issues. 

To address the growing number of drone sightings near airports and the risk of 

collision with aircraft, the FAA Extension requires the FAA to establish a pilot program to test technologies to keep potentially wayward and hostile drones away from 

airports. 

As we will hear from Dr. Emilio Gonza ́lez, who oversees operations at Miami 

International Airport and four general aviation airports in the Miami area, airports 

across the country have had to experience this growing danger, including in my 

home state of Florida. 

The FAA Extension also directs the FAA to work with NASA to develop a program for collision research involving drones and various types of aircraft. 

In addition, the FAA Extension establishes civil penalties for those who use 

drones to knowingly or recklessly interfere with law enforcement, emergency response efforts, and fighting wildfires. 

We didn’t stop there. 

To better manage the number of drones flying across the country, the FAA Extension directs the FAA and NASA to continue development of a research plan and ultimately establish a system for drone traffic management—or UTM. 

Because authorities don’t always know who is flying a drone when security and 

safety incidents take place, the FAA Extension now requires the FAA to convene 

industry stakeholders to develop standards for remotely identifying drone operators. 

The Senate Commerce Committee continues to monitor FAA’s progress with these 

and other drone-related provisions in the FAA Extension. 

And as part of what I hope will be a long-term FAA reauthorization bill this year, 

Chairman Thune and I will continue to evaluate additional ways to safely integrate 

drones into the national airspace. 

I look forward to hearing from the panel and especially thank Dr. Emilio Gonza ́lez 

for being here today from Miami. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

There are just a lot of these issues that continue to come up, and 

I think it is important for us to stay ahead of it to the degree that 

we have a responsibility when it comes to integrating a lot of these 

UAVs into our national airspace. 

We have a great panel with us this morning and I am going to 

start on my left, and your right, with Mr. Lawrence. 

Mr. Earl Lawrence is the Director of the Office of Unmanned Aircraft Systems at the Federal Aviation Administration. So we are 

looking forward to hearing from you. 

5 

Ms. Diana Marina Cooper is the Vice President of Legal and Policy Affairs at PrecisionHawk, and the President of the Small UAV 

Coalition. 

Mr. Ben Fowke is the Chairman, President, and CEO of Xcel Energy. 

Mr. Brendan Schulman is the Vice President of Policy and Legal 

Affairs at DJI. 

Dr. John Villasenor is a Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at UCLA, and a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

And as Senator Nelson mentioned, Dr. Emilio Gonza ́lez is the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. 

So we welcome you here. We look forward to what you have to 

say. If you could confine your oral statements to five minutes, or 

as close to that as possible, and any additional comments you want 

to make will certainly be included in the record. But that will optimize the amount of time that we have to ask questions. 

So Mr. Lawrence, if you would begin and proceed, and then we 

will just go across the panel from there. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF EARL LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION OFFICE 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and 

members of the Committee. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide an update 

on the state of UAS integration. 

Since the FAA last testified on UAS to this committee, the 

United States has solidified its role as the global leader in UAS integration. 

Demonstrating the FAA’s prioritization of UAS, the Administrator established two executive positions: Mr. Gibson is the Senior 

Advisor on UAS to the Deputy Administrator, and my role as Director of the UAS Integration Office. Together we are ensuring the 

U.S. maintains our leadership role by keeping all of the FAA’s UAS 

integration activities moving forward. 

To accomplish this, we have been, and will continue to work with 

the UAS stakeholder community. This collaboration has already resulted in significant progress. 

We have enabled innovation with two regulations that create a 

flexible framework for UAS. Based on recommendations from an industry task force, we initiated a Small UAS Registration Rule. Last 

August, we also implemented the Small UAS Operations Rule. This 

is one of the world’s first comprehensive set of UAS regulations. 

There are now over 750,000 registered unmanned aircraft in the 

United States and over 35,000 remote pilots. 

In addition to rulemaking, research is needed to advance innovation. We have selected a UAS Research Center of Excellence led by 

Mississippi State University. The COE recently conducted some of 

the world’s first research on the effects of UAS collisions with people and manned aircraft. 

In addition, all the UAS test sites are now actively engaged in 

offering testing services to the UAS industry. Per this committee’s 

6 

direction, we have added New Mexico State University as a seventh UAS test site. 

The test sites are also actively engaged with the FAA’s efforts to 

evaluate UAS detection systems around airports. Virginia Tech 

supported testing at the Atlantic City Airport. The New York test 

site helped test an FBI detection system at JFK. The Nevada and 

North Dakota test sites flew UAS for evaluations at the Denver 

Airport. And the Texas test site will be supporting work at DallasFort Worth this spring. 

The FAA and NASA have established two Research Transition 

Teams to consider future airspace management needs. One of these 

teams is addressing the requirements for low altitude UAS Traffic 

Management or UTM. Initial demonstrations were conducted last 

spring and more comprehensive testing will be done this summer. 

We have also been working hard with our UAS Pathfinder industry partners, which have successfully demonstrated extended and 

beyond line of sight operations to support upcoming rulemaking. 

To further improve stakeholder collaboration, the FAA chartered 

a Drone Advisory Committee. We have asked this group to make 

consensus recommendations to help prioritize and fund our integration activities. 

We have also proactively worked with industry to form an Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team, which will use UAS data to identify 

safety risks and develop mitigation strategies. 

While the list of FAA accomplishments is long, I also want to acknowledge some challenges, including supporting the volume of operations and the pace of innovation. 

One of our current focuses is enabling operations beyond the 

Base Part 107 Rule through waivers and airspace authorizations. 

We are working to streamline the online portal to improve guidance for our requesters, but the real solution is automation. We are 

collaborating with industry to develop a Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability which is the first building block to 

fielding the UTM System. 

We know we still have work to do and we are doing our best to 

achieve the right balance between increased operations and safety. 

However, as outlined in our 2016 extension bill, Congress also 

tasked the FAA to address some important security issues. One of 

those tasks is the development of consensus standards with industry for remotely identifying UAS and their operators. 

We are working with our interagency partners to identify their 

security concerns and at the same time with industry to identify 

potential technological solutions. The next step will be to aligning 

these activities. 

We look forward to continuing the engagement with the entire 

UAS stakeholder community as we move forward with enabling the 

full potential of UAS. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EARL LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION’S UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION OFFICE

Chairman Thune, Senator Nelson, Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Earl Lawrence, Director of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) Integration Office. In this role, I am responsible for the facilitation 

of all regulations, policies, and procedures required to support the FAA’s UAS integration efforts. I also represent the FAA on the Senior Steering Group of the UAS 

Executive Committee focusing on coordination and alignment of efforts among key 

Federal government agencies, and I oversee the Subcommittee of the Drone Advisory Committee. 

The Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) and FAA’s vision for fully integrating UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) entails UAS operating harmoniously, side-by-side with manned aircraft in a safe and secure manner. This vision goes beyond the accommodation practices in use today, which largely rely on 

operational segregation to maintain systemic safety. As we work to realize this vision, the FAA intends to work incrementally to introduce UAS into the NAS after 

careful consideration of the safety of people and property both in the air and on the 

ground. 

Two years ago, the FAA appeared before this committee to discuss the status of 

the safe, incremental integration of UAS—more commonly referred to as drones— 

into the NAS, and also into the FAA. In that time, we have made significant 

progress toward our goal of fully integrating this new class of aircraft and their operators. This progress is the result of significant coordination efforts across the FAA. 

While my office serves as the focal point for external stakeholders, almost every policy and support office within the Agency has dedicated staff and resources to supporting these integration activities. Today, the United States is clearly a global leader in UAS integration, and I would like to highlight for you some examples of our 

accomplishments, our challenges, and our ongoing work to build upon our successes 

as we move forward with the next phase of UAS integration. 

Small UAS Registration 

Aircraft registration is a foundational statutory requirement that applies to all 

civil aircraft and promotes a culture of accountability. At the time of our last discussion, we were experiencing a huge influx of new, casual UAS users—people who fly 

UAS for personal entertainment or recreation. Many of these operators do not have 

the basic aviation knowledge, training, or experience required for pilots of traditional manned aircraft. Growing concern about reports of UAS flying near airports 

and manned aircraft highlighted the need to educate these users about how to operate UAS safely as soon as possible, preferably before they began operating small 

UAS in the NAS. 

We knew at the outset that we would need to work with industry stakeholders 

in order to develop a registration process for small UAS. The Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator announced the creation of a UAS Registration 

Task Force on October 19, 2015. This Task Force was comprised of industry representatives with a range of stakeholder viewpoints, interests, and knowledge. The 

group met for three days in November 2015 to develop recommendations for a small 

UAS registration process. 

After evaluating the Task Force’s recommendations and public comments, the 

FAA published an Interim Final Rule on Registration and Marking Requirements 

for Small Unmanned Aircraft on December 14, 2015. This rule established a new 

web-based process for small UAS registration, relieving operators of the need to use 

the legacy paper-based process, and took effect on December 21, 2015. The requirements stipulate that owners must register their UAS online if the combined weight 

of the vehicle and anything it carries is more than 0.55 lbs. and less than 55 lbs., 

and is flown outdoors for either recreational or non-recreational purposes, consistent 

with the statutory requirement for aircraft registration. Within the first two weeks 

of online registration opening, over 160,000 UAS owners had registered their UAS. 

The registration process serves two critical functions that will help foster a culture of safety, security, and accountability in the emerging UAS community. First, 

it provides a means to associate an unmanned aircraft with its owner. This helps 

law enforcement and regulators identify an operator more quickly in the event of 

an incident and ensures operators are aware that they are responsible for the safe 

operation of their vehicle. Secondly, and equally important, the registration process 

provides an opportunity to educate users about how to safely operate UAS in the 

NAS, including instructions to not fly near manned aircraft and always fly within 

visual line-of-sight, as well as an acknowledgement that flying in the Nation’s airVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
8 

space comes with certain responsibilities and expectations. To date, over 750,000 

small UAS owners have registered, including more than 40,000 in the last two 

weeks of December 2016. The FAA has used the registration database on three occasions to provide registrants with important, time-sensitive safety information about 

flying their UAS—during Hurricane Matthew, wildfire season, and the Iditarod 

Great Sled Race. 

Small UAS Rule (Part 107) 

Building on the successful launch of the online registration system, the FAA 

adopted a similar approach of engagement and collaboration with industry stakeholders in the development of the first set of operating rules for small UAS, which 

forms the bedrock of the regulatory framework for full UAS integration. Because 

UAS technology is evolving at a rapid pace, a flexible regulatory framework is imperative. Our goal is to provide the basic rules for operators, not identify specific 

technological safety solutions that could quickly become outdated. We’ve achieved 

this goal with the final small UAS rule (14 CFR part 107), which was issued on 

June 21, 2016 and went into effect on August 29, 2016. 

Part 107 introduces a brand new pilot certificate that is specific for UAS operations—the Remote Pilot Certificate. Unlike a part 61 airman certificate (certification for manned aircraft), which necessarily has more stringent requirements, an 

individual can obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate by passing an aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved testing center. Alternatively, if the individual holds 

a current non-student part 61 airman certificate, the individual may complete an 

online UAS training course in lieu of the knowledge test. Approximately 24,000 applicants have taken the Remote Pilot Knowledge Exam, and over 91 percent have 

passed. 

The small UAS rule has also greatly reduced the number of, and the need for, 

Section 333 exemptions, which the FAA used to grant case-by-case approval for certain unmanned aircraft to conduct commercial operations. Before part 107, the primary way to operate a drone for non-hobby purposes was to obtain a Section 333 

exemption and an accompanying Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The 

FAA issued 5,551 exemptions under Section 333. 

The provisions of Part 107 are designed to minimize risks to other aircraft and 

people and property on the ground, as well as provide the UAS industry and operator community with the flexibility to innovate. Among other operational limits such 

as speed and altitude, the regulations require pilots to keep an unmanned aircraft 

within visual line-of-sight, fly during daylight hours, and prohibit flights over unprotected people on the ground who are not directly involved in the UAS operation. 

In keeping with our goal of a flexible framework, part 107 also allows operators 

to apply online for waivers and airspace authorizations to fly outside the rule’s requirements, provided that they demonstrate their proposed operation may be conducted safely. This process has been used successfully to issue over 400 waivers and 

2,200 airspace authorizations for UAS operations in controlled airspace, including 

the drone show featured during halftime at this year’s Super Bowl. Part 107 allows 

for operations in Class G airspace without prior air traffic control authorization; operations in Class B, C, D, and E airspace (i.e., controlled airspace) may be permitted 

with authorization from the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO). 

The small UAS rule provides UAS operators with unprecedented access to the 

NAS while also ensuring the safety of the skies, and was largely well received by 

the UAS industry. However, it is only the first step in the FAA’s plan to integrate 

UAS into the NAS. Consistent with our incremental integration strategy, we intend 

to use a risk-based approach to facilitate expanded UAS operations, including operations over people, operations beyond visual line-of-sight, and transportation of persons and property. 

Next Steps and Challenges Ahead 

The FAA’s commitment to further expanding permissible UAS operations and enabling this emerging technology to safely achieve its full potential requires resolving 

several key challenges. Congress recognized a number of these challenges in the 

FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016. Before operations beyond visual 

line-of-sight can become routine, FAA must address risks posed by drones to other 

manned aircraft, as well as risks posed by drones during a loss-of-operator-control 

event. Additionally, preemption, privacy, enforcement, and security—both physical 

and cyber—remain key issues as UAS integration progresses. 

Technical Challenges 

One way the FAA is working to address the technical challenges presented by increasingly complex UAS operations is to support its UAS test sites in conducting 

critical research. One of the primary goals of the test site program is to help the 

9 

FAA determine technical and operational trends that could support safety-related 

decision making for UAS–NAS integration. In 2016, the test sites continued to conduct research to validate key operational requirements for UAS integration, including research and testing into technology that enables UAS to detect and avoid other 

aircraft and obstacles, investigation of lost link causes and resolutions, and evaluation of the adequacy of ATC and communications procedures with UAS. Test site 

activities have also explored industry applications of UAS, such as emergency response, utility company infrastructure inspection, wildlife census, and precision agriculture. 

To complement the work being done at and by the UAS test sites, in May 2015 

the FAA selected a UAS Center of Excellence (COE), led by Mississippi State University and the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE). The goal of the UAS COE is to create a cost-sharing relationship between 

academia, industry, and government that will focus on research areas of primary 

interest to the FAA and the UAS community. The FAA has received initial research 

results for several research topics, including airborne and ground-based collision 

testing, which are currently being peer reviewed by both internal and external research teams. This work fits into the FAA’s overall UAS research and development 

portfolio, which is primarily focused on applied research to support the development 

of rules, policies, and procedures. 

To keep pace with the rapid increase in the number of UAS operations, and to 

pave the way for the full implementation of beyond visual line-of-sight operations, 

FAA is working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

and industry to develop and eventually deploy a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) 

System. NASA’s research concept specifically considers small UAS operations below 

400 feet, in airspace that contains low-density manned aircraft operations. NASA 

has developed a phased approach for their UTM concept, building from rural to 

urban and from low to high-density airspace. In April 2016, NASA coordinated with 

the six FAA-selected test sites to perform phase one testing of the UTM research 

platform. A Research Transition Team (RTT) has been established between the FAA 

and NASA to coordinate the UTM initiative, as the concept introduces policy, regulatory, and infrastructure implications that must be fully understood and addressed 

before moving forward with technology deployment. Additionally, the UTM work 

with NASA will inform our efforts with respect to UAS operating in proximity to 

airports. A second RTT has also been established with NASA, which is focused on 

UAS operating in higher altitude and controlled airspace, as opposed to the UTM 

initiative, which focuses on operations in low altitude managed airspace. 

Security and Enforcement 

As Congress recognized in the 2016 FAA Extension, the security challenges presented by UAS technology require a whole-of-government response. The FAA is 

working with several departments and agencies—including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others—to 

identify and evaluate technologies that detect and track unmanned aircraft movement through the NAS. However, technologies to detect and track unmanned aircraft movement through the NAS are only one part of the equation to address the 

security challenges presented by evolving UAS technologies. To adequately secure 

and protect the airspace we must continue to educate the public on the safe operation of UAS and work with our law enforcement partners at every level of government in responding to incidents involving threats from UAS. 

We also continue to work closely with our industry partners to evaluate these 

promising drone-detection technologies. As directed in Section 2206 of the 2016 FAA 

Extension, the FAA has established a pilot program to evaluate some of these technologies, which have been tested in airport environments at New York’s JFK Airport, Atlantic City International Airport, and Denver International Airport. Further 

testing will take place at Dallas-Fort Worth later this year. In addition, the FAA 

is working with interagency partners to develop policies and procedures for restricting UAS operations over fixed site facilities, as directed by Section 2209 of the 2016 

FAA Extension. 

The potential for conflicts between manned and unmanned aircraft has become a 

very real challenge in integrating these new technologies into the NAS. We are seeing an increased number of drone-sighting reports from pilots of manned aircraft, 

with approximately 1,800 reports of sightings in 2016, compared to 1,200 reports the 

year before. As the Federal agency responsible for the safety of the flying community, the FAA remains concerned about the increasing number of these reports. To 

begin addressing this issue, we are actively engaging in public education and outreach efforts, such as ‘‘Know Before You Fly’’ and the small UAS registration process. 

10 

Sometimes, however, education is not enough. If an unauthorized UAS operation 

is intentional, creates an unacceptable risk to safety, or is intended to cause harm, 

strong and swift enforcement action will be taken. Recently, we announced a comprehensive settlement agreement with a UAS operator that violated airspace regulations and aircraft operating rules by flying drones in congested airspace over New 

York City and Chicago. However, one of the enforcement challenges we often face 

is identifying the operator of a UAS flying where it shouldn’t. This Committee has 

recognized that challenge with Section 2202 of the 2016 FAA Extension, which directs the FAA to convene industry stakeholders to develop consensus standards for 

remotely identifying UAS operators. We plan to begin convening stakeholders this 

spring. 

Continued engagement with the law enforcement community is paramount to ensuring public safety. In January 2015, the FAA published guidance for the law enforcement community on its UAS Website, and has been actively engaging with law 

enforcement agencies at local, State, and Federal levels to reduce confusion about 

how to respond to UAS events. The FAA encourages citizens to call local law enforcement if they feel someone is endangering people or property on the ground or 

in the sky. Local law enforcement should then work with local FAA field offices to 

ensure these safety issues are addressed. 

Continued Engagement with Industry 

As the FAA moves forward with UAS integration, we will continue to involve all 

stakeholders in framing challenges, prioritizing activities, and developing consensus 

solutions. By leveraging this expertise, we ensure that the FAA maintains its position as the global leader in aviation safety. Last summer, we formed the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC). Its members include representatives from industry, government, labor, and academia. The DAC will allow us to look at drone use from 

every angle, while considering the different viewpoints and needs of the diverse 

UAS community. 

The first DAC meeting was held in September 2016 and its members have already 

started to work on assisting us in two key areas: identifying the roles and responsibilities of drone operators, manufacturers, and Federal, state, and local officials related to drone use in populated areas; and determining what the highest-priority 

UAS operations are and how we can enable access to the airspace needed to conduct 

these operations. The FAA recently created a new tasking concerning a third key 

area: how to fund the full complement of services required to safely integrate UAS 

operations into the NAS in the long-term. We look forward to receiving and reviewing the DAC’s recommendations. 

In October 2016, we also began working with industry to form an Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team (UAST), modeled after the very successful Commercial Aviation 

Safety Team (CAST). This group’s mission is to collect and use UAS operational 

data to identify safety risks, and then develop and voluntarily implement mitigation 

strategies to address those risks. The group is currently working on several projects, 

including helping the FAA develop a survey to the UAS operator community. 

Apart from our work with the DAC and the UAST, the FAA held its first UAS 

symposium in Daytona Beach, Florida in April last year. The symposium provided 

a forum for UAS stakeholders to provide feedback directly to FAA decision-makers 

on topics related to UAS integration. Nearly 500 attendees heard keynote remarks 

from the FAA Administrator and Deputy Administrator, and participated in discussions on topics ranging from aircraft and pilot certification to legal and policy issues 

related to UAS operations and integration. 

Our second UAS symposium will be held in the Washington, D.C. area on 

March 27–29, 2017. Conversations will touch on the more significant challenges 

that integration presents, including the intersection of privacy and preemption, the 

importance of harmonizing international regulations, and the array of new safety 

and security risks associated with increased UAS operations. The symposium will 

also have a Resource Center to provide attendees with one-on-one technical support 

on authorizations, waivers, Part 107 requirements, and other policies and regulations. 

Building on Our Success 

Moving forward, we intend to build on the progress that we have made this past 

year with two notable initiatives currently underway. We are developing a Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) to automate the process for 

UAS operators to notify Air Traffic Control of flights within five miles of an airport 

center or to get authorization to fly in certain classes of airspace. This initiative will 

be the first step toward implementing UTM. As part of LAANC, the FAA will publish UAS facility maps that indicate likely safe altitudes for UAS flight and disVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
11 

tances around airports. Industry applications will facilitate interaction with the 

maps and may provide automatic notification to the FAA and operational authorization to UAS operators through data exchange. Data received by the FAA may be 

used by Air Traffic Control to contact the operator in the event of an emergency. 

On February 1, 2017, the FAA held the first in a series of industry workshops to 

discuss this initiative in greater detail, and recently released a sample of 10 facility 

maps to the industry partners involved in LAANC. 

The second initiative is to develop an integrated gateway—a common web portal 

and associated API—that will serve as a one-stop-shop for all UAS interactions with 

the FAA. It will allow UAS owners and operators to register their aircraft, apply 

for an airspace authorization or waiver, file an accident report, and keep abreast 

of the latest FAA news and announcements concerning UAS. This gateway will be 

designed for desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones, and will serve as the platform 

for future communications with the FAA as UAS rules and regulations evolve. 

Conclusion 

The progress that we have made, in particular during the past year, might have 

seemed unimaginable not long ago. From the beginning, we knew that we had to 

engage our stakeholders, and it paid off with the creation of a UAS registry and 

the successful implementation of a flexible regulatory framework to enable routine 

small UAS operations. Our collaborative working relationships with the DAC and 

UAST will help inform and prioritize integration activities, ensure we remain engaged with industry trends, and maintain clear channels of communication to convey expectations and solicit feedback. We know, however, that these accomplishments are only the first step. As reinforced in the 2016 FAA Extension, there are 

many important issues yet to be addressed and we will continue to work with our 

stakeholders as we move forward. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your questions at this 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence. 

Ms. Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF DIANA MARINA COOPER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

LEGAL AND POLICY AFFAIRS, PRECISION HAWK USA INC. 

AND PRESIDENT, SMALL UAV COALITION 

Ms. COOPER. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and 

distinguished members of the Committee. 

Thank you for calling this important hearing and for the invitation to testify. 

While the Federal Aviation Administration has made great 

strides to facilitate the growth of the commercial UAS industry, we 

are at a critical juncture and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss today steps that Congress can take to ensure that the United 

States realizes the immense economic potential of this nascent industry and remains the world leader in UAS technology. 

Part 107 is merely a first step toward the comprehensive, forward leaning, and risk-based regulatory framework that the United 

States needs to attract investment in UAS in an increasingly competitive global market. 

I would also like to thank the Small UAV Coalition for the opportunity to represent our members, which range from innovative 

startups like Airmap and Kaspry, to large public companies like 

Amazon, Google[X], Intel, and Verizon. Our members are making 

significant contributions to the American economy and creating the 

jobs of the future. 

PrecisionHawk is emblematic of the vast potential of the commercial UAS industry. We provide an end-to-end commercial UAS 

platform and have conducted UAS operations for customers across 

12 

many states including South Dakota, Florida, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. 

Across America, individual farmers and large agri-businesses are 

leveraging UAS for precision agriculture and PrecisionHawk is 

proud to make its solutions accessible across this key sector of the 

American economy. 

A solution we developed with aerospace company Leonardo allows farmers to detect nitrogen levels in corn crops reducing costs 

and maximizing yield. 

Another application, which we developed with Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland, helps adjusters estimate water damage and 

process claims faster for farmers who have experienced unexpected 

yield loss. These solutions are delivering value to a critical area of 

the American economy that is continually facing new challenges. 

PrecisionHawk is pleased to serve as an integral partner in the 

FAA’s Pathfinder program through which we are collecting safety 

data, developing operational standards, and testing technologies 

with Kansas State University to support the safe introduction of 

extended and beyond line of sight operations into the national airspace. 

PrecisionHawk, and several of the Small UAV Coalition members, are proud to participate in NASA’s Unmanned Traffic Management, or UTM program. UTM refers to an automated UAS traffic management system for low altitude airspace and without it, 

our industry cannot reach its full economic potential. 

In addition to these R&D efforts, companies like PrecisionHawk 

have already commercialized components of UTM. Our LATAS system provides real time notification to UAS operators of manned 

aircraft operating in their vicinity to enable collision avoidance. 

I would like to thank the Committee for directing the FAA to initiate a two-year UTM pilot program by April 2017. This effort represents a step in the right direction. However, it should be augmented by a commitment to implement a nationwide UTM system 

within a specific timeframe. 

UTM implementation will not only begin to safely and efficiently 

introduce routine beyond line of sight operations and open up the 

airspace to new applications, such as package delivery, but also address security and privacy concerns. 

The FAA was scheduled to publish a Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making for commercial operations over people by the end of 2016, 

but the proposed rule has unfortunately been put on hold indefinitely due to national security concerns that have not been identified to industry. 

We have worked with the FAA on safety issues and we would 

like the opportunity to work with the FAA and other agencies to 

demonstrate technologies that can mitigate security concerns. 

Without new regulations and a long-term vision for UAS integration, our industry in the United States will stall, and other countries will assume the mantle of leadership in this rapidly developing technology. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing and for the opportunity 

to testify. We appreciate Congress’ pivotal role in ensuring that the 

United States fosters the massive economic potential of commercial 

13 

1Members of the Small UAV Coalition are Airmap, Amazon Prime Air, Google[X], Intel, 

Kespry, PrecisionHawk, Verizon Ventures, Aerwaze, AGI, Flirtey, Fresh Air Educators, T-Mobile, and Walmart. 2 Clarity from above: PwC global report on the commercial applications of drone technology. 

UAS technology and preserves American leadership in this industry that touches so many vital sectors of the economy. 

We look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders to 

expedite the development of a comprehensive regulatory framework 

that will allow for the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the 

national airspace. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANA MARINA COOPER, VICE PRESIDENT OF LEGAL AND

POLICY AFFAIRS, PRECISION HAWK USA INC. AND PRESIDENT, SMALL UAV COALITION

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for calling this important hearing on the future of unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS) and for the invitation to testify on behalf of Precision Hawk 

USA Inc. (‘‘PrecisionHawk’’) and the Small UAV Coalition. While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken steps to facilitate the growth of the rapidly developing commercial UAS industry, we are at a critical juncture and I appreciate 

the opportunity to discuss today steps Congress can take to ensure that the United 

States realizes the immense economic potential of this still nascent industry, and 

remains the world leader in UAS technology. If we do not act quickly, we risk ceding 

ground to other countries that are rapidly embracing this technology, as well as the 

economic, consumer, humanitarian, and environmental benefits that it is already 

delivering. 

I would also like to thank the Small UAV Coalition 1—the first group of its kind 

focused solely on commercial UAS operations—for the opportunity to represent our 

members, which range from small startups to large public companies that are making significant contributions to the American economy and creating the jobs of the 

future. For more than two years, the Coalition and its members worked with policymakers and regulators to help shape the development of the first regulatory framework for commercial UAS operations. We look forward to continuing to engage with 

the Federal government to accelerate development of additional regulations that will 

enable the growth of this industry while meeting the highest expectations of safety 

and security. 

PrecisionHawk is emblematic of the vast potential of the commercial UAS industry. Headquartered in North Carolina with another office in Indiana, we provide a 

sophisticated end-to-end commercial UAS platform and have flown UAS for customers across many states, including South Dakota, Florida, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. The potential of UAS is reflected in investments we have received from Intel Capital Corporation, Verizon 

Ventures LLC, USAA Property Holdings, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., 

and Indiana University Foundation, Inc. In 2016, the World Economic Forum 

named PrecisionHawk among the Top Technology Pioneers, and this year we are 

proud to be ranked among the Top 100 Global Cleantech Companies by the 

Cleantech Group. 

Leveraging Technology To Grow the American Economy 

PrecisionHawk’s commercial UAS platform enables American businesses to create 

efficiencies and maximize revenue. Our customers traverse a wide range of industries that are vital to the American economy, from construction to energy and insurance. The near-term potential benefits of UAS are perhaps most apparent, however, 

in the agriculture sector, the first sector in which we developed core expertise seven 

years ago when our company was founded. One recent report estimates the value 

of the global market for UAS solutions at more than $127 billion, with $32.4 billion 

attributable to agriculture alone.2

Across America, individual farmers and large agri-businesses are already 

leveraging UAS for precision agriculture and PrecisionHawk is proud to make its 

solutions accessible to customers across this key sector of the American economy. 

UAS provide a low-cost, efficient, and easy to implement solution that allows farmers to gain valuable insights that translate into increased revenue potential. 

Today, farmers are using PrecisionHawk’s UAS platform to obtain precise realtime data about their crops, fields, and harvests. Our platform allows farmers to 

14 

create flight plans and generate 2D and 3D maps, which are in turn analyzed to 

detect plant count, plant height, vegetative health, waterpooling, and much more. 

The results inform planting decisions and indicate early warnings of threats encroaching on crops, such as water pressures, nitrogen deficiencies, disease, and insect infestations. This critical data allows farmers to provide localized interventions 

that decrease the cost of farming operations and reduce environmental impact. 

Among our agriculture solutions is an application we developed with Leonardo 

that allows farmers to detect nitrogen levels in corn crops. While nitrogen deficiency 

reduces yield, an oversupply of this expensive input significantly increases the cost 

of an operation. Our solution helps farmers determine precisely when, where, and 

how much nitrogen is needed, and in doing so, promotes increased profitability. Another application, which we developed with Archer Daniels Midland, detects standing water in fields. This solution is a valuable tool that helps adjusters quickly estimate water damage and process claims faster for farmers who have experienced unexpected and potentially significant yield loss. These use cases are reducing costs, 

promoting productivity, and bringing valuable solutions to a critical area of the 

American economy that is continually facing new challenges. 

Public-Private Partnerships Support Safe and Expedited UAS Integration 

PrecisionHawk is proud to participate in a number of government-industry collaborative efforts to expedite the safe integration of UAS into the national airspace. 

One of these key initiatives centers on unmanned traffic management (UTM), an 

automated UAS traffic management system for low-altitude airspace. Without UTM, 

our commercial UAS industry cannot reach its full economic potential or provide its 

full range of potential goods and services to consumers. UTM promotes the safe and 

seamless integration of UAS into the national airspace and enables operations over 

people and beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS). An important component of a 

UTM is the ability to—in real-time—remotely identify and authenticate a UAS operator. When we are able to identify, track, and authenticate users operating in the 

airspace, we will have the necessary architecture in place to identify and hold accountable rogue operators engaging in unlawful activity and to meet the highest expectations of security and privacy. 

NASA has for years partnered with industry—including PrecisionHawk and many 

other Small UAV Coalition members—to conduct valuable research and has developed meaningful insights into UTM architecture and functionality. In addition to 

these research and development (R&D) efforts, companies like PrecisionHawk have 

already commercialized components of UTM. Our LATAS system provides real-time 

notification to UAS operators of manned aircraft operating in their vicinity to allow 

for collision avoidance. 

The Small UAV Coalition was pleased to see Congress embrace the need for UTM 

in the 2016 short-term FAA extension. Section 2208 directs the FAA to develop and 

provide Congress with a research plan for UTM by January 2017 and to initiate a 

two-year pilot program by April. The FAA has established a Research Transition 

Team (RTT) to promote transfer of knowledge related to NASA’s UTM research. 

This effort represents a positive step in the right direction. However, it should be 

augmented by a commitment to initiate and complete the pilot program within the 

congressionally-mandated timeline and to implement a nationwide UTM system 

within a specific timeframe. 

Based on the extensive data provided by NASA’s R&D efforts, the forthcoming 

FAA pilot program, and industry products already in the field, we believe that a 

UTM system can be introduced in a phased approach around the country, based on 

the varying operating environments. We respectfully request that Congress expedite 

the safe integration of UAS by mandating that a UTM system be established in 

stages within a concrete timeline. A phased UTM implementation will not only 

begin to safely and efficiently introduce routine BVLOS operations and open up the 

airspace to new applications such as package delivery, but also address security and 

privacy concerns. 

In addition to participating in NASA’s UTM research, PrecisionHawk is also 

proud to be an original partner in the FAA’s Pathfinder program. Through this program, we are collecting data, developing operational standards, and testing technologies to support the safe introduction of extended and beyond line of sight UAS 

operations into the national airspace. Much of our Pathfinder research has been conducted in conjunction with Kansas State University, a member of the FAA Center 

of Excellence for UAS. We are currently conducting our third phase of research 

under the Pathfinder program, which is focused on creating a safety case for conducting localized BVLOS operations using technology to mitigate safety risks. This 

data will be a valuable asset to the FAA as it prepares a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for expanded operations, including those beyond the visVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
15 

ual line of sight. We hope that it will also inform the FAA’s ability to grant BVLOS 

waiver applications under the current regulatory framework. To date, only three 

such waivers have been approved since the process opened over six months ago, including one granted to PrecisionHawk. 

Beyond our partnerships with NASA and Pathfinder, PrecisionHawk is a proud 

member of the FAA Drone Advisory Committee and the FAA Unmanned Aircraft 

Safety Team. We also participated in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration multistakeholder process to develop industry-led, voluntary 

best practices for UAS privacy, transparency, and accountability. The Small UAV 

Coalition, PrecisionHawk, and many others in the commercial UAS industry were 

pleased to support the consensus best practices that balance privacy rights with the 

need to protect U.S. innovation and economic competitiveness. 

Preserve American Competitiveness by Expediting a Risk-Based 

Regulatory Framework 

The commercial UAS industry was pleased to see the FAA implement its longawaited Small UAS Rule, commonly known as Part 107, on August 29, 2016. Part 

107 ended the categorical prohibition on commercial UAS operations unless approved through a lengthy and burdensome exemption process and is allowing businesses to leverage UAS technology to generate revenue and provide more services 

to customers. However, commercial UAS technology—as is the case with many rapidly developing sectors of the 21st century economy—is evolving at a pace that has 

exceeded regulations. Part 107 is just the first step towards the comprehensive, forward-leaning, and risk-based regulatory framework that the United States needs to 

continue to attract investment in this technology and create jobs for American workers in an increasingly competitive global market. 

The United States’ ability to fully realize the vast economic and consumer potential of commercial UAS technology is dependent upon future regulatory actions that 

will permit advanced operations currently prohibited or allowed only through burdensome waiver or exemption processes. The status quo imposes significant opportunity costs on American businesses and individuals who are prohibited from receiving the benefits of commercial UAS operations over people and beyond the visual 

line of sight. 

The FAA was scheduled to publish an NPRM for commercial operations over people by the end of 2016, but the proposed rule has unfortunately been put on hold 

indefinitely due to national security concerns that have not been identified to industry. The UAS industry has not been able to open dialogue with the appropriate 

agencies to discuss potential solutions to address these concerns and move the rulemaking forward. While national security concerns are of utmost importance, it 

would be unfortunate if the progress of our commercial UAS industry is jeopardized 

due to concerns that do not implicate the commercial sector. 

Further, the longer this rulemaking is delayed, the longer industry and consumers 

will have to wait for additional rulemakings, including one to permit expanded operations beyond the visual line of sight. BVLOS operations are particularly important 

in the agriculture sector, though also vitally important in other applications that 

will benefit the public interest. Operations over people and beyond the visual line 

of sight will significantly enable and improve response times of search and rescue, 

firefighting, and natural disaster response and recovery missions. 

Without these rulemakings, the UAS industry in the United States will stall and 

other countries will assume the mantle of leadership in this rapidly developing industry. Congress can ensure that this does not happen by working with the FAA 

to expedite regulations that will realize the immense safety, economic, and social 

benefits of commercial UAS. 

Innovation Hangs in the Balance 

Thank you again for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify on behalf of PrecisionHawk and the Small UAV Coalition. Congress has a pivotal role in 

ensuring that the United States embraces the massive economic potential and consumer benefits of commercial UAS technology and preserving American leadership 

in this rapidly developing industry that touches so many vital sectors of the economy. We look forward to continuing to work with Committee members, the FAA, 

and all stakeholders to expedite the development of a comprehensive regulatory 

framework that will allow for the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the national airspace. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Cooper. 

Mr. Fowke, you should have an interesting perspective on this 

issue. So I look forward to hearing from you next. 

16 

STATEMENT OF BEN FOWKE, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, XCEL ENERGY 

Mr. FOWKE. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee for the invitation to speak at 

this important hearing. 

My name is Ben Fowke, and I am the CEO of Xcel Energy, and 

we are an integrated energy company serving 3.5 million electric 

customers and 2 million natural gas customers across eight Western and Midwestern States. We are headquartered in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota. We have a balanced energy mix that includes natural 

gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables. In fact, we are the Nation’s 

number one wind energy provider with more than 8,000 megawatts 

on our system. 

A big part of my job is ensuring that we can protect our electric 

and gas system from natural disasters and criminal attacks. I am 

also a member of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council 

where I join with other leaders in the private sector to advise the 

President on ways that the Nation can protect its critical infrastructure. 

So for that reason, I am delighted this morning to talk about our 

experience using Unmanned Aircraft Systems, or UAS, to protect 

electric infrastructure and advance our mission of safely delivering 

reliable energy to our customers. 

In 2013, we started using UAS to inspect boilers at various 

power plants in Minnesota and Colorado. We later expanded the 

use of this technology outdoors to inspect other infrastructure, including energized substations, transmission lines, wind farms, and 

natural gas pipelines. 

In February 2016, Xcel Energy became the first utility in the Nation to fly a research and development mission that was beyond the 

operator’s line of sight. The research flights assessed 22 miles of 

transmission lines near Amarillo, Texas. 

And last year, we also began a research project in partnership 

with the state of North Dakota, the University of North Dakota, 

and others to use UAS technology to assess damage after severe 

weather events. 

Based on our early experiences, we see great potential for using 

UAS technology in our industry to enhance safety, efficiently facilitate infrastructure inspection, and improve storm recovery. 

For example, some of our transmission lines run through inaccessible, mountainous terrain in Colorado. For years, we could only access those transmission lines by helicopter or by foot, both of which 

are expensive and increase risk of injury. 

UAS technology can help us safely inspect these remote transmission lines, identify problems, and restore service more quickly 

and with less impact on the environment. UAS data is also more 

robust and accurate than traditional inspection methods and can be 

attained at a fraction of the cost. We estimate UAS inspection can 

reduce the cost of inspecting our transmissions lines to $200 a mile 

versus the $1,200 a mile using helicopter technology. 

Xcel Energy is committed to helping policymakers capture the 

benefits of this technology while protecting public safety. And I 

want to thank this committee for working so hard to enact the FAA 

reauthorization legislation last year. 

17 

In particular, we thank you for including Sections 2204, 2207, 

and 2210 in the final legislation. These Sections clearly signal to 

the FAA that protection and maintenance of critical infrastructure 

in the utility sector must be a focus of UAS policy. Electricity and 

natural gas are essential services to the American people, and we 

believe it is appropriate for Federal policy to recognize that utilities 

warrant different regulatory treatment than commercial users of 

UAS. 

We have two priorities as regulations are further developed. 

First, expanding the authority of utilities to use UAS in beyond visual line of sight operations so we can more fully capture the benefit 

of this technology. 

And second, to prevent unauthorized use of UAS around our critical infrastructure. I will give you an example on that last point. 

Last May, an unauthorized UAS accidently landed in one of our 

substations in the Denver area. Had it landed any closer to our energized equipment, just a few feet away, and we could have easily 

had a power outage that would have impacted 20,000 customers. 

Preventing unauthorized use of UAS around critical infrastructure is a broadly shared goal. The Committee recognized this, and 

included language in Section 2209 of the FAA law to establish a 

process to apply for restrictions around fixed site critical infrastructure, and we look forward to working with the FAA to implement 

this required rule. 

Fortunately, we are making progress toward achieving both of 

our UAS priorities. In January of this year, Xcel Energy entered 

into the first of its kind partnership with the FAA to help inform 

the regulatory process and to demonstrate the safe operation of 

UAS technology to inspect critical infrastructure. 

The agreement, known as the Partnership for Safety Plan, involves using UAS to inspect more than 20,000 miles of Xcel Energy 

transmission lines in ten states. 

Over the next 24 months, the FAA and Xcel Energy will be working together to develop safety measures, gather data, and evaluate 

outcomes. We hope this partnership will further the development 

of policies that unleash the game changing potential of safe and 

routine beyond visual line of sight operations. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to be here with you 

today, and I look forward to any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fowke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN FOWKE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, XCEL ENERGY

Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee for the invitation to speak at this important hearing. 

My name is Ben Fowke, and I am the CEO of Xcel Energy, an integrated energy 

company serving 3.5 million electric customers and 2 million natural gas customers 

across eight Western and Midwestern states. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, we have a balanced energy mix that includes natural gas, coal, nuclear and 

renewables. We are also the Nation’s No. 1 utility wind energy provider with more 

than 8,000 megawatts on our system. 

A big part of my job is ensuring that we can protect our power plants, transmission lines, substations and the rest of the electric system from natural disasters 

and criminal attacks. I am also a member of the National Infrastructure Advisory 

Council where I join with other leaders in the private sector to advise the President 

on ways that the Nation can protect its critical infrastructure. For that reason, I 

am delighted this morning to talk about our experience using unmanned aerial sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
18 

tems, or UAS, to protect electric infrastructure and advance our mission of safely 

delivering reliable energy to our customers. 

Beginning in 2013, we started using UAS to inspect boilers at various power 

plants in Minnesota and Colorado. We later expanded the use of this technology outdoors to inspect other infrastructure, including energized substations, transmission 

lines, wind farms and natural gas pipelines. 

In February of 2016, Xcel Energy became the first utility in the Nation to fly a 

research and development mission that was beyond the operator’s line of sight. The 

research flights used two different types of UAS—fixed wing and rotor-style—and 

assessed 22 miles (32 km) of 69-kV transmission line near Amarillo, Texas. 

Last year we also began a research project in partnership with the state of North 

Dakota, the University of North Dakota, and other partners, to use UAS technology 

to assess damage after severe weather events. Under that project, disaster scenarios 

were staged throughout the City of Mayville, ND that simulated causes of power 

outage. We used different types of UAS to test the best way to survey and assess 

damage in order to restore service. 

Benefits of UAS Technology 

Based on our early experiences, we see great potential for using UAS technology 

in our industry to enhance safety, efficiently facilitate infrastructure inspection, and 

improve storm recovery. 

For example, Xcel Energy serves parts of the Colorado Rocky Mountains, including some of the most rugged and remote country in America. Our transmission lines 

run through inaccessible, mountainous terrain. For years, we could access those 

transmission lines only by helicopter or on foot, both of which are expensive and 

increases risk of injury. UAS technology can help us inspect these remote transmission lines, identify problems and restore service more quickly and with less impact on the environment. 

There are clear savings opportunities for our customers as well. When beyondline-of-sight UAS operations become available, we estimate using UAS for transmission line inspection will cost a fraction of traditional methods—about $200 per 

mile using UAS as compared to $1,200 a mile with a manned helicopter or $300– 

$600 with foot patrol inspections. In addition to being less costly, UAS data is more 

robust and accurate than the traditional inspection methods. 

UAS technology will also improve efficiency and safety within our power plants. 

Our largest power plants include boilers and other equipment that are ten stories 

tall and difficult to access, and inspection and maintenance of these facilities is challenging. We have recently conducted more than 30 UAS indoor inspection flights, 

and the benefits of the technology are obvious: we save money and can maintain 

our equipment more safely. UAS technology allows us to avoid building scaffolds, 

and exposing workers to heights and hazardous environments. We conservatively estimate direct savings for each plant that uses UAS inspections at almost $1 million 

over two years. 

Xcel Energy is committed to helping policymakers capture the benefits of this 

technology while protecting public safety. 

2016 FAA Reauthorization 

I want to thank this Committee for working so hard to enact the FAA reauthorization legislation last year. That legislation included language that recognized the 

great potential of UAS technology for the utility sector. 

I want to highlight a couple of provisions in particular: 

• Sections 2204 and 2207 allow the FAA to facilitate the expeditious authorization of UAS use to support utility service restoration efforts. This authority was 

used in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew in October 2016. In that case, two 

electric companies received permission to fly within hours of their request to assess damage. 

• Section 2210 allows the FAA to approve the use of UAS beyond visual-line-ofsight day or night to inspect, repair, construct, maintain, and protect critical infrastructure. This provision specifically includes pipelines and all aspects of the 

electric power system-generation, transmission, and distribution. 

We thank this committee for including these important sections in the bill last 

year, which clearly signal to the FAA that protection and maintenance of critical 

infrastructure in the utility sector must be a focus of UAS policy. UAS technology 

can be invaluable to the safe and efficient operation of the Nation’s power system. 

Electricity and natural gas are essential services to the American people, and we 

believe it is appropriate for Federal policy to recognize that utilities warrant different regulatory treatment than other commercial users of UAS. 

19 

We have two priorities as regulations are further developed: 

• First, expanding the authority of utilities to us UAS in beyond-visual-line-ofsight operations so we more fully capture the benefit of this technology in our 

industry. 

• Second, preventing unauthorized use of UAS around our critical infrastructure. 

On the second point, let me give you an example of the kinds of threats that we 

may face with unauthorized use of UAS. Last May, an unauthorized UAS landed 

in one of our substations in the Denver area. Although the UAS in this circumstance flew into the substation by accident, had it landed any closer to our energized equipment, just a few feet away, it could have easily caused a power outage 

affecting more than 20,000 customers. A malicious attack by a UAS could have catastrophic consequences. 

As it stands today, the rules of the engagement are unclear at best as to what 

companies should do when unauthorized drones pose a threat. More work must be 

done to educate public sector first responders, as well as the private sector—especially critical infrastructure industries. There are also policy and regulatory hurdles 

in existence that limit counter drone technology from being widely available, legal, 

and effective. 

Preventing unauthorized use of UAS around critical infrastructure is a broadly 

shared goal. The committee recognized this, and included language in Section 2209 

of the FAA law to establish a process to apply for restrictions around fixed site critical infrastructure. To comply with the law, FAA is developing an interim process 

in advance of a required rulemaking. We are interested in the outcomes of both the 

interim process and the final rule and will work closely with FAA, in coordination 

with our trade association, EEI, to ensure the best possible outcome. 

Partnership for Safety Plan 

Fortunately, working with the FAA, we are beginning to make progress toward 

achieving both of our UAS priorities. In January of this year, Xcel Energy entered 

into a first-of-its-kind safety partnership with the FAA to help inform the regulatory 

process and to demonstrate the safe operation of UAS technology to inspect critical 

infrastructure. 

This agreement, known as the ‘‘Partnership for Safety Plan,’’ involves using UAS 

to inspect more than 20,000 miles of Xcel Energy transmission lines in 10 states. 

Over the next 24 months the FAA and Xcel Energy will be working together to 

plan and develop safety measures, gather data, and evaluate outcomes. 

This research will examine ways to enable safe flight over people and roads using 

‘‘sense and avoid’’ and ‘‘command and control’’ and other technologies. This research 

will also look at communication needs to support long-range beyond-visual-line-ofsight operation. I’ve included the full MOU in my written statement, which includes 

more detail on the partnership. 

We hope this partnership will further the development of policies that unleash the 

game-changing potential of safe and routine beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. 

As you consider the Federal policy issues affecting this emerging technology, I 

look forward to working with you and the FAA to ensure we are able to use UAS 

to improve emergency response, enhance safety, increase reliability and help protect 

the Nation’s electric grid. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Fowke. 

Mr. Schulman. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDAN SCHULMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

POLICY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS, DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 

Nelson, and members of the Committee. 

I applaud the Committee for holding this hearing at this important time in the development of drone technology. DJI is the 

world’s largest manufacturer or professional and personal UAS. We 

firmly believe that the balanced regulatory approach that the 

United States has taken has been essential to innovation and 

growth in our industry. 

20 

I have provided written testimony to you. I would like to highlight three items of good news. 

First, the industry is leading the way on safety and has been for 

years. DJI takes safety very seriously. Anticipating the importance 

of protecting airspace near airports, we incorporated geo-fencing 

technology into our products 4 years ago. Geo-fencing automatically 

prevents our drones from taking off within, or flying into, sensitive 

areas such as airports or nuclear plants. 

We include many other safety features such as maximum altitude limitations, automatic lost signal return to home, and computer vision collision avoidance. 

All of that technology is packed into a portable product. I have 

brought our Mavic Pro drone here with me today. It weighs about 

a pound and a half and folds up into the size of a water bottle. 

DJI’s products are the top choice of both professional and personal 

drone operators. So when we update a safety feature, it quickly becomes available to most drone pilots out there. 

Crucial to our development of these safety features is the ability 

to deploy them quickly without regulatory delays. Mandating a specific technology or requiring the FAA to certify each make and 

model of drone prior to sale would greatly disrupt the cycle of innovation. 

We have also learned from real world experience through our 

customers that safety features that sound simple to implement are 

actually very nuanced. For example, we have many customers 

using drones at airports to enhance aviation safety. 

Just by way of example, Ventura County, California uses DJI 

drones to conduct facility inspection to assist with perimeter security and to monitor wildlife on airport property. So technology features like airport geo-fencing need to be flexible. 

The second piece of good news that I have is that the innovation 

we have been dreaming about is already here. Thanks to the FAA’s 

commendable work on Part 107, drones are now open for business. 

The benefits in agriculture, construction, facility inspection, and 

cinematography are evident. But what excites us too are the many 

unique applications developed by creative thinkers. 

For example, scientists at Massachusetts-based Ocean Alliance 

are using DJI drones to collect a biological specimen from whale 

spray to monitor the animal’s health. 

In south Florida, Project Ryptide is working with beach lifeguards to use DJI technology to quickly locate people in distress in 

the ocean and deliver a life preserver. 

Indeed, the best news I could share with you today is that drones 

have already saved lives. According to our research, which we released yesterday, drones have already helped save at least 59 lives 

in the past 2 years in floods, fires, and when people go missing. 

One-third of those lives saved were saved with the help of consumer bystanders using their drones. These and many other unexpected beneficial applications are here because of ready access to 

the technology and reasonable regulations. 

Innovation is also thriving in the recreational user community. 

Today’s hobbyist is tomorrow’s innovator and next year’s technology pioneer. As people explore and experiment with this techVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
21 

nology personally, they find ways to incorporate it into their business. 

The consumer drone market is also driving down costs and providing resources to engage in research and development that benefits commercial operators. Congress has supported this innovation 

by providing a simple and easy to understand set of rules for recreational UAS operations in the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation. Additional burdens on the personal use of this technology will 

also impact potential future business uses. 

My last point of good news relates to the roles and responsibilities of government. In 2016, DJI counted nearly 300 State bills 

concerning drones. Some of those proposals were thoughtful and 

welcomed, but others conflicted with FAA regulations or were unduly restrictive. If the rules vary from state to state, and city to 

city, the result is an airspace system that is less safe. 

DJI is supportive of informed legislation at the State and local 

level that address legitimate concerns not otherwise covered by existing law and regulation. There is an urgent need to reconcile 

those local concerns with Federal aviation doctrines so that our industry is not plagued by legal confusion at this seminal time. 

The good news is that the FAA has tasked the Drone Advisory 

Committee, of which I am a member, to explore what a recommended governing approach might be. The task group is composed of stakeholders from city and county governments, manned 

aviation, the UAS industry, and academia who are working diligently to reach consensus on the recommended roles and responsibilities of different levels of government. 

An approach in which we collaboratively work together to understand and solve challenges like these is DJI’s approach to drone 

policy issues. And we look forward to continued collaboration with 

your committee as well. 

Thank you again. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schulman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENDAN SCHULMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY & LEGAL AFFAIRS, DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee. I am Brendan Schulman, Vice President of Policy & Legal Affairs for DJI 

Technology, Inc. (‘‘DJI’’). I applaud the Committee for holding this hearing at this 

important time in the development of drone technology and for your interest in 

making sure the United States provides the right atmosphere to let our industry 

grow and thrive while at the same time protecting safety. We are in the somewhat 

unique position of being an early-stage technology industry that craves more regulation. But it has to be the right kind of regulation. Balanced regulatory policies that 

set clear, common-sense expectations for commercial, governmental, and recreational operators will help unlock the vast potential and nearly limitless benefits 

of unmanned aircraft systems. Countries that adopt these kinds of regulatory policies will have a distinct advantage as centers of innovation in this rapidly-evolving 

global industry, while those that adopt inflexible or reactionary policies will stifle 

progress and cause innovators to flee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share 

my views, on behalf of DJI, on what ‘‘getting it right’’ looks like. 

DJI: The Technology Behind the Current Drone Revolution 

DJI is the leading manufacturer of small unmanned aircraft systems in use in the 

world today, and employs over 150 people across six offices in the United States. 

We have been proud to partner with American companies as diverse as Ford Motor 

Company, Microsoft, Velodyne, and Bentley Systems to develop the next generation 

of drone technology and applications. Although drones have become widely popular 

in the past two or three years, our company is actually ten years old, and has spent 

22 

that decade developing and perfecting the underlying technologies. By some analyst 

estimates, our products are the choice of over 70 percent of commercial drone operators, and a similar fraction of personal drone operators. This gives us a privileged 

position to hear about the multitude of ways in which the user community is already putting drones to work, and to gauge their needs for the commercial, enterprise, and institutional drone operations of tomorrow. Our scale also places us in 

a unique position to be able to implement safety features and provide guidance to 

the vast majority of personal drone operators. 

Safety is our highest priority. We are the market leader not just because our technology is smart and easy to use, but also because of our leadership in incorporating 

innovative safety features into our products and in our consumer and public safety 

efforts. We were the first manufacturer to incorporate GPS-based geofencing technology, which automatically prevents our drones from taking off within, or flying 

into, sensitive areas such as airports, nuclear power plants, and prisons. Our products include dozens of other safety features, such as automatic altitude limitation 

to prevent drones from flying too high, voice warnings, speed limitations, on-screen 

situational awareness information about flight altitude, distance, and speed, and a 

live map showing the drone’s location during flight. When the drone’s battery is running low, or if the radio control signal is lost, the drone automatically returns to 

the launch point and lands itself—it doesn’t just fall out of the sky. And we are continually developing new safety features. Our newest models, the Phantom 4, the 

Mavic Pro, and the Inspire 2, use computer-vision technology to automatically avoid 

collisions with obstacles during flight. Our latest enterprise drone, the Matrice 200, 

incorporates an ADS–B traffic information receiver to help the pilot maintain 

awareness of manned air traffic in the surrounding airspace. 

Technology features are also enhanced by operator education. The overwhelming 

majority of drone operators want to follow the rules and operate safely. DJI and our 

fellow members in the Drone Manufacturers Alliance strongly believe that education 

offers an effective way to promote safety that can be responsive to emerging concerns—something that can’t be said for rigid, prescriptive regulatory approaches. As 

part of our safety initiatives, DJI educates our users about operating drones safely, 

including through our on-screen safety information, our in-person New Pilot Experience courses, our video tutorials, our flight simulator built in to the drone, our beginner mode feature, and our in-box safety inserts from the FAA-endorsed ‘‘Know 

Before You Fly’’ campaign. We recently partnered with the venerable Academy of 

Model Aeronautics to launch a joint program to promote safe and responsible drone 

operations. We are also at work on a new feature to help ensure that our customers 

are aware of the rules of safe flight before they fly a drone, and hope to announce 

that initiative in the coming weeks. 

Spontaneous Innovation, Fostered by Reasonable Regulation 

You have almost certainly heard about the benefits that drones are beginning to 

bring to major industries like agriculture, construction, facility inspection, cinematography, and energy. And their contributions to public safety are unquestioned. 

For example, after Hurricane Matthew battered Florida last year and left 1.1 million people without power, Florida Power & Light used DJI drones to inspect and 

repair power lines safely and efficiently. 

What also excites us are the many unique applications that have been developed 

when creative thinkers and entrepreneurs invent spontaneous new ways to use our 

technology. For example, scientists at the Ocean Alliance are using DJI drones to 

collect whale mucus. By flying one of our drones a safe distance above a whale, scientists can collect a biological specimen from the whale spray. This sample tells the 

scientist about the whale’s gender, its health, whether it is pregnant, whether pollutants are present, and assists in understanding animal migratory patterns. This 

wonderful way of helping save the whales isn’t practical with any other technology. 

A boat cannot easily get close enough, and a helicopter would stress and endanger 

the animal. Similarly, Florida International University is using small drones to estimate shark population density. Other unexpected applications we have seen in the 

past few months include using a drone to paint high exterior walls (preventing ladder falls), and using drones to distribute antibiotic-infused food pellets to endangered ferrets to help them survive against disease. 

Just like smartphones, drones are a platform for software development. Using our 

software developer’s kit (SDK), inventors can design their own software applications 

(‘‘apps’’) for drones, which then offer specialized functions tailored for specific needs. 

In this way, our technology lays a foundation for future innovation by hundreds of 

other companies. Apps that have already been developed for our drones include 

automated mapping, cinematography, agriculture crop analysis, and drone fleet 

management. In partnership with startup DroneSAR, we are collaborating on develVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
23 

opment of a search and rescue app to coordinate the use of drones to help find missing people and provide ground crews with terrain information for a safer, faster, and 

more effective rescue. In South Florida, Project Ryptide is using our SDK technology, machine learning, and thermal vision to help beach lifeguards spot and rescue people in the ocean and drop a life preserver that will automatically inflate. 

Innovative applications like these can be facilitated by comprehensive regulations 

that maintain the safety of the airspace while presenting reasonable operational requirements. The FAA’s part 107, implemented last August, is an excellent leap forward in this regard. Thanks to part 107, the United States now leads the world 

with a comprehensible and complete set of commercial operational rules, and the 

FAA is to be commended for its hard work in reaching this outcome. However, more 

work remains. Many of our commercial users have told us that FAA approvals for 

part 107 flights in controlled airspace, even at very low altitudes, take weeks and 

these delays often cost them the very job they are applying for. Streamlining and 

eventually automating these approvals is one area for improvement in the part 107 

system that would result in immediate economic benefits to commercial drone pilots 

and to the Nation. In the interim, releasing guidance in the form of maps showing 

where approvals would actually be granted would go a long way to reducing the volume of requests and setting expectations about what commercial jobs being offered 

to part 107 pilots will and will not be approved. Additionally, restoring the option 

for local air traffic controllers to grant these approvals would alleviate the workload 

at FAA headquarters as well. 

There is also continued need to define a lowest-risk category of drones for commercial operations subject to a simplified set of rules and requirements. It does not 

make sense to regulate a two-pound drone the same way as a 54-pound drone, as 

we currently do. Other countries, such as Australia, Canada, India and Mexico, have 

recognized that a so-called ‘‘micro’’ category opens more pathways to innovation, fosters a culture of compliance, reduces burdens on the regulatory agency, and 

incentivizes the industry to put the best features into the smallest—and therefore 

inherently safest—drones. A research paper we recently released examines and refines the approach selected by the FAA’s Registration Task Force and concludes that 

a lowest-risk UAS category ought to be defined at a weight threshold of two kilograms (4.4 pounds). Last year, this Committee sensibly proposed such a ‘‘micro 

UAS’’ category in its FAA reauthorization bill. 

We welcome the next rulemaking milestones, which will allow routine operation 

of small UAS over people, at night, in controlled airspace, and eventually beyond 

visual line of sight. Ours is an industry in which smartly-constructed new regulations are good news, because they expand the range of permissible operations that 

might otherwise be restricted or only available via a time-consuming individual approval process. Research and rulemaking priorities should focus on rules that enable 

the broadest range of beneficial applications that can be achieved within today’s 

technological capabilities. For example, a rule for routine part 107 night operations 

would enable search and rescue operations during critical hours when time is of the 

essence. That’s just one example of an immediate benefit that can be realized 

through nothing more than rulemaking. Delays in the rulemaking process will have 

a negative economic impact, and curtail public safety operations, including those 

that save lives. DJI looks forward to continuing our collaboration with the FAA on 

key regulatory endeavors, just as we did when we served on the FAA’s UAS Registration Task Force, on its Aviation Rulemaking Committee for Flight Over People, 

and through our present membership on the Drone Advisory Committee. 

Safety Features: Industry is Leading the Way 

Safety features developed by industry are a key component for supporting safe operations by all drone pilots. But it is important to understand how those technologies are developed, how they are used, and their limitations before implementing any type of standard or legal mandate. Technology features involve making 

tradeoffs, and are often more complex than they might sound. There has been a lot 

of recent interest in geofencing, for example. DJI implemented geofencing in its 

drones in 2013, long before there was a single news headline about drones spotted 

by airline pilots or flying near airports. We anticipated that technology could address concerns about drones flying where they don’t belong. 

The technology that enables this feature is straightforward. The drone has a GPS 

receiver just like a mobile telephone or a car navigation system. DJI pre-programs 

locations around the world that raise aviation safety or national security concerns, 

such as airports. When the drone senses that it is near those areas, the pilot gets 

a warning message. Closer in to a sensitive area, the flight of the drone is restricted 

and the drone will automatically override the pilot, stop, and hover without entering, or, if brought inside the zone on foot, the drone will not take off. Last year, 

24 

with our airspace data provider partner AirMap, we upgraded our geofencing system to be live, so that FAA temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) and Department 

of the Interior wildfire notices are sent live to the drone pilot as a geofence, helping 

prevent unauthorized operations when airspace authorization conditions change. 

We are certain that geofencing has already done a lot of good, and perhaps even 

prevented an accident, although that benefit will always be unknowable. 

Anecdotally, we have heard of situations where our software alerts people to airspace restrictions immediately prior to takeoff, thus preventing inadvertent operations in the wrong place. However, our long experience with this feature across 

hundreds of thousands of customers has also revealed something very important: geography alone is not a good indicator of authorization to fly. In places that might 

seem like good candidates for geofencing, drones are already being used in operations that enhance safety. For example, the Ventura County, California Department of Airports is using a small UAS to conduct facility inspection, assist with perimeter security, and monitor wildlife on the airport property at Camarillo and 

Oxnard airports, which are located in Class D controlled airspace. At first, our 

geofencing system prevented these airports from doing their work, and we had to 

work with the County to develop a workaround. 

The notion that airports and drones never mix is an oversimplification. We have 

many customers doing important work at airports, enhancing the safety of the national airspace system. Similarly, our live geofencing system can help prevent 

drones from entering wildfire locations, but we also know that firefighters are using 

our drones to keep themselves safe and to help fight fires. Completely disabling a 

drone in such locations would result in a net detriment to public safety. 

Here is the lesson we have learned that only comes with actual operational experience across hundreds of thousands of customers: while geofencing is a great feature that helps prevent inadvertent operations, it will always require a balanced approach involving exceptions. Requiring drones to simply turn off when they are near 

airports is not the right solution to safety concerns. 

Additionally, locking in any specific technology mandate will discourage DJI and 

our colleagues in the industry from continuing to rapidly develop new safety technologies. A requirement to implement the best technology available today discourages manufacturers from developing the even better safety technologies of tomorrow. One reason that there are so many safety features available for today’s drones 

is that manufacturers have the freedom to implement them, and to upgrade them 

as soon as a better version is ready. Many of our upgrades are actually software, 

which our customers can update for free even after their purchase. 

We urge the Committee to preserve this flexibility and freedom to develop new 

safety innovations. The section of this Committee’s 2016 FAA reauthorization bill 

concerning UAS ‘‘Safety Standards’’ proposed to have the FAA and industry identify 

and consider UAS safety standards. Identifying and promoting safety standards is 

admirable, but the provision, Section 2124, went on to require FAA approval for 

each make and model of UAS prior to sale, a type of certification requirement that 

the FAA has already judged in its part 107 regulations to be unnecessary. Such a 

requirement would halt innovation in its tracks by preventing new products from 

being released without a lengthy and expensive FAA approval process that could 

take a year or more. 

Last year’s reauthorization bill also included a provision concerning remote identification standards. Developing a mechanism for remotely identifying the operator of 

certain UAS, as contemplated in Sections 2202 and 2124 of the bill, can provide accountability for violations of existing law, address societal anxieties, and provide a 

measure of security reassurance. However, it is important to recognize that drone 

pilots have privacy interests as well. Our commercial customers in the energy and 

agriculture sectors have competitive interests in not disclosing that they are using 

a drone to explore future wind farm locations, or to survey their latest seed crop. 

Other types of businesses are sensitive about what their patterns of drone usage 

might reveal about their business growth, profitability, or strategy. A teenager 

learning about drone technology in her backyard should not need to broadcast her 

identity to the public. An identification system akin to a car license plate, that provides identification information within the immediate area rather than tracking or 

recording all operations, strikes us as the best way to reconcile these concerns. As 

the largest manufacturer of small UAS, we look forward to playing a key role in 

the development of these and other technology-based solutions to policy challenges. 

Personal Drone Use: A Key Pathway to Innovation 

Of key importance to the future of innovation in our industry is maintaining a 

pathway for people to experiment with technology on a personal level. Today’s 

hobbyist is tomorrow’s inventor, and tomorrow’s inventor is next year’s technology 

25 

industry pioneer. In 2012, Congress wisely recognized that recreational UAS operations should be subject to a simple and easy-to-understand set of rules that put 

safety first. 

Remotely controlled aircraft operated for recreation have a long history of inspiring young people to become aviation pioneers. Burt Rutan, founder of innovative 

aerospace company Scaled Composites, was inspired by model aircraft as a youngster. John Kiker, an avid model aircraft hobbyist, was instrumental in conceiving 

and designing the iconic piggy-back space shuttle transport system that mated the 

NASA space shuttle to the back of a Boeing 747. Engineers doubted it could ever 

work but model aircraft proved that it did. But personal drones today are not just 

about aeronautics. They are about robotics, programming, automation, problem-solving, and sensor technology—many of the skills that young people will need in their 

future careers. And they bring excitement among a new generation of pilots and 

dreamers. Internationally, the reigning champion in the exciting new world of drone 

racing is Luke Bannister, who is only 16 years old. 

Drones are also a tool for creating visual art, in both photography and 

videography. There may be no better tool to encourage people of all backgrounds to 

become interested in robotic technology than by introducing them to a technology 

whose aspects are so broad, ranging from the thrill of remote flight to the satisfaction of computer programming, to the excitement of exploring new business opportunities, to the creativity of visual art that lasts far beyond the flight. We also should 

not overlook the long-term societal benefits of recreational activities. In an era with 

much free time spent behind glowing screens, a technology that gets young people 

to spend time outdoors and to create their own art should be broadly welcomed. 

What does it tell us that 750,000 Americans have registered with the FAA as drone 

owners in a little over one year? It tells us that this is exciting technology that 

Americans want to use to create art, to experience the thrill of flight, to learn about 

robotics and technology, and to start and grow a business. This excitement and interest in technology is something to foster, not something to fear. 

What we have also learned from our customers is that the same drone that is 

often used for hobby purposes on Saturday is used for work on Monday. As people 

become comfortable with the technology recreationally, they find ways to incorporate 

it into their business. Commercial and recreational drones are not two distinct products, segregated by use. Like computers, smartphones, and automobiles, they are 

tools used across a full spectrum. 

Recreational use has also directly led to the innovations that all users today are 

enjoying. Many leading companies in this industry, including our own and that of 

our colleagues at Berkeley’s 3DRobotics, were founded by people who started their 

exploration of remotely-controlled aircraft as enthusiasts, tinkering in garages, basements, and, in the case of our founder, school dormitories. Some of the most intriguing applications, improvements, modifications, and software have come from people 

who were ‘‘just having fun.’’ Passion is one of the purest drivers of spontaneous innovation, and perhaps no other industry exemplifies that better than ours. What 

was long assumed to be an industry that would evolve from large military-type platforms has instead grown from technology many had only recently thought of as toys. 

In one wonderful recent example, in India, a 14-year-old student has developed a 

mine-clearing drone and was awarded a $730,000 USD government contract to 

produce them. 

The consumer drone industry is also driving down costs, and providing resources 

to engage in research and development that benefits commercial operators. A commercial photographer who spent the last few years awaiting the FAA’s commercial 

drone rules that were only finalized in August 2016, upon obtaining her new FAA 

part 107 license, had immediate access to a sophisticated, portable, flying ultra 

high-definition camera for under one thousand dollars—because the consumer drone 

market had been rapidly innovating and pushing the technology forward for years 

already. Various studies of the Section 333 individual commercial permits issued by 

the FAA from late 2014 to mid 2016 showed that the most popular drones for professional use were the ones most often used for personal use, such as the DJI Phantom specified for use in over 60 percent of those applications. Virtually anyone operating a commercial drone today can be thankful to the consumer market for the benefits of widespread adoption and economies of scale. Burdens placed on the development or sale of these technologies will also impact the business users. 

Also rarely mentioned is how drones in the hands of recreational pilots are contributing to public safety in life-saving ways. Our analysis of news reports reveals 

that drones have already helped save at least 59 lives in the past two years—in 

floods, fires, earthquakes, and when people go missing, and are now saving lives at 

the rate of one per week. One-third of those rescues involved a consumer bystander 

or volunteer being in the right place at the right time with the right tool: a drone. 

26 

This technology not only has the power to do great good, but is already doing it 

around the world, even in places without much regulation, and in the hands of people without licenses or formal training. Sensationalized media accounts of minor 

drone mishaps fail to provide crucial context, both in terms of the number of people 

who have used drones safely (millions), as well as the societal value of those activities. 

As you move forward with potential UAS legislation, and the FAA continues with 

its steady pace of aviation rulemaking, we all owe it to future generations of aviation pioneers and visual artists to balance the safety goals we all share with the 

benefits of a transformative new technology, and leave unburdened these important 

pathways to innovation. 

Preserving Uniformity While Addressing Local Issues 

Successfully integrating UAS into the national airspace system requires addressing the legitimate concerns of state and local government. In 2016, DJI counted 

nearly 300 state bills concerning drones. There were also countless other proposals 

at the county and municipal levels. Some of those proposals were thoughtful and 

welcome. Many others, however, were based on uninformed assumptions about what 

drone technology is, how it is used, and how it is already regulated, resulting in proposals that would duplicate or even directly conflict with FAA regulations and Federal statutes, or otherwise unreasonably burden pilots. 

If the rules vary from state to state, county to county, and city to city, the result 

is an airspace system that is less safe, and DJI in particular loses the ability to communicate what the rules are to our customers. Conflicting rules also lead to confusion, disdain for the regulatory system, and ultimately non-compliance. UAS technology is increasingly portable, with one of our latest products, the Mavic Pro, 

weighing about a pound and a half and folding up into the size of a water bottle. 

As our industry moves forward with the full range of commercial, educational, artistic, scientific and governmental operations for drones, the potential disruption from 

inconsistent regulation presents a significant risk. 

DJI is supportive of informed legislation at the state and local level that addresses problems not otherwise covered by existing law and regulation. For example, last 

year, DJI supported California Assembly Bill 1662 requiring accident reporting for 

drone operators, Assembly Bill 1680 prohibiting interference with emergency personnel, and Senate Bill 807 limiting the liability of first responders who damage 

drones interfering with emergency personnel. We also support the provision in last 

year’s FAA extension legislation directing the agency to establish a centralized process for designation of critical infrastructure sites that warrant protection from unauthorized drones. That provision, Section 2209, is a good model for taking a legitimate local concern and ensuring that flight restrictions sought at the local level are 

considered and implemented consistently, by the experts at the FAA, and then made 

available in a central location for UAS pilots to consult. 

Other concerns remain, and ought to be addressed in a thoughtful way that does 

not impair the great promise of this technology. The overwhelming majority of drone 

pilots are safe and responsible, and have no intent to disturb anyone when they are 

operating. Finding ways to address rare instances of misuse without thwarting legal 

and responsible operations is a goal we share. It is clear that the traditional Federal 

preemption framework for aviation, so crucial to ensuring a set of uniform aviation 

safety standards, is not satisfying to local policymakers. And it is also clear that 

the traditional local authority over zoning and use of land does not provide a workable local governing solution for aircraft that require no ground facilities and that 

can take off and land anywhere. A new, creative approach to these issues may be 

warranted, and I am pleased that the FAA’s Drone Advisory Committee, of which 

I am a member, has been tasked by the FAA, and is already hard at work in one 

of its task groups, to explore what a recommended alternative might be. The group 

is composed of stakeholders from city and county governments, manned aviation, 

the UAS industry, and academia who will try to reach consensus on the roles and 

responsibilities of different levels of government, and issue an interim report to the 

FAA by May 2017. An approach in which we collaboratively work together to understand and solve challenges like these is DJI’s approach to policy issues not just in 

the United States but worldwide. 

Conclusion 

When Congress enacted the first significant legislation concerning drones five 

years ago, much of what I have described in this testimony was still at the workbench stage. The notion that almost anyone would soon have access to drone technology for work or play, supported by state-of-the-art safety features and careful operator education, probably exceeded anyone’s expectations at that time. The rapid 

27 

development of drone technology and the industry surrounding it, and the economic 

vitality it has contributed, are testaments to the transformative power of innovation. 

We firmly believe that the balanced approach that the United States has taken to 

the regulation of this emerging industry has been an essential ingredient in this 

process of innovation and growth. DJI looks forward to continuing to collaborate 

with you, the FAA, and other federal, state, and local authorities to ensure that the 

industry’s next five years are as exciting and consequential as the last five. Thank 

you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER [presiding]. Thank you. 

Dr. Villasenor. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN VILLASENOR, PROFESSOR, ELECTRICAL 

ENGINEERING, PUBLIC POLICY, AND MANAGEMENT; 

VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 

LOS ANGELES; AND VISITING FELLOW, THE HOOVER 

INSTITUTION, STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

Dr. VILLASENOR. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking 

Member Nelson, and members of the Committee. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify at today’s 

hearing on unmanned aircraft. 

As requested by the Committee, I am focusing my testimony on 

the question of privacy, principally in relation to unmanned aircraft, but also in relation to rapidly changing technologies more 

broadly. 

I am a Professor at UCLA where I teach in the Schools of Engineering, Public Affairs, Law, and Management. I also have several 

research affiliations outside of UCLA, including an appointment as 

a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. The views 

I am expressing here are my own. 

My testimony today can be summarized as follows: First, the fact 

that unmanned aircraft can potentially be used to gather information in ways that violate privacy does not mean, in and of itself, 

that new Federal unmanned aircraft privacy legislation is needed. 

Rather, the key question is: do unmanned aircraft put privacy at 

risk in ways that fall outside the scope of existing constitutional, 

statutory, and common law privacy protections? 

There are good reasons to believe that the answer to that question is no. As a result, I think it is premature to enact broad, new 

Federal legislation specifically directed to unmanned aircraft privacy. 

Second, to the extent that Federal unmanned aircraft privacy 

legislation is nonetheless proposed, I would emphasize the importance of ensuring that it does not inadvertently infringe the First 

Amendment rights of the many nongovernment unmanned aircraft 

users who will operate their platforms in responsible, non-privacy 

violating ways. 

It is relatively easy to draft statutes that limit the ability of unmanned aircraft users to acquire, retain, or distribute information. 

It is far harder to do so in a manner that is consistent with the 

full scope of the First Amendment. 

28 

1More information regarding my research, publications, and academic/research affiliations can 

be found at http://johnvillasenor.com. 

Third, while the specific technology under consideration by the 

Committee at today’s hearing is unmanned aircraft, privacy questions also arise in relation to other rapidly changing technologies, 

including the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, location 

aware smart phone applications, and always-on consumer devices 

equipped with video and/or audio capabilities. 

These technologies raise far reaching privacy challenges that 

may need to be addressed, in part, through new Federal legislation. 

When drafting new statutes to protect privacy in light of these 

technologies, it is important to keep in mind that while new legislation always comes with a risk of unintended consequences, that 

risk is particularly elevated when legislating at the privacy-technology intersection. 

None of this is to suggest that Congress has no role in digital privacy or that there is no need for new digital privacy legislation. 

Congress has a vital role to play in addressing the privacy challenges raised by emerging technologies. 

Part of that role involves fostering a dialogue among lawmakers, 

regulators, consumers, the commercial sector, and civil liberties 

groups so that all parties gain a fuller understanding of the issue. 

Part of that role involves identifying where existing legal frameworks are working well and where they are falling short. 

Part of that role involves knowing when not to legislate. And 

part of that role involves enacting carefully targeted legislation at 

the right time with an eye on the past to incorporate lessons 

learned from earlier digital privacy laws, an eye on the future to 

anticipate where the technology will likely lead, and with the goal 

of ensuring that any new legislation not only protects privacy but 

also does so in a way that promotes innovation and protects constitutional rights. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important 

topic. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Villasenor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN VILLASENOR, PROFESSOR, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, 

PUBLIC POLICY, AND MANAGEMENT; VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES; AND VISITING FELLOW, THE HOOVER INSTITUTION, 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 

Committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today at today’s 

hearing on unmanned aircraft. As requested by the Committee, I am focusing my 

testimony on the question of privacy, principally in relation to unmanned aircraft 

but also in relation to rapidly changing technologies more broadly. 

I am a professor at UCLA, where I hold faculty appointments in the Electrical 

Engineering Department, the Department of Public Policy, and the School of Management. In addition, I am a visiting professor at the UCLA School of Law where 

I created and teach a course on ‘‘Digital Technologies and the Constitution.’’ I also 

have several research affiliations outside of UCLA, including an appointment as a 

Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.1 The views I am expressing 

here are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of any of the organizations 

with which I am affiliated. 

29 

2 In this paragraph, I am referring to non-government UAS users. 

3 John Villasenor, Will ‘‘Drones’’ Outflank the Fourth Amendment?, FORBES, Sep. 20, 2012, 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/20/will-drones-outflank-the-fourthamendment. 4 476 U.S. 207 (1986). 

Summary 

My testimony today can be summarized as follows: 

• First, the fact that unmanned aircraft can potentially be used to gather information in ways that violate privacy does not mean, in and of itself, that new 

Federal unmanned aircraft privacy legislation is needed. Rather, the key question is: Do unmanned aircraft put privacy at risk in ways that fall outside the 

scope of existing constitutional, statutory, and common law privacy protections? 

As discussed below, there are good reasons to believe that the answer to that 

question is ‘‘no.’’ As a result, I think it is premature to enact broad new Federal 

legislation specifically directed to unmanned aircraft privacy. 

• Second, to the extent that Federal unmanned aircraft privacy legislation is 

nonetheless proposed, I would emphasize the importance of ensuring that it 

does not inadvertently infringe the First Amendment rights of the many unmanned aircraft users 2 who will operate their platforms in responsible, non-privacy-violating ways. It is relatively easy to draft statutes that limit the ability 

of unmanned aircraft users to acquire, retain, or distribute information. It is far 

harder to do so in a manner that is consistent with the full scope of the First 

Amendment. 

• Third, while the specific technology under consideration by the Committee at 

today’s hearing is unmanned aircraft, privacy questions also arise in relation to 

other rapidly changing technologies, including the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, location-aware smartphone applications, and always-on consumer devices equipped with video and/or audio capabilities. These technologies 

raise far-reaching privacy challenges that may need to be addressed in part 

through new Federal legislation. When drafting new statutes to protect privacy 

in light of these technologies, it is important to keep in mind that while new 

legislation always comes with a risk of unintended consequences, that risk is 

particularly elevated when legislating at the privacy/technology intersection. 

Given the different legal frameworks that apply to privacy in relation to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operated by the government as opposed to UAS operated by non-government entities, I will address those two categories separately. 

At the end of this testimony, I will also provide some more general comments on 

the broader issue of legislation aimed at protecting privacy in light of rapidly changing technologies. 

Government-Operated Unmanned Aircraft and Privacy 

Government unmanned aircraft users are constrained by the Fourth Amendment, 

which protects against unreasonable searches. It is sometimes suggested that because unmanned aircraft are so far removed from the technologies that existed 

when the Bill of Rights was written, the Fourth Amendment will provide insufficient protection. I disagree. As I wrote in a 2012 Forbes article on UAS privacy, the 

Fourth Amendment ‘‘has been a cornerstone of privacy from government intrusion 

since 1791. It has served us well across more than two centuries of technology advances, and there is no reason to expect that it will suddenly lose its protective 

power when domestic use of unmanned aircraft becomes common.’’ 3

The Supreme Court has never considered a Fourth Amendment case specifically 

directed to UAS privacy. However, there have been several cases involving observations from manned aircraft. The most commonly cited such case is California v. 

Ciraolo,4 a 1986 decision relating to marijuana cultivation in the fenced-in backyard 

of a home. After receiving a tip regarding the cultivation and finding the groundlevel view into the backyard blocked by a fence, police procured a small plane and 

overflew the property at an altitude of 1,000 feet. Police officers in the plane observed and photographed marijuana plants, and then obtained a search warrant 

based on the information gathered in the overflight. The defendant challenged the 

constitutionality of the aerial observations. The Supreme Court, however, found no 

constitutional violation, writing that ‘‘[i]n an age where private and commercial 

flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect 

30 

5 Id. at 215. 6 488 U.S. 445 (1989). Riley involved police observations from a helicopter at an altitude of 

400 feet through openings in the roof and sides of a greenhouse being used to grow marijuana. 

The greenhouse was located in the curtilage of a home. The Riley decision comprised a plurality 

opinion delivered by Justice White and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia 

and Kennedy; an opinion from Justice O’Connor concurring in the judgment; a dissent from Justice Brennan joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens; and a separate dissent filed by Justice 

Blackmun. Thus, though there was no majority opinion, a majority of the Justices found the 

observations constitutional. 7There was also a case, Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), that considered 

aerial photography of the open areas of an industrial facility. However, this case did not address 

a home or its curtilage. The Court ruled that the open areas of the industrial facility were more 

akin to an ‘‘open field’’ than to the curtilage of a home, and as a result, were ‘‘open to the view 

and observation of persons in aircraft lawfully in the public airspace immediately above or sufficiently near the area for the reach of cameras.’’ Id. at 239. 8 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). 9 Amanda Essex, Taking Off: State Unmanned Aircraft Systems Policies, National Conference 

of State Legislatures (2016), http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/taking-off-state-unmanned-aircraft-systems-policies.aspx, at 14 (internal citations omitted). 10While the foregoing discussion has addressed constitutional and statutory frameworks related to government-operated UAS, government entities can play an important role by adopting 

policies designed to ensure that they operate UAS transparently and in ways that are mindful 

of and protective of privacy. See, e.g., The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, WHITEHOUSE.GOV

(Feb. 15, 2015) (in particular, ‘‘Section 1: UAS Policies and Procedures for Federal Government 

Use’’), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/15/presidential-memorandum-promoting-economic-competitiveness-while-safegua. 11 John Villasenor, Observations From Above: Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Privacy, 36 

HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 457, 500 (2013) (internal citations omitted). 

that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with 

the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet.’’ 5

Of course, it is possible to view this precedent as suggesting that the Fourth 

Amendment will provide no barrier at all to warrantless government use of UAS. 

However, I do not believe that is the proper reading. A careful review of the Ciraolo 

ruling as well as of the 1989 opinions in a similar case, Florida v. Riley,6 suggests 

the use of the naked eye was a key factor in finding the overhead observations constitutional. Those rulings did not consider the high-resolution camera imagery 7 that 

can be acquired by a UAS; nor did they consider observations from the lower altitudes at which most UAS will be operated. UAS, in other words, enable capture of 

information that is much more detailed and potentially invasive than the observations in Ciraolo and Riley. Such observations are far more likely to violate the expectation of privacy that ‘‘society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable,’ ’’ 8 and as 

such, to be found in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

In addition to the substantial protections that the Fourth Amendment can provide, many Americans live in states that have recently enacted laws providing another layer of privacy protection from information acquired from unmanned aircraft 

operated by state and local government entities. According to a 2016 report from 

the National Conference of State Legislatures, ‘‘18 states—Alaska, Florida, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin—have passed legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant to use UAS 

for surveillance or to conduct a search.’’ 9

As far as I am aware, to date there have been no UAS-specific rulings, in either 

Federal or state courts, indicating that the Fourth Amendment and/or state UAS 

privacy laws will be unable to provide protection from privacy-violating government 

uses of unmanned aircraft. In short, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that 

existing frameworks have failed.10

Privacy and Unmanned Aircraft Operated by Private Entities 

Non-government UAS operators are not constrained by the Fourth Amendment. 

Furthermore, non-government UAS operators have an affirmative right to gather information under the First Amendment. That does not mean, however, that they 

have an unfettered right to gather privacy violating images. As I have written elsewhere, ‘‘[u]se of a UAS to invade an individual’s privacy could result in civil or 

criminal liability. With respect to civil liability, courts in most jurisdictions recognize the two forms of common law invasion of privacy most likely to arise in connection with UAS: intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.’’ 11

In addition, many states also have civil or criminal statutes, or both, related to invasion of privacy. 

31 

12State statutes and municipal ordinances relating to unmanned aircraft can raise preemption issues. (‘‘The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United 

States.’’ 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (a)(1)) In the interest of time, I am not addressing preemption in my 

testimony today, though it is a very important issue and needs to be considered as part of the 

broader dialog regarding UAS policy, including but not limited to frameworks for addressing 

UAS privacy. 13 Essex, supra note 9, at 15. 14 I am focusing my testimony today on legal frameworks relating to UAS privacy. In addition, 

there is an important complementary aspect of UAS privacy arising from voluntary frameworks 

that private entities operating UAS can choose to adopt. One example of this is the NTIA multistakeholder process addressing unmanned aircraft. See Multistakeholder Process To Develop 

Best Practices for Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability Regarding Commercial and Private 

Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 80 Fed. Reg. 41043 (Jul. 14, 2015), http://www.ntia.doc 

.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_uas_meetings_notice_07142015.pdf. 15Margot Kaminski, Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry, 4 CALIF. 

L. REV. CIR. 57, 74 (2013). 

On top of these non-UAS-specific privacy protections, a growing number of states 

(as well as municipalities) have enacted legislation 12 addressing privacy from privately-operated UAS. According to the 2016 National Conference of State Legislatures report cited above, ‘‘[a]t least 12 states—Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, 

Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin—have passed legislation providing privacy protections from other citizens 

that are specific to drones.’’ 13 14

This state-level legislative activity reflects what Ohio State University law professor Margot Kaminski foresaw in a 2013 law review essay on what she termed 

‘‘drone federalism.’’ Addressing the topic of whether additional Federal legislation 

was appropriate, Professor Kaminski wrote: 

Congress should not preempt states from enacting privacy laws governing civilian drone use. States have served as laboratories for experimentation in achieving a balance between First Amendment rights and privacy protection. Congress 

should permit them to continue doing just that, until an appropriate balance 

is struck and Federal regulation of civilian drone use might again be considered.15

While the First Amendment is often at the forefront in legal scholarship on unmanned aircraft privacy, it has sometimes been given insufficient attention in the 

state and Federal legislative dialog. To see why the First Amendment needs to be 

front and center, consider a person who is holding a smartphone and standing on 

a third floor balcony overlooking a public street. Under the First Amendment, this 

person is free to take a picture of the street scene with his or her smartphone. He 

or she is also free to use the picture privately or to post it online, and free to delete 

it immediately or to retain it for years. Now consider an unmanned aircraft operating at the same height and used to acquire an image of the same street that 

raises no more privacy issues than the smartphone picture taken by the person on 

the balcony. The government would be on very shaky constitutional ground if it 

tried to legislate what the unmanned aircraft operator can and cannot do with the 

image acquired from the unmanned aircraft. 

To take a variant of this example, consider the following thought experiment: 

Suppose that Congress were to consider legislation requiring that all smartphone 

owners—or all companies that use smartphones—develop and publish a privacy policy that would include commitments to regularly publish information identifying 

where and when the smartphones were used to take pictures and for how long those 

pictures were retained. No one would seriously contemplate proposing such legislation, as it so clearly runs afoul of the First Amendment. Yet it is also clear that 

smartphones can in fact be used to acquire images that violate privacy. We understand that the way to address that issue is not by enacting new legislation requiring 

all smartphone owners to develop, publish, and implement a burdensome privacy 

policy, but instead through applying existing statutory and common law frameworks 

to hold to account the very small percentage of smartphone owners who misuse 

their devices to acquire privacy-violating images. 

Of course, the analogy between smartphones and UAS only goes so far. UAS raise 

important privacy concerns largely because they make it inexpensive and easy to 

obtain views from an essentially unlimited number of overhead vantage points, including many that cannot practically be accessed with any other technology. In some 

situations, photographs from those vantage points can undoubtedly violate privacy. 

But in many situations, photographs from unmanned aircraft will raise no privacy 

issues at all. Put another way, unmanned aircraft are not inherently a privacy violating technology. 

32 

16 Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986) 

(codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. (various sections)). 17 Codified at U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 18 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a). 19 Id. 20 18 U.S.C. § 2703(b). The statute provides that the government can access communications 

older than 180 days without a warrant only ‘‘with prior notice from the governmental entity to 

the subscriber or customer.’’ However, the statute also provides a mechanism, routinely employed in criminal investigations, for delaying notice. In a 2010 decision addressing the constitutionality of warrantless access to e-mails stored for more than 180 days, the Sixth Circuit held 

that ‘‘a subscriber enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of e-mails’’ stored 

with or sent through a commercial ISP and that ‘‘to the extent that the SCA purports to permit 

the government to obtain such e-mails warrantlessly, the SCA is unconstitutional.’’ United 

States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 288 (6th Cir. 2010). However, that decision is binding only 

in the Sixth Circuit. 21Linda Greenhouse, The Wiretapping Law Needs Some Renovation, N.Y. TIMES, Jun. 1, 1986, 

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/01/weekinreview/the-wiretapping-law-needs-some-renovation.html. 22Statutes created by the EPCA have been amended several times, but the original 1986 provision of the Stored Communications Act that allows warrantless access to communications 

stored for more than 180 days remains in place. 

And this is precisely why First Amendment issues are so important in the legislative dialog regarding UAS privacy. The same government-imposed constraints on 

unmanned aircraft users that would raise no constitutional issues when used to prevent egregious violations of privacy, could, in contexts where they are used to prevent or impede non-privacy-violating information gathering, collide directly with the 

First Amendment. Put another way, when unmanned aircraft privacy laws are 

drafted without sufficient attention to the First Amendment, they can create what 

might be termed a form of unconstitutional prior restraint—not in the traditional 

sense of preemptively blocking information publication, but instead in the inverse 

sense of preemptively blocking information acquisition. 

Privacy and Technology More Broadly 

As I noted earlier in my testimony, while the specific technology under consideration by the Committee at today’s hearing is unmanned aircraft, important privacy 

questions also arise in relation to other rapidly changing technologies, including the 

Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, location-aware smartphone applications, 

and always-on consumer devices equipped with video and/or audio capabilities. 

Faced with the increasingly complex intersection of technology with privacy, there 

is a temptation to conclude that privacy challenges created by new technology must 

always be addressed with new legislation. 

Technology-specific privacy legislation is sometimes appropriate and necessary. 

But it should be enacted only after careful consideration of how the statutory language will apply as the technology at issue experiences dramatic advances. 

Consider the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,16 which was enacted in 

1986 when e-mail services were still nascent. The ECPA included the Stored Communications Act (SCA),17 which requires the government to obtain a warrant before 

accessing ‘‘the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic 

storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or 

less.’’ 18 However, ‘‘the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been 

in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than’’ 19 180 

days can be accessed with only an administrative subpoena or a court order.20

When the SCA was enacted, digital storage was very expensive and storage capacity was correspondingly limited. As a New York Times article at the time explained, 

‘‘most users of [electronic mail] services keep messages only a few months.’’ 21 The 

overwhelming majority of stored digital communications were under six months old, 

and those communications were therefore given heightened attention and privacy 

protection as the SCA was drafted. 

Few people in 1986 contemplated a future in which the precise opposite would 

occur: Today, the majority of our stored digital communications have been stored for 

longer than six months. Ironically, the SCA now has the effect of explicitly removing 

a warrant requirement for the majority of stored communications. With regard to 

those communications, people would be more protected if the SCA did not exist at 

all, since it provides a legislative argument that the government can and frequently 

does employ against those who challenge the constitutionality of warrantless collection of stored communications greater than six months old. 

Of course, it could be argued that the problem is not the SCA itself, but the fact 

that it has not been updated 22 as digital storage has become dramatically less expensive and consumer behavior has changed accordingly. But this, too, illustrates 

33 

23The E-mail Privacy Act, a bill that would revise the SCA by imposing a warrant requirement on access to stored electronic communications (including those stored for more than 180 

days) has been introduced multiple times in recent years, most recently as H.R. 387, 115th 

Cong. (2017). Earlier versions of the bill introduced in the 113th and 114th Congress did not 

become law. As of early March 2017 H.R. 387 has passed the House and is under consideration 

in the Senate. 

a challenge with enacting digital privacy laws with language reflecting technology 

at a snapshot in time. Years later, even when nearly everyone agrees that technology has long outpaced the language of a statute, it can nonetheless be difficult 

to obtain agreement on how it should be updated.23

None of this is to suggest that Congress has no role in digital privacy, or that 

there is no need for new digital privacy legislation. Congress has a vital role to play 

in addressing the privacy challenges raised by emerging technologies. Part of that 

role involves fostering a dialog among lawmakers, regulators, consumers, the commercial sector, and civil liberties groups so that all parties gain a fuller understanding of the issues. Part of that role involves identifying where existing legal 

frameworks are working well and where they are falling short. Part of that role involves knowing when not to legislate. And part of that role involves enacting carefully targeted legislation at the right time, with an eye on the past to incorporate 

lessons learned from earlier digital privacy laws, an eye on the future to anticipate 

where the technology will likely lead, and with the goal of ensuring that any new 

legislation not only protects privacy, but does so in a way that also promotes innovation and protects constitutional rights. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. 

Senator FISCHER [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Villasenor. 

On behalf of the Chairman, I would like to recognize Dr. 

Gonza ́lez. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF EMILIO GONZA ́ LEZ, Ph.D., 

DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

MIAMI-DADE AVIATION DEPARTMENT 

Dr. GONZA ́LEZ. Thank you very much for the invitation, Ma’am. 

My name is Emilio Gonza ́lez, and I am the Director and CEO of 

Miami International Airport, and the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. 

I think I am the only person here from the airport business, if 

you will, so my views on the issue of Unmanned Aerial Systems, 

or drones is, I think, representative of many of my colleagues, at 

least in the state of Florida who share this same perspective. 

Just to put this into perspective, Miami International Airport 

had its seventh consecutive year of growth. We serviced 44.6 million passengers last year, and we continue to be the largest U.S. 

airport in the United States for international freight, the third 

busiest for international passengers, and the twelfth busiest for 

total passengers. 

Significantly, we are also the airport that handles the most airlines of any airport in the United States. We have 109 air carriers 

providing passenger and cargo service into our airport. 

Miami-Dade aviation airports are the leading economic engine 

for the state of Florida and for the county. We generate $33.7 billion of business and handle almost $53 billion worth of freight annually. We also welcome 70 percent of all international visitors to 

the state of Florida through our airport. 

Needless to say, the issue of UAS is very, very important to us 

and for our continuing operations. In fact, we are told that the FAA 

received reports of more than 1,200 drone sightings near aircraft 

from February 2016 through September 2016 in comparison to 874 

34 

sightings during the same period in 2015. Of those 1,200 drone 

sightings 126, or 10 percent, were in the state of Florida. 

In all of 2016, the Miami FAA tower recorded 28 sightings near 

MIA, which is more than double the 11 sightings we had in 2015. 

At that rate with 9 sightings already this year, we are on pace to 

record more than 50 this year. 

This high proliferation of drones near our airport and others nationwide, I believe, is dangerous at best and the worst case scenario would be catastrophic to our community, our local economy, 

and without question to the national aviation industry as a whole. 

As technology becomes increasingly more widespread and advanced, recreational and commercial purposes alike, it is critical for 

our local and national security that airports get ahead of this safety threat, which we take very, very seriously. 

I commend the FAA for crafting and approving Part 107 guidance last June, which included several different requirements for 

safe UAS integration. One such provision, which establishes nodrone grids around the immediate perimeter of airports, coincides 

with our Miami-Dade County’s ordinance for a one mile no-drone 

radius. 

Our measure was approved in January 2016 by Miami-Dade 

County Mayor Carlos Jimenez and the Board of County Commissioners, and it was Florida’s first local drone safety ordinance. The 

ordinance prohibits drones from being flown within one mile of our 

airport runways or half a mile from the runway center line unless 

it is authorized by the FAA, and carries with it a civil penalty of 

$500, which is the maximum a county fine will allow. 

As members of an industry that is all about flight, we appreciate 

the public’s interest in drones, but we believe as airport operators 

that safety is paramount. So our message to all drone users in our 

community is to fly your drone safely and responsibly, which 

means as far away as possible from our airports. 

We support the aggressive testing and knowledge component of 

the registration and regulation process. Significant progress was 

made on this front with the recent FAA ruling which now requires 

drone operators to complete a pilot knowledge examine in order to 

receive a Remote Pilot Certification. And it is encouraging to see 

that more than 500,000 U.S. residents have registered their UAS. 

And that within the first 2 months of the rule taking effect, nearly 

10,000 people took the pilot examine. 

To achieve greater regulation and compliance, we would recommend that drone retailers require pilot certification be required 

at the point of sale. And we also recommend that the FAA build 

greater awareness and stronger partnerships with local law enforcement to improve regulation at the community level. 

Last, I applaud the FAA formation of a Drone Advisory Committee and Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team which held their first 

meetings this fall. 

In closing, on behalf of our country’s busiest international freight 

airport, and third busiest international passenger gateway, I want 

to once again underscore Miami International Airport’s emphatic 

support for legislation that establishes robust requirements for the 

registration, education, regulation, and enforcement of safe UAS integration. 

35 

I also believe we echo the sentiment of airport operators across 

the country when I say that we urge careful, cautious, and deliberate integration of the UAS into our national airspace. 

And with that, I will end my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gonza ́lez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EMILIO T. GONZA ́LEZ, DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, MIAMI-DADE AVIATION DEPARTMENT

Good morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 

Committee. I thank you for holding today’s hearing on this extremely important 

topic, and for the opportunity to share my perspective as the Director of Miami 

International Airport. 

Chairman Thune, your long-time friendship and support at the Federal level is 

deeply appreciated, and it is a special honor to appear before your Committee today, 

sir. I am also especially grateful to Senator Nelson, not only for his invitation to 

speak at today’s hearing, but for his leadership in the state of Florida and across 

the Nation regarding this and myriad other pressing issues facing the aviation industry. 

To put my perspective in context as it relates to unmanned aircraft, or drones, 

I wish to share a few relevant facts about Miami International. MIA had its seventh-consecutive year of growth in 2016, serving 44.6 million passengers. MIA also 

ranks as America’s busiest U.S. airport for international freight, third-busiest for 

international passengers, and twelfth-busiest for total passengers. It offers more 

flights to Latin America and the Caribbean than any other U.S. airport, and serves 

more airlines than any other airport in America, with 109 passenger and cargo carriers currently on our roster. 

MIA, along with its general aviation airports, is also the leading economic engine 

for Miami-Dade County and the state of Florida, generating business revenue of 

$33.7 billion and handling $52.8 billion worth of freight annually. We also welcome 

70 percent of all the international visitors to Florida through our airport. Our aeronautical and non-aeronautical operations both continue to grow steadily, with nonaeronautical now comprising 35 percent of our revenue. Thanks to this growth, the 

Miami-Dade Aviation Department was able to set its first-ever $1 billion budget for 

the current Fiscal Year. 

Additionally, MIA is one of the 37 busiest airports in America that operate within 

what the Federal Aviation Administration classifies as Class B airspace, which is 

a larger, more restrictive area than the five-mile drone notification radius required 

at other airports. 

It is also notable that of the 580,000 drone registrations across America, 35,000 

of those are within the state of Florida, which accounts for six percent. As you can 

imagine, a large number of those registrations are from Miami-Dade County, Florida’s most populated area. 

These factors, in addition to South Florida’s appealing weather and venues for 

outdoor activities, make MIA a prime case study to examine the effects, successes 

and challenges of safely managing drone use near our Nation’s airports. As we are 

all aware, the use of drones across the country continues to grow rapidly, which 

means the dangers associated with flying drones near commercial aircraft continues 

to grow as well. Safety and security, needless to say, are paramount concerns. 

In fact, the FAA received reports of more than 1,200 drone sightings near aircraft 

from February 2016 through September 2016, in comparison to 874 sightings during 

the same period in 2015. Of those 1,200 drone sightings nationwide, 126 were in 

the state of Florida, which is one out of every 10. In all of 2016, the Miami FAA 

tower recorded 28 sightings near MIA, which is more than double the 11 sightings 

we had in 2015. With nine sightings already this year, we are on pace to record 

more than 50 events near MIA in 2017. 

So while drone sightings nationally have risen 50 percent in the last year, MIA 

is experiencing a 100-percent increase annually, and other Class B airspace airports 

are undoubtedly seeing similar growth as well. 

This high proliferation of drone use near our airport and others nationwide is 

dangerous at best, and the worst-case scenario would be catastrophic to our community, our local economy, and without question, to the national aviation industry as 

a whole. As drone technology becomes increasingly more widespread and advanced 

for recreational and commercial purposes alike, it is critical to our local and national 

security that airports get ahead of this serious safety threat instead of catching up 

to it. 

36 

Currently, the FAA only requires notification to the airport’s air traffic control 

tower to operate a UAS within five miles of an airport, and for drones to be registered with the FAA and be less than 55 pounds. In addition, the FAA strongly 

encourages drone operators to operate in accordance with a community-based set of 

safety guidelines, such as those developed by the Academy of Model Aeronautics 

(AMA). Drone operation in Class B airspace is also prohibited without prior coordination and permission from the FAA. 

I commend the FAA for crafting and approving the Part 107 guidance last June, 

which included several additional requirements for safe UAS integration. One such 

provision, which establishes no-drone grids around the immediate perimeter of airports, coincides with Miami-Dade County’s ordinance for a one-mile no-drone radius. 

Our measure, approved in January 2016 by Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos 

Gimenez and the Board of County Commissioners, was Florida’s first local drone 

safety ordinance. The ordinance prohibits drones from being flown within one mile 

of the end of our airport runways or half a mile from the runway’s centerline, unless 

authorized by the FAA, and carries with it a civil penalty of $500—the maximum 

County fine available. 

To make the public aware of our local ordinance and to promote drone safety, the 

Aviation Department initiated a comprehensive awareness campaign immediately 

after the passage of the ordinance. We began the campaign with media relations 

and social media efforts that included a press conference in March—just before 

schools went on spring break and when drone use was expected to increase. We now 

know that our expectations were accurate, since FAA statistics show the number of 

drone sightings from April to June were double the amount of any other threemonth period in 2016. 

Senator Nelson, thank you for joining us at that initial press conference, which 

generated more than half a million impressions through print, TV and online news 

coverage. The awareness campaign also included paid public service announcements 

by the Miami-Dade Aviation Department on the top English and Spanish radio stations last March, which reached more than one million listeners. In addition to 

leveraging traditional media, our online assets and paid advertising, the fourth component of our campaign has been community partnerships. At our request, neighboring municipalities and the local public school district joined in our communitywide effort by posting no-drone zone campaign materials on their websites and social media channels for additional exposure. 

As members of an industry that is all about flight, we can certainly appreciate 

the public’s interest in drones, but safety must remain paramount. So our campaign 

message was simple: fly your drone safely and responsibly—which means far away 

from our airports. 

Moving forward, we are actively exploring geo-fence and other drone mitigation 

technology that can prevent drones from flying within our one-mile boundary. One 

developer of this technology provided a demonstration for MIA officials just two 

weeks ago. While we believe that we can mitigate unintentional incursions into our 

air space, the potential for deliberate UAS attacks continues to grow. Certainly, 

there are legal parameters and procedures regarding rules of engagement that still 

must be established between local law enforcement and the FAA. While my department is taking a forward-leaning approach to drone detection, tracking and mitigation technology, we also remain in active communication with our Federal partners. 

To that end, we are pleased with the FAA extension provision to establish a pilot 

program this year for airspace hazard mitigation at airports and other critical infrastructure using unmanned aircraft detection systems. Thank you, Senator Thune 

and Senator Nelson, for your leadership in having this critical section included. This 

new commitment of funding and resources is a positive start to strengthening local 

efforts to detect, track and mitigate unsafe drone use. Miami-Dade County welcomes 

the opportunity to pilot any and all technologies the FAA deems appropriate. 

We also support an aggressive testing and knowledge component of the registration and regulation process. Significant progress was made on this front with the 

recent FAA ruling, which now requires drone operators to complete a pilot knowledge exam in order to receive a remote pilot certification. It is encouraging to see 

that more than half a million U.S. residents have registered their UAS, and that 

within the first two months of the rule taking effect last August, nearly 10,000 people took the pilot exam. 

To achieve greater regulation and compliance, one of our recommendations is that 

drone retailers require that the pilot certification be required at the point of sale 

before purchase. We also recommend that the FAA build greater awareness and 

stronger partnerships with local law enforcement, to improve regulation at the community level. 

37 

Lastly, I applaud the FAA’s formation of a Drone Advisory Committee and Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team, which held their first meetings this past fall. We look 

forward to seeing how these two partnerships between the drone industry and the 

FAA will help provide guidance to the FAA on gaps in its integration strategy and 

reduce safety risks to commercial aviation and the public. 

In closing, on behalf of our country’s busiest international freight airport and 

third-busiest international passenger gateway, I want to once again underscore 

Miami International Airport’s emphatic support for legislation that establishes robust requirements for the registration, education, regulation and enforcement of safe 

UAS integration. 

Conversely, as one of our Nation’s Category X airports at the highest risk of terrorist attack, I would like to reiterate our concern regarding the potential use of 

drones by those who wish to do harm at high-profile targets like airports. While we 

acknowledge the untapped recreational and commercial opportunities that drone 

technology presents, the inherent risks posed by UAS at this point from a major hub 

airport’s perspective outweigh the rewards. I believe we echo the sentiment of airport operators across the country when I say that we urge careful, cautious and deliberate integration of UAS into our national air space. 

Thank you again for the honor and privilege to offer my thoughts and recommendations to this esteemed body, and I look forward to working productively 

together toward our common goal of ensuring the safety and security of our Nation’s 

airports. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Dr. Gonza ́lez. And thank you all 

for your opening statements. 

I will begin the Committee’s questioning with a question to Mr. 

Fowke, please. I appreciated your comments on how Unmanned 

Aerial Systems, or UAS, can assist in increasing safety of our critical infrastructure. In my home state and elsewhere, the Union Pacific and the BNSF railroads are utilizing the UAS to inspect track 

and bridges. In fact, Burlington is conducting testing with the 

FAA’s approval in New Mexico. 

Can you expand on how the FAA could enhance beyond visual 

line of sight authorities so that we can allow greater utilization for 

infrastructure monitoring and safety? 

Mr. FOWKE. Yes, I mean, there are a couple of things we would 

like to see accomplished. 

First of all, we need to develop the technology: the commandand-control and the detect-and-avoid technology. And that is what 

we hope to do in our partnership with the FAA and we hope to do 

that over the next 6 months. 

We would really like to start testing and using beyond visual line 

of sight in our operations. And we have, as I said in my testimony, 

20,000 miles of transmission line, and we can save millions of dollars for our customers with this technology. And we do think it can 

be done safely. 

I guess the second thing I would say is I do think it is important 

the FAA and policymakers recognize that critical infrastructure— 

utilities—should be treated differently than just a standard commercial user because it is critical infrastructure and because of the 

benefits. And everything comes with risk, but as I mentioned in 

some of my testimony, some of the inspection methods we do today 

have their own risks. 

So we think there is enormous benefit in this technology. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

38 

Mr. Lawrence, my office is working with researchers at the University of Nebraska Lincoln and they are working on agriculture 

UAS applications. The small UAV framework, which is Part 107 

rules, they do not define what have become known as micro UAS, 

and that is generally understood to weigh less than 4.4 pounds. 

Agriculture stakeholders in my state, they have talked about 

using the micro UAS to quickly inspect, for example, a center pivot. 

And this would qualify as a commercial operation, which under the 

FAA’s rules would require a Remote Pilot Certificate. Obtaining 

that certificate may not seem worth a farmer’s time, however, if all 

he or she wants is to quickly inspect a pivot. 

So, will the FAA address micro UAS as distinct from larger UAS? 

And could micro operations in rural farming communities qualify 

for a shortened certificate to operate really because of the low-risk 

nature of these flights? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you for the question. 

The Remote Pilot Certificate is focused primarily on making sure 

that the operator understands the airspace system in which they 

are operating in. And that is one of the key things that we have 

in all the operators. 

When we refer to ‘‘micro,’’ it seems to mean different things to 

different folks. In our collaborative efforts, we have worked with 

one stakeholder group to look at how we might approve operations 

over people, which is slightly different, but they did look at the 

weight effect. 

Based on that group—it was an aviation rulemaking committee’s 

evaluation—they explored the available medical data and information. They made a determination that without any type of standards on either the aircraft or the operators themselves, that something which is about the weight of two sticks of butter would be 

OK to operate over people. But to go to a four to a five pound aircraft, which is about equivalent to a flying brick, would not quite 

be appropriate without either some controls over the operator or 

some controls over the aircraft. 

And we look forward to working with the stakeholders and the 

industry to look at how best we can achieve that goal of safety, 

which is always the first goal of the FAA. 

Senator FISCHER. And I agree with our concerns about the safety, 

but would you take into account the location that these vehicles 

would be used? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, absolutely. We do take into consideration 

the location that the vehicles are used and particularly when we 

do our exemptions and waivers and authorizations. It does play an 

important factor in it, but it is still in the National Airspace System. 

I am sure, for example, in the rural areas the current operators 

there, the agriculture operators, for example, also want to know 

that their fellow operators in that environment understand the 

rules of the road. 

Senator FISCHER. Also you talked about the UAS Traffic Management System that the FAA is working on with NASA. 

How is the FAA ensuring the technology that is being developed 

could be adopted to interact with aircraft serving a small hub or 

general aviation airports? 

39 

Mr. LAWRENCE. The UTM process is our partnership with NASA. 

They are doing the primary research. Then we put in place what 

we call our Research Transition Teams to assure that what they 

are developing is transferrable to the FAA, and it is something that 

will support our wants and needs. 

When it is related to local airports, UTM is one piece of technology, not necessarily the only piece of technology. Some of the 

other things that we are looking at are the I.D. and tracking needs, 

and also the geo-fencing that was talked about by this panel. 

By establishing a network of where you can fly and where you 

cannot fly—and automating our authorizations in such a way that 

that information gets out to the users quickly—we can address the 

needs to keep people away from areas, whether it be infrastructure 

or whether it be airports, and where we do not want them to operate. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. Thank you, Sir. 

On behalf of the Chairman, I would recognize our Ranking Member, Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thanks. 

You heard me in my opening comments talk about the detection 

company and the changing technology of identifying drones. 

Mr. Lawrence, are you well into the pilot program mandated by 

the FAA Extension? Anything more that we need to do with you 

in your pilot program; just a quick answer? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. The quick answer is we look forward to giving 

you the report of that testing so that you can make those valuations and see what is the best next step. 

Senator NELSON. And Dr. Gonza ́lez, I would assume Miami is 

willing to participate in the pilot program, since you have had a 

couple of drone sightings within proximity of an inbound or outbound airliner? 

Dr. GONZA ́LEZ. Sir, we are willing to participate in any and every 

pilot program available. In fact, we are already looking at technologies on our own. 

So the answer is yes. 

Senator NELSON. Let me ask any of you, there have been reports 

from Colombia and Mexico that drones are increasingly being used 

by drug traffickers to move illicit narcotics. 

Are you aware of any of these instances where they move the 

drugs especially to evade the screening and enforcement at ports, 

airports, and other monitored areas? 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Senator, let me attempt to answer that. 

So as the largest manufacturer, we condemn the use of our technology for any illegal or harmful behavior. Our products are made 

for peaceful purposes; all the benefits that you have heard today, 

and that you have heard over the past few years. 

Like other manufacturers of cell phone technology or pickup 

trucks that have guns mounted to them, we cannot control what 

people do with that technology. 

Senator NELSON. Right, right. But that is not the question. The 

question is, have you heard, any of you? 

[No response.] 

Senator NELSON. OK. Well, sooner or later you will hear about 

it because somebody will figure it out. 

40 

And interestingly, this new drone in Dubai that is now going to 

transport people. Is that going to be a way of surreptitiously getting people across the border, which is another advance of technology that is going to give us new challenges, not only drugs and 

other contraband, but possibly people in the future? So, we really 

have a lot to examine. 

Coming up in the FAA bill, we are going to have more that we 

ought to examine on privacy and drones. What about the drone 

that comes down to your bedroom window and starts filming? So 

it is a whole new area here that is going to have to be explored. 

Are you all sufficiently cerebral and flexible enough to get into 

this, Mr. Lawrence? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. One of the key things that we, the FAA, are 

doing as we are integrating all of these UASs into the system is 

collaborating with our stakeholders. 

No, the FAA does not have all those answers and that is one of 

the reasons why we have heard about the development of the 

Drone Advisory Committee, and why we work with that group to 

bring in all the stakeholders: the State and local officials, the aviation officials, the drone manufacturers. It is really in working together that we are going to come up with these answers, and we 

appreciate your support of these stakeholder groups. 

Senator NELSON. Have any of the rest of you heard or have any 

concern that the FAA is not exercising sufficient authority in directing the test sites? Remember, they did seven sites across the 

country. Do any of you have any concerns about that? 

[No response.] 

Senator NELSON. Looks like you are getting off pretty good, Mr. 

Lawrence. OK. 

I am going to stop there and we have a bunch of other questions 

down here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Chairman, thank you very much. And thank 

you all for being here on what I think is certainly an important 

topic, but I think it is an exciting topic as well. 

Kansas is a place in which UAVs receive a significant amount of 

attention. We are involved in lots of research, and testing, and implementation. Well, all three universities, Wichita State University, 

Kansas State University, and Kansas University are all involved in 

this effort. 

We have formally appointed a State Director of UAVs, a former 

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, Bob Brock. He has recently released 

a 5-year plan for drone adoption at the State level. 

Ms. Cooper, I appreciate you in your written testimony calling 

attention to the PrecisionHawk work that is being done at Kansas 

State University. 

Two weeks ago, I visited the UAS Laboratory at Kansas Polytechnic where I got to take a drone on a test flight myself. And a 

significant amount of dollars came through the Mississippi Stateled Center for Excellence team on the topic of PrecisionHawk that 

we are involved in and working on. 

41 

I think Kansas is a state that has seen the value of that. We 

know in addition to that kind of work, we see great potential for 

drone technology to be used in agriculture. 

Just this past weekend, we have had significant grassland fires 

in Kansas. Thousands of acres, land larger than some of the New 

England states, have now burned. And Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 

are being used to count the carcasses of dead cattle; the opportunity to review utility lines, poles, and wires downed; fencing of 

tens of thousands of miles. So there is a significant opportunity for 

us to use this technology. 

In regard to this line of flight issue, the ability to see, what is 

the latest one? You mentioned in your testimony, Ms. Cooper, or 

maybe this is a question for Mr. Lawrence, her testimony mentioned three phases. 

What kind of progress is being made and what findings or conclusions are you drawing from the data collected? 

Ms. COOPER. Senator, thank you for your question. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, our company has been working 

with Kansas State University to conduct our Pathfinder research. 

We have conducted a couple of phases of the research already and 

we are onto our third phase right now. 

Some of the things that we have learned through our research 

efforts include the fact that you can fly safe extended line of sight 

operations for about a two-and-a-half nautical mile distance between the drone and the operator. 

Extended line of sight operations are operations where you do 

not necessarily see the drone itself, but you can see and scan the 

airspace that surrounds where the drone is located in order to 

avoid intruding manned aircraft. 

The next phase of the research that we are working on this year, 

which will help inform the rule for expanded operations, is focused 

on localized beyond line of sight operations. Some of our former research under the Pathfinder program suggested that there are 

variances among the human population in terms of being ble to detect intruding manned aircraft and the decisions that they take 

when they notice manned aircraft. 

And so what we are trying to do is minimize those differences 

that we see across the population of pilots and non-pilots by using 

technologies like our LATAS system to mitigate the safety risks. 

Our LATAS system gives the operator real time situational 

awareness of manned aircraft flying in the vicinity. Essentially, 

you would receive something along the lines of an in-app notification with the location of the manned aircraft flying close to where 

you are conducting your operation so that you can avoid any collision. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lawrence, anything to add to that? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I will just say the two main challenges that they 

are addressing is really the challenge of separating aircraft in the 

air, making sure we do not have a collision there, and protecting 

people and property on the ground. 

And the advances in their project have enabled us to issue waivers now on a regular basis for operations over farm fields as described, while we are protecting the other operators in there. That 

42 

is over a 3,000 percent increase over the Base 107 of the acreage 

covered. That is a huge advancement and they have been a great 

partner. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. If we have a second round, I may 

ask about the ability to quickly certify a drone for use in emergency and disaster recovery. 

Dr. Gonza ́lez, you mentioned something that caught my attention. It causes me to wonder about enforcement. So when a drone 

is near your airport, who is responsible for making certain that the 

operator is found, prosecuted, and does that happen? 

Dr. GONZA ́LEZ. Sir, we have a county ordinance that addresses 

that. Unfortunately, at the county level, the most we can fine somebody is $500 and we would have to catch them in the act. So that 

makes it very difficult. 

What we have done is when we issued this ordinance, we did a 

massive public relations and educational campaign in English and 

Spanish so that people knew that this ordinance took effect, that 

there was a price to pay. 

But in my opinion, I do not think that does enough. 

Senator MORAN. Is there anyone beyond local enforcement that 

pursues these kinds of cases? 

Dr. GONZA ́LEZ. Not that I know of, Sir. And again, to my knowledge, I do not think we have pursued one. It is on the books. We 

see a spotting. We may send a police cruiser to a general area, but 

there will not be anything there. 

But if I might add, Sir, just real quick, it is interesting because 

we all value, everybody at this table, values the importance, the 

technology, the future, the capabilities of the UAS’s. I find myself 

in kind of a different situation here because although I understand 

that there are agricultural, there are energy-related reasons why 

we need to have this. At my airport, we do not need to have this. 

From a critical infrastructure perspective, my job right now, at 

least intellectually and operationally, is to look for ways to bring 

these down because if you lose a UAS over a cornfield or over a 

power line, that is an unfortunate cost of doing business. 

But if one of these things ends up getting in front of an aircraft 

like happened not 2 months ago at my airport, the results are catastrophic. And I have to be very cognizant of the fact that I represent the interest of the traveling public. 

When you talk about airports and seaports, you are not talking 

about a crop or a product. You are talking about peoples’ lives. So 

we take this very, very seriously. 

Senator MORAN. I think we all have the responsibility too. I do 

not mean to diminish what you just said, but we all have that responsibility. 

Dr. GONZA ́LEZ. Yes, Sir. 

Senator MORAN. It is useful for you to remind us of that. Thank 

you, Sir. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. Thank you for the panel and a very 

interesting discussion here today. This is a very exciting area of deVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
43 

velopment in technology, which we are all eagerly awaiting its full 

development. 

But some of the issues that were brought up, that Dr. Gonza ́lez 

brought up, the issues related to local airspace around the airport. 

And certainly there is quite a patchwork now of local, State, and 

other types of regulations that are coming out. And we know that 

in order to fully develop a new technology, it is best to have some 

very clear rules of the road, very clear regulations and not have a 

patch work that can get in the way of this innovation. 

Mr. Lawrence, I know that the FAA has said that a patchwork 

of differing restrictions on UAS flights could affect the FAA’s ability to control airspace and flight patterns, and ensure safe and efficient traffic flow. Also, I think it may impair the ability to fully develop this technology as well with all of its benefits. 

I have heard a couple of folks talk about the Drone Advisory 

Committee efforts. Could you just give us an update as to where 

we are in terms of the Committee’s review of State, local, and Federal roles in regulating these processes? 

I know you are going to have an initial report in May and another one in October, so maybe a status a report on where that is 

and what we should expect? And what are some of the challenges 

that you are looking at? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, Sir. 

We are very happy with the Drone Advisory Committee. Again, 

it is just such a great group of diverse individuals bringing a lot 

of expertise. And, in fact, on this panel here, we have the Chairman of the Task Group who is focused on the roles and responsibilities. 

That is the way we have titled the particular task group that is 

looking at what are the roles and responsibilities of local officials, 

and State officials, and at the Federal level too, and how do we divide those things up? 

I would say they have jumped in with both feet. I want to commend the industry folks as we have to work hard to keep up with 

them, more than the other way around. They meet multiple times 

a week. We are briefing constantly and they are developing materials very quickly because they understand the criticality of this to 

come up with answers, and solutions, and approaches this year, not 

in future years. 

Senator PETERS. Well, given the breadth of the panel here, 

maybe other panelists could comment on their concerns that we 

have this patchwork of regulations that seems to be developing 

across State and local jurisdictions. 

How concerned are you and what do we need to be thinking 

about here in Congress? 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Senator, I think this is actually one of the real 

key issues for the Nation going forward in terms of the integration 

of UAS into the National Airspace System for the reasons that you 

identified. 

But, I am pleased that we are taking this issue on in the DAC. 

I am a Co-Chair of that Rules and Responsibilities Task Group. We 

have met, I think now, for six full days. We have two full days 

scheduled next week to continue our work to try to reach a conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
44 

sensus with all the relevant stakeholders and try to figure out 

what the answers are. 

I think if you look legally at doctrines concerning preemption, 

they are not satisfying to local officials. Similarly, land zoning takeoff and landing types of frameworks are not a solution for a technology that you literally can takeoff and land anywhere. 

So really, I think it deserves new thinking and hopefully a consensus report to the FAA in May. 

Senator PETERS. Does anybody else want to comment? 

Ms. COOPER. Senator, thank you for your question. 

I also serve on the Task Group on Roles and Responsibilities and 

look forward to working with the rest of the stakeholders to come 

up with some creative solutions that will help us deliver a national 

standard that also meets local interests. 

From an industry perspective, I would like to mention that as a 

relatively small startup company, it is very difficult to grow your 

business across State lines and across county lines if you have to 

deal with different rules. Not everyone can afford to hire lawyers 

in every county across the United States, and we always strive to 

be compliant with all regulations. 

It is very critical for the industry to achieve its full potential to 

have a national standard that we can meet. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. Given the Small UAS rules requirement that all flight remain below 400 feet, it seems to be the case 

that the conversation about potentially utilizing some other airspace for UAS flight has stopped. At least, that is what I have been 

told by folks who are involved in this. 

Mr. Lawrence, is the FAA looking at the potential of utilizing 

lesser used airspace, such as Class E or Class G, for shared General Aviation and UAS flight? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I would say the FAA is looking at all classes of 

airspace for UAS flight. 

And when I was mentioning our partnership with NASA in my 

opening remarks, I mentioned, one, the UTM effort which we commonly think of as the low altitude effort. 

But the other half of that, the second group, is a Research Transition Team to look at using other airspaces and including what we 

call Upper E, for those who want to operate at very high altitudes 

for surveillance activities and things like that. 

So it is an ongoing effort and we do not just focus on the smalls 

that are here on this panel, but we also look at our larger operators 

as well. 

Senator PETERS. Right. Thank you very much. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cortez Masto, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for this fantastic panel. 

I am very excited because I come from the great state of Nevada 

and that is one of the test sites for the UAS testing. In fact, I am 

very proud of the fact that the FAA UAS test site in Reno partners 

with Federal agencies, the Governor’s economic development efforts 

45 

in Nevada, the Institute for Autonomous Systems, the University 

of Nevada Reno, and NASA. We have some exciting things going 

on. 

I am curious, have any of you been there to the test site? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. [Raises hand.] 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Good. Because you are the most important person I want to be there. So that is fantastic to know. Thank 

you. And we invite you back. There are exciting things happening. 

So let me ask. Mr. Lawrence, because of the research that is 

going on, and this may be a little premature, but do you envision 

broadening the scope of research at individual sites? And if not at 

this time, what information do you need to move forward with utilizing the new technology and expanding? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you highlighting the research. In fact, 

many of us were in Reno recently for our Drone Advisory Committee. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. That is fantastic. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. We had a lot of exposure to the great state of Nevada and that test site. There is a lot of great work going on there 

with NASA and others. 

As far as expanding our testing work, the FAA’s focus, obviously, 

is primarily safety and regulation. So we focus on applied research 

and things that are going to assist us with our rulemaking process. 

But we know that it is much wider than that. There are other 

things that need to be accomplished. And I think the work with our 

Center of Excellence—not just with the FAA’s activities, and wants, 

and needs—but what others bring in, other companies here bring 

in what their wants and needs are as well. 

And so what we have seen with the test sites is they are expanding and learning where they can get additional research dollars 

and help. We have seen several focus on key areas like first responders. That is another great area where the FAA may not need 

it for regulations, but a fire department may want to know how 

best to respond to using a drone to find a person in a burning 

building, for example. 

So it is a combination of things. We are focused on our applied 

research and what we need. But it is available there and that network is available for others to use as well. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. OK. Thank you. We have had a discussion that I am hearing some of the barriers and things that we 

need to overcome. One of them is the State patchwork regulations. 

Any other barriers that we should be looking at or issues that 

we should be aware of that we can help tear down some of those 

barriers to continue toward this path of research and identifying 

appropriate balance here moving forward with UAS? I will open it 

up to anybody on the panel. 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Senator, I think I want to pick up on something 

Senator Fischer mentioned earlier in the hearing which is the need 

for a micro UAS rule, which I define as a small, low weight category. 

We have seen that in other countries around the world. Australia, Canada, Mexico, and others have figured out that the lowest 

weight, smallest drone poses less risk, and therefore ought to receive differing treatment in the regulations. 

46 

Not just because it makes sense, but also because it incentivizes 

industry to put the best features, the safety features into the smallest package so that in the event of an accident with someone on 

the ground or in the air, you are inherently dealing with the lowest 

mass, and therefore the safest type of collision possible. 

So I would encourage and appreciate that last year, the Committee picked up on Senator Booker’s language and put into the 

bill a micro UAS category. I would encourage the same this year 

as well. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Please. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. From an FAA standpoint, I would say one of our 

biggest things is, again, dealing with the level of innovation and 

just the whole volume of operations that we are dealing with. We 

had talked about that just in a few months, we have so many new 

pilots and aircraft. 

It is automation. This is one of the key things for us. In order 

to support this entire network, it is the I.T. network and the data 

networks that we need to interact with all of these folks here. We 

are talking millions of operations. We are only going to do that 

with the resources we have if we can automate many of these processes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. And I know my time is running short, but I have a quick question, or maybe we can talk later 

or submit it on the record. 

But for Dr. Villasenor, looking through your comments and you 

make the comment that, ‘‘Do unmanned aircraft put privacy at risk 

in ways that fall outside the scope of existing constitutional, statutory, and common law privacy protections?’’ And you say no in your 

written comments and state that you think it is premature to enact 

broad, new Federal legislation specifically directed to unmanned 

aircraft privacy. 

I am curious, though, how you see the role of State, and State 

legislatures, and the State law continuing down this path? Because 

there is really no Federal oversight and we can use the constitutional parameters. But even in the state of Nevada, we are continuing to pass legislation that will have an impact. 

Do you see the State’s role somewhere here working in conjunction with the Federal level on these privacy issues? 

Dr. VILLASENOR. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

So first just a bit of a clarification. What I said is I think it is 

premature. In other words, it may be in the future that we see evidence that some of these existing privacy frameworks are proven 

insufficient. And if that occurs, I would certainly be the first to be 

supportive of Federal level legislation. 

But I have not seen evidence to that effect, and I am optimistic 

that those existing frameworks will, in fact, prove protective. Those 

existing frameworks, when I said that, also include the State level 

frameworks. 

Of course, there is a long tradition of states addressing privacy, 

both through criminal and civil statutes. And many states have, in 

fact, done that already specifically in relation to unmanned aircraft 

operated by private entities. I believe the number is about a dozen 

or so, I may be wrong on that, which have enacted laws like that. 

47 

And so I think that it is a good thing for states to continue to 

be experimenting in this Federalist model of a laboratory. One of 

the reasons why I do not think we are ready for Federal legislation 

is because I do not think we have seen what States can do in this 

respect, and I think we should let that play out and see if those 

frameworks work. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FISCHER. Senator Hassan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And welcome to all the panelists. Thank you for your testimony, 

and for your work, and observations on this issue. 

To Mr. Lawrence, you may know that New Hampshire, my home, 

has some of the greatest outdoor recreation areas in the country. 

And so, you can go way up north in our state or all around, and 

there are really lots and lots of opportunities to explore nature’s 

great gifts and really truly get off the grid. 

So this means that the Granite State relies very heavily on dedicated first responders and also a lot of individual volunteers who 

assist with search and rescue. They assist with firefighting and 

other responsibilities too in our more remote communities. 

So to me, one of the greatest promises of drone technology is that 

it can be a critical tool for first responders and can literally save 

lives with aerial surveillance capabilities. And at least one of you 

has mentioned our first responders and volunteers put themselves 

at great risk during these search and rescue operations at times. 

So there is just a lot of potential here. 

It is my understanding that Congress passed UAS provisions last 

year directing the FAA to prioritize UAS applications coming in for 

emergency response purposes, including making it easier for civil 

operators to assist first responders, as well as assisting in infrastructure restoration efforts in the aftermath of an extreme weather event or other natural disasters. And as I speak, we have a lot 

of lines down and power outages up in New Hampshire. So this is 

heavily on a lot of peoples’ minds. 

So can you provide an update on how implementation of that 

part of the law is going at the FAA? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, Senator. And thank you for highlighting 

this area. It is actually a good success story, we believe. 

We respond to emergency requests, and this would be a hurricane, or power outages, or these kinds of things, typically within 

one hour to approve the operation. 

Now, these would be operations that would be beyond our Part 

107 Rule because, again, within line of sight, they can operate 

today unless there is a restriction on the airspace. Lots of times 

those restrictions are put in by the incident commanders who want 

to control all the traffic that is operating in that area, and that is 

who we rely on. 

We rely on the local incident commander to tell us whether this 

is an appropriate operation or not. When sponsored by the local incident commander, we respond as quickly as the communication 

48 

flow can happen to approve these types of operations to support responders. 

Senator HASSAN. Great. Is there anything more that needs to be 

done to support drone use for first responders in emergency purposes and restoration efforts for critical infrastructure? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I would never sit here and say that we are done. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes, right. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. There is always plenty more to do. 

In this area, I think where you may hear a lot of the requests 

are really for those who are not operating under an incident commander. They are not part of the fire department, but they are still 

contributing to the response of a particular incident. 

And that is really our next group. How do we develop our rules 

and regulations to work with these folks so there is a common understanding? How do we interact with the two different kinds of 

aircraft? 

For example, if CNN and the emergency response helicopter are 

up at the same time, or the emergency quad copter is up at the 

same time, this is where UTM comes in. This is where our partnership with NASA and the research to develop the traffic management procedures comes in. 

If we can continue to support that, continue to work with the 

stakeholders to develop those rules for operating in those local 

areas, that is when we are going to get a quicker response and 

even more success. 

Senator HASSAN. That is great. Thank you. 

Do any of the other panelists want to address this briefly or did 

Mr. Lawrence cover it? 

Mr. SCHULMAN. I will just add that this is an excellent example 

of why technology requirements like geo-fencing need to be flexible. 

So last year we took the Department of Interior Wildfire Notice 

System, put that into our geo-fencing. So if you fly a drone near 

one of their wildfires, you are automatically disabled, at least by 

default. 

However, we know that firefighters and emergency responders 

are using drones. We do not want to turn off the technology exactly 

where it is needed on an urgent basis. 

So as we talk together about technology requirements and standards, we really need to consider that there are circumstances where 

a drone is useful at an airport. It is useful at a wildfire and we 

do not want to turn the devices off. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. FOWKE. Senator, I would just add that that is something we 

are very much looking at. We have a research project underway in 

North Dakota to understand where we are actually simulating the 

aftermath of a storm and how we can use UAS to more quickly recover from that storm. It is an excellent opportunity. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you all very much, and I will submit the remainder of my questions in writing. Thanks so much. 

Senator FISCHER. Senator Cantwell. 

49 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you to 

the witnesses. 

Mr. Schulman, that is a good place for me to jump into my questioning where you brought up firefighting because I think you accurately discussed the situation. That is, that there are some very 

useful applications that people want in firefighting for drones, and 

those are more commercial uses or government uses. 

And then we want the other hobbyist public to make sure they 

are staying out of the way of those aircraft that are delivering resources to the community that very much needs them. So two different issues, if you will, and so we definitely want to get both 

right. 

Which leads me to my question, Mr. Lawrence, about the DOI, 

Department of the Interior, working with you and the FAA to come 

to agreement on application and use. 

Where are we with that in the process? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So we are having those discussions right now, 

but it is not just discussions. We have also been taking active control to address some of the things that you highlight, Senator. 

For example, you mentioned interaction with the wildfires. One 

of the things that we have been able to do since we have the registration program now is to do e-mailing out to people who are in 

the vicinity of these various fires that have been taking place. 

So we work with the Department of the Interior. They provide 

us information and say, ‘‘We need to get a hold of drone operators 

in this area. We need to give them a notice,’’ and we are extending 

that information out to them. We are still finalizing the actual 

written agreement between the two of us, but I do not want to say 

that that is limiting our ongoing dialogue. 

We are also working with them to establish what we call TFRs 

for some of their infrastructure that they want better protected 

until we can develop a full UTM system. And so, we are looking 

to implement those in the coming months as well. 

Senator CANTWELL. And is that just the Department of the Interior or are you working with other agencies on the disaster relief 

side? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Right now, primarily we have had requests from 

the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, 

and the Department of the Interior as far as working directly with 

responding to emergency situations and those kinds of things. 

But we obviously work with the whole Department of Transportation, and with our DOT modes as well, in developing policies and 

procedures for inspecting bridges, and how we are going to interact 

with drones. Obviously, we are talking infrastructure; our BNSF 

work for inspecting railroads, and pipelines, and all of these things. 

So we work across and we work with everyone we can. As you 

can tell from the testimony so far, collaboration and working together is really key, since this affects so many folks. 

Senator CANTWELL. And what about the broader use? I understand that Japan and their government is working with the private 

sector to implement widespread delivery to rural areas by 2018 in 

time for the 2020 Olympics. 

50 

Do we have a delivery permit discussion ongoing and what do 

you think the time-frame for that is? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So discussions are constantly going on and I like 

to highlight that we have facilitated some drone delivery testing so 

far in the United States. And so, that is occurring; people are testing their various systems. 

It is really in a situation that is twofold. One, updating our regulatory structure to be more appropriate to delivery operations. And 

two, the proponents of drone delivery to develop their aircraft and 

their systems, particularly the communication systems; the seeand-avoid systems. 

And so, all that is taking place at the same time, but I can say 

we are using exemptions to work with our existing regulatory 

structure in order to support their operations. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you think Japan will be ahead of us in 

this widespread delivery issue or how would you? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I characterize clearly the FAA is in the lead because our focus is really on true integration. We can certainly have 

segregated operations. We can have certain tests in various areas. 

But the FAA is really in the lead as far as putting that regulatory structure together, actually implementing, and I think that 

is one of the key things. We are not looking to do just segregated 

operations. We are looking to have that full infrastructure where 

all the aircraft operate in a system together. 

Senator CANTWELL. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could just mention, tomorrow is a very important day for you and I, for the people of Washington, and the people of South Dakota. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Tomorrow? 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes, tomorrow. Gonzaga University, the 

Bulldogs are meeting the South Dakota Jackrabbits. So good luck. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. There is a lot of 

hype and anticipation in my state of South Dakota, and the ’Zags 

are good. Yes, indeed. We will try and be worthy adversaries. 

Mr. Lawrence, in your testimony you mentioned implementation 

of the provisions of the FAA Extension Act of 2016 that requires 

the FAA to develop standards to enable the remote identification 

of UAS. 

I believe these standards and related technologies will make it 

easier to use existing Federal, State, and local laws to address unwanted interactions with drones related to privacy, safety, or security. Identifying who is actually operating a UAS is key to holding 

violators accountable. 

So could you just provide us with an update about where you are 

with your initial work on implementation? What other partners do 

you intend to engage in the process and maybe preview what outcomes you anticipate in developing these standards? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Chairman. 

You really highlight an area that has become one of our highest 

priorities in our UAS regulations at the FAA. We want to go beyond just identifying the standards because we realize that I.D. 

and tracking technology together are keys to so many things. The 

51 

beyond line of sight discussions we have been having, going from 

Point A to Point B, really need that ability to have tracking. The 

privacy concerns that people have need those I.D.’s. 

So we have been working independently with our Federal partners, the security partners, in identifying what their wants and 

needs have been. 

We have been working with the industry to identify what are the 

available technologies, and we have also been working with groups 

like NASA to identify what are some of the things that they have 

developed? 

We are looking forward to taking that to the next step this summer. We are looking to really pull all that together and come back 

with recommendations to this committee and to others on not just 

what standards we can use, but also what regulations and maybe 

even what legislation may be supportive to make sure what drones 

have this technology and how it might be fielded. 

The difficult question is not that there are technologies. It is 

which one to pick. And again, using the collaboration with our 

Drone Advisory Council, and others, that is really what we are focused on. How do we come to agreement on which technology to 

pick out of the many that are available? 

The CHAIRMAN. And are there technical options already available 

that can be used in the short term until longer term options are 

available? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Absolutely. And, in fact, they are not really high 

tech. 

I was speaking with CNN recently with some of their operations, 

and what they are doing with their local law enforcement is literally they have the drone operator wearing a vest, a bright colored 

vest. They check in and we are doing things like hanging Mylar 

ribbons off of the drones that are operating. So he police standing 

on the corner know, ‘‘OK. That was CNN,’’ because they checked 

in and they have the blue ribbon for the day. And little things like 

that, obviously, help the local officials quite a bit. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Cooper, I am particularly interested in 

PrecisionHawks’ work with the agriculture industry. And in your 

testimony you outlined a number of practical applications that are 

making, or have the potential to make, a real difference for our agricultural producers. 

Could you expand on how this technology and your applications 

are scalable for family farming type operations and large commercial operators? 

Ms. COOPER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Our company has been around for about 7 years, and agriculture 

was the first industry that we focused on. And so, we built a lot 

of our solutions with farmers in mind. 

We provide our solutions to both ends of the market; individual 

farmers that are working on their own fields to some of the largest 

agriculture companies in the United States. 

We have developed a lot of algorithms with third parties, sometimes with universities as well as companies that I have mentioned, Leonardo and Archer Daniels Midland, for specific use 

cases, for real problems that farmers are trying to solve. 

52 

We have also partnered with companies like DJI to help us provide lower cost platform solutions for individual farmers that cannot afford our more expensive fixed wing UAV platform. 

And so, we provide an end-to-end solution that is suitable to a 

wide spectrum of farming applications and farming operations that 

we see in the United States. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know talking to farmers and ranchers in South 

Dakota, there is a high level of interest in the possibilities that 

exist in their operations with this technology. And so I hope as you 

think through it that you consider how it applies in a small family 

farming operation as well as in a big, more commercial type operation. 

Mr. Fowke, in your testimony you talked about a number of the 

benefits your company hopes to ultimately achieve through extended operations of UAS over critical infrastructure. And as you 

noted in many instances, UAS have the ability to increase safety 

by sending an unmanned system into dangerous environments 

where manned aircraft would have previously been needed. 

Could you expand on the safety benefits that your company, and 

your industry, anticipates from using drones? I know you mentioned it is a lot less costly, for example, to send a drone in than 

to send a helicopter in. But from a safety standpoint, what are 

some of the benefits as you see it? 

Mr. FOWKE. I can give you numerous examples with employee 

safety. 

The one that strikes me immediately is as the number one wind 

provider in the country, we need to inspect a lot of turbine blades, 

and the way you do that is literally climbing up a tower that can 

be 300 feet high. So we do it safely, but there is inherent risk in 

that. And if you can inspect and do the same inspection in a fraction of the time, which means a fraction of the cost using UAS 

technology, then everybody wins. That is a great example. 

In the public safety arena, one of the things I am really interested in is the use of UAS to actually detect gas leaks in our gas 

pipeline system. So these are just a few of the items that I see the 

technology using. 

I mentioned in my testimony where you have remote transmission lines, I mean literally, we have to access that by foot or 

helicopter. There are inherent risks with that. You think about inspecting infrastructure that might be under bridges, et cetera, you 

can see the safety risks associated with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Having seen some of your turbines and the 

height of those things, if I were one of the people who had to scale 

that, I would rather use a drone for sure too. 

Senator Inhofe is up next followed by Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So the witnesses will be aware, we still have the problem at the 

EPW hearings coinciding with the Commerce. So we go back and 

forth. 

Last year’s FAA bill included a provision that I authored that 

created the regulatory fast lane to allow industry, including compaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
53 

nies like Xcel Energy, to operate drones beyond the line of sight, 

to inspect transmission lines, pipelines, and the such. 

Earlier this year your company, I am speaking now to Mr. 

Fowke, and the FAA entered into an agreement. The partnership 

for safety plans so that your company can use drones to inspect 

transmission lines. 

And could you briefly share with us the process Xcel went 

through to enter into this agreement with the FAA, and how the 

partnership will benefit Xcel? And then I want to have a question 

for the FAA. 

Mr. FOWKE. Well, I want to specifically thank you, Senator, for 

your amendment or your section that you added that addresses 

that beyond visual line of sight because that is how we are going 

to optimize this technology in the utility business. And recognizing 

the utility business is unique in that it is a critical infrastructure, 

I think, is also very important. 

So while we were in discussions with the FAA around the partnership you mentioned, the legislation certainly pushed it to conclusion. So thank you for that. We hope to actually use the technology to inspect some of the lines that run through your state. 

Senator INHOFE. I would expect that. Do you have any suggestions as to what the next step would be to streamline this system 

that is in effect right now? 

Mr. FOWKE. Well, the partnership is a good first step. We have 

to test the technology. We have to make sure it is safe, and then 

we have to be willing to move forward with it. And I think our plan 

is to be able to be in position to start inspecting those lines within 

the year. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Mr. Lawrence, I have had a few rough times with the FAA, but 

not with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. And so I understand that the new department 

is working very well. I appreciate your leadership in the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems department. 

According to the testimony submitted to the Committee, the FAA 

has only granted three waivers to allow the operation of drones beyond the line of sight. Now, that is three out of how many? How 

many applications? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. As far as specifically how many applications we 

have had for beyond line of sight, I would have to come back with 

that specific number to you. 

Senator INHOFE. Is it accurate, though, that only three waivers 

have been granted? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I believe that is accurate. Correct, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, OK. Is there something that takes longer 

than it should take on this? What is your prospect for the future 

because it looks like there is going to be a great demand. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Absolutely. So I think things are moving well in 

that direction. 

One of the challenges we have with beyond line of sight authorizations is the understanding of what to bring to the FAA. And so 

that has been the biggest issue is people do not know what should 

they present to us in order to do beyond line of sight operations. 

54 

So things like our Partnership for Safety Plan with Xcel are very 

helpful to that because we are sitting down and having those discussions. And so, we have that complete understanding of what 

equipment, what kinds of technologies are needed to protect the 

aircraft that are also in that airspace. And the key thing is education right now. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I recognize this is a new thing. 

Mr. Fowke, when you were going through this process, you actually did sit down with them and talked your way through. What 

obstacles did you see there that might help them in streamlining? 

I think this is something we want to do, and you have already been 

there. Any suggestions? 

Mr. FOWKE. Well, to the extent that we can move forward the 

107 waivers and have more than just three that is obviously going 

to be helpful. But we certainly respect that this technology needs 

to demonstrate it can work and that is what the partnership is 

going to be about. We think the timeline is one that should work 

for both parties. 

We are actually very excited about being able to use that technology and start inspecting our lines many of which of the 20,000 

miles, many of those lines are in very rural areas. So we think we 

can do it very safely. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. 

Last year’s short-term FAA extension directed the FAA to establish a UTM pilot program by April 2017. Are you going to make 

that? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, Sir. We are going to make that. 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. OK. Thank you. 

Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

There is a Dickensian quality to drone technology. It is simultaneously the best of technologies. It can enable. It can ennoble. You 

can do wonderful things with it. But it can also degrade and 

debase. It can compromise human beings as well. 

The question is: what do you do about that bad side? Because everyone wants to talk about the good stuff, but there is bad stuff, 

and a lot of the bad stuff just goes to privacy. What are the protections that are going to be put on the books to protect families from 

commercial interests or government interests to gathering this information? Not as a hobby, but as something else altogether. 

And what happens if there are drones that are gathering information through facial recognition of who is shopping on Main 

Street and then selling that to advertisers? Are there any protections? 

What if some commercial entities are gathering information 

about children playing in the backyard, and then using it for nefarious purposes? Are there any protections against that? 

What if there is a drone that is just taking a picture of every license plate at a health clinic and then selling that information to 

an insurance company because they know exactly the disease that 

55 

is being treated at that clinic? It just specializes in it. That is incredibly sensitive information. 

So right now, there are no safeguards, Mr. Lawrence, that are in 

place in order to ensure that there is a baseline Federal privacy 

protection about the collection, the retention, the sale of personal 

information. 

Are there, right now, any plans at the FAA to put any protections against the compromise of this private information under 

some kind of safeguards? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So Senator, obviously the FAA’s chief concern is 

always safety. That is our main focus. 

Senator MARKEY. I know that, I know that. And again, I think 

we have heard from other panelists about how big that is, but just 

privacy now, Sir. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Absolutely. And we understand those deep concerns, and that is one of the reasons why we are working so closely 

with our Drone Advisory Committee and having that committee 

and getting the stakeholders’ input because, obviously, I do not 

want to see a drone looking in my window. 

Senator MARKEY. But there are no Federal rules. So do you think 

that we should put Federal rules on the books on collection, retention, and sale of personal information by commercial or government 

drones? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So the FAA’s goal is to continue to work with 

both stakeholders and our Federal partners in supporting them as 

they evaluate what our needs are. 

Senator MARKEY. Right, I understand that. But a lot of people in 

the commercial sector do not want any rules. They do not want 

rules. They never want rules. That is just the way it is. ‘‘Collect 

it, use it, just live with it. Get over it. There is no privacy in the 

modern world today. Just get over it.’’ 

So here are families who have been not letting the salesmen into 

their living room for 100 years. All of a sudden there is someone, 

what, photographing their children, or them walking down Main 

Street shopping, and there are no rules all of a sudden? 

So do you have a view on that, Mr. Lawrence? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So we have been working very closely with NTIA 

in the development of their best practices on privacy and we are 

going to continue to do so. And we continue through our law enforcement liaisons in the regional level to work with local officials. 

Senator MARKEY. No, I appreciate that. 

But there are no national laws. Are there any rules on how long 

any of this sensitive information about families could be retained 

by these commercial interests or by the government as they are 

just floating over peoples’ homes? Are there any rules on retention 

of that data? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. There are no FAA regulations on that data. 

There are the NTIA best practices. 

Senator MARKEY. Best practices, but no rules that guarantee 

that they cannot do that. 

And how about on transparency, does the FAA have an easily 

searchable website detailing when, where in the U.S., and for what 

purpose each commercial and government drone is operating? Just 

so we know. Is there any place where people can just go and just 

56 

see which commercial drones are flying over your head, over your 

children’s head, over the shopping mall that you are going to? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Currently, we do not have a location where you 

can look up manned or unmanned operations, all operations to look 

up what they are doing and where they are. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. So from my perspective, that is a dangerous environment for our country. It is just going to get more and 

more dangerous because there are going to be really bad people— 

really bad people—who are going to take this information, compromise it, use it for purposes that they should not be allowed to 

use it. 

There should be an ability at least to know who is flying over 

your head and they have to say as a commercial entity, ‘‘I was flying over these people’s homes or over that shopping mall.’’ How 

hard is that going to be for people? 

But they do not want to do that and that is why today I reintroduced the bicameral Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act 

with Congressman Peter Welch to ensure American’s privacy is 

protected while commercial and government drones integrate into 

the national airspace. And as we are debating the FAA reauthorization bill, I am going to work hard to make sure that privacy is 

protected. 

Before I end, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I heard the 

Senator from Washington State talking about South Dakota and 

Gonzaga. And I just want to note for the record that the Chairman 

of this committee was a college basketball player, a very good college basketball player, from South Dakota. You do not have to say 

a word, but a very, very good college basketball player. 

So I would say to the ’Zags beware of South Dakota basketball 

players. They should not be underestimated in this game at all. I 

have personal experience with an inability to stop any of the jump 

shots that the gentleman from South Dakota worked on. 

So I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

And I might add that the Senator from Massachusetts is quite 

adept at launching the three, too. He can spot up out there at the 

arc and let it fly. So our best playing days may be behind both of 

us. 

Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Capito is up next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank everybody on the panel. Sorry, we have conflicting committee meetings, so I was unable to hear a lot of the 

testimony, but I am very interested in the drones, and the technology, and the workforce that can be developed around this new 

frontier. 

I discovered something. West Virginia had a flood last year, a 

devastating flood, in June and as I was visiting the emergency 

services of one of the counties, Greenbrier County, there was a gentleman in there whose neighbor had a drone. 

57 

Well, the guy who was working for emergency services could not 

get to where his house was because he was doing his job. But his 

neighbor flew his recreational drone over the house to make sure 

that his car—he was more worried about his car than the house— 

to make sure that his car was all right. And a little light bulb kind 

of went off in my head thinking for mountainous regions that suffer from flashfloods, quick loss of life, not very good communication 

availabilities; what a wonderful tool for emergency services to have 

in their toolbox to be able to meet these challenges within hours, 

particularly after the storm had passed, the weather was perfectly 

clear. 

So I guess my question would be to Miss Cooper, if this is an 

area that you all are endeavoring into? Are you working with local 

law enforcement and emergency services? And how are you seeing 

this kind of rolling out across the country? 

Ms. COOPER. Senator, thank you very much for your question. 

Drones do have an immense potential to be an incredible tool to 

aid first responders. And our company is very much interested in 

participating in these types of operations. 

We will need certain waivers in place—that we have not been 

able to obtain—in order to conduct these types of operations. And 

it would be beneficial for the industry to see guidelines from the 

FAA in terms of what mitigations are required to receive waivers 

in these emergency scenarios. 

I would also like to see infrastructure restoration aspects be 

brought into 2207 as the written text called for. 

One of the operations that we are interested in assisting with is 

helping adjusters process claims faster so that people can get back 

into their homes after they have lost their homes after a hurricane 

or natural disaster. 

We would need these types of waivers to be considered emergency operation waivers so that they could be processed in hours 

and not in a month, which is the typical timeline. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes, that is another aspect that I had not really 

thought about working with insurance and with FEMA to be able 

to recover quicker. 

I just came from a hearing in the Appropriations Committee on 

career and technical and STEM education. One of the folks who 

was testifying talked about drone technologies, but also educating 

the next workforce to go into this, as I said, new field. 

What kind of, and this is sort of opened to anybody who might 

know the answer to this question, what kind of workforce training 

programs are there across the country? Is it hodgepodge? Is there 

any kind of coordination? Is there a certain standard? Can somebody speak to that? 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Senator, I am not sure about workforce training 

programs, but we are delighted to see drones being incorporated 

into STEM and STEAM educational programs for young people. 

Just a few months ago, we did a program with 4-H. It was Drone 

Discovery Day. There were 100,000 young people from across the 

country who participated in that. 

We also just partnered with the Academy of Model Aeronautics 

to help with their STEM education outreach because these technologies really are opening pathways. Not just to aviation, which 

58 

is the traditional way that model aircraft led to innovation, but 

also in programming, robotics, and automated flight controls. 

Things you might not expect. 

And we are really excited to see all of those things finally come 

to fruition. 

Dr. VILLASENOR. Maybe I could just chime in. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

Dr. VILLASENOR. I view unmanned aircraft as really within the 

broader umbrella of robotics. 

And there is an enormous groundswell of interest in training and 

educational opportunities in universities that are getting into robotics, not only for things like drones, but also for autonomous vehicles, and manufacturing, and many other ways in which robotics 

is going to create enormous opportunity for innovation in the next 

few decades. 

Senator CAPITO. What about another area I see in terms of economic development is, of course, the maintenance? You think about 

aircraft, airliners have their aircraft in maintenance every so often. 

Certainly, a drone is going to have to have that kind of maintenance and safety checks. 

Are there hubs developing around the country? I am looking for 

a hub. I have a great place for a hub. Does anybody know anything 

about that, like a hub for maintenance and safety inspections of 

drones? 

No? Well, here we go. I just discovered the next great entrepreneurial adventure for a small state. 

Thank you all very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Klobuchar is up next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. 

I first wanted to welcome Mr. Fowke and thank you, Ben, for the 

work that you have done in Minnesota. Xcel is such a leader in renewable energy and you employ many people in our state, and we 

thank you for that. 

Mr. FOWKE. Well, thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Minnesota, as you know, is the national 

leader in renewable fuel and Xcel Energy is the largest wind energy provider in the Nation. Xcel owns and operates wind farms in 

my state at its Grand Meadow, Nobles, and Pleasant Valley locations. 

That sounds nice, does it not, Senator Thune? Do you have a 

Pleasant Valley in South Dakota? Only the Black Hills; we do not 

have that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I understand that Xcel has conducted research in Minnesota on using UAS to inspect wind turbines. And 

I have certainly seen a lot of use of UAS just generally in our rural 

areas including flying over a train that had caught on fire and so 

it was keeping our firefighters safe, including checking out agriculture fields and other things. But the wind turbine use was 

something that I did not know about until this hearing. 

59 

So could you tell us about that project and the results? 

Mr. FOWKE. Sure, Senator, and thanks for the question. And by 

the way, we are going to add to that wind renewable leadership in 

both the state of Minnesota and South Dakota. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But you do not have a Pleasant Valley location there. 

Mr. FOWKE. Well, we can come up with something. 

But the test you are talking about occurred in the Fall of 2015 

at our Grand Meadow 100 megawatt farm in Dexter, Minnesota. 

And basically what we are doing is we had a routine blade inspection and rather than climb 300 feet up and inspect it that way 

or use binoculars on the ground. There is a better way to do it and 

that is the UAS technology. It cut the job that normally takes at 

least half a day down to half an hour. 

When we apply that kind of savings across all of our wind turbines, that will save us $1 million a year, which will make, we 

think, a very efficient technology that much more efficient. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. FOWKE. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I mentioned agriculture, Ms. Cooper, and 

with precision agriculture and all that we are seeing, we actually 

have Jenny-O after the Avian Flu disaster, have built out 

broadband. 

Not only do you need broadband for precision agriculture, but we 

also need it for things like monitoring the temperature in barns. 

And that was after we lost all of those turkeys in our state. They 

actually themselves invested in that, which is not really a model; 

I do not think that can be emulated all over the country. 

Instead what we are seeing are farmers who have to do their 

business to keep up with their customers going to the McDonald’s 

parking lot and the like. 

And so, could you explain why a good Internet connection is 

needed for many of the UAS benefits of precision agriculture, for 

instance, like real time video streaming? 

Ms. COOPER. Yes, absolutely. 

Real time Internet connection is necessary for a lot of the payload functionality in order to accurately collect the sensor data, as 

well as process it onboard the UAV. 

So often, we are actually processing data while we are flying an 

operation. And then in the field, you can actually get analytics to 

make sure that after you have flown an operation you have collected the data that you need to give you the results you are looking for. 

And so, it is critical to have connectivity to be able to do processing in real time for agriculture operations. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Schulman, northwest Minnesota has become a national leader in education around the construction, operation, and maintenance of UAS. The Northland Community and Technical College in 

Thief River Falls has a state of the art campus and is collaborating 

with Northrop Grumman Corporation to use their facilities for 

training and research purposes. Schools in Minnesota and the 

upper Midwest represent a great opportunity for students. 

60 

Do companies like DJI and others in the industry anticipate a 

need for new employees that have this specific training? 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Absolutely. In fact, we have a University Relations Manager who 

does exactly that, reach out to the schools across the country that 

are educating our Nation’s students on UAS technologies and how 

to use them, including the drone as a platform for software development. 

So like your smart phone, drones have software application developers. We have opened up our hardware so that anyone can program a drone to do interesting things, whether it is automated 

mapping for agriculture or something like cinematography. Or 

most recently, we have partnered with someone to do a search and 

rescue app to facilitate those kinds of operations. 

So anyone who is interested in learning about the technology and 

turning it into a career, absolutely welcome to speak to me and we 

will connect them to our university people. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHULMAN. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Dr. Gonza ́lez, you have discussed how 

Miami-Dade has tried to address the threat UAS can pose when 

drones get too close to an airport or to planes. Like Florida, Minnesota has airports small and large. 

And in fact, we had one example on September 10, 2016. An Air 

Force C–17 was on its final approach to Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The pilot reported they were in final descent, around 5,000 

feet, and making a left turn when a UAS passed just under their 

nose slightly to the right of the aircraft. 

Can you talk about the challenges posed by UAS and potential 

solutions and how they differ between small and large airports? 

And if you want to add anything, Mr. Lawrence, I would appreciate 

it. Thank you. 

Dr. GONZA ́LEZ. Thank you, Senator. 

It is a challenge for an airport like ours. We have over 400,000 

operations a year. So any inadvertent trespass into a runway zone 

is a recipe for disaster. 

In fact, it was reported widespread in the media, I think it was 

January 27, we had an airliner that was literally landing about 200 

or 300 feet off the deck that spotted a UAS come across. Needless 

to say when I hear that, my heart stops because we do everything 

we possibly can within the limits that we have. 

What we have done thus far is very local. I am the biggest fan 

of UAS you will find, but we want to make sure that people use 

them responsibly; that they understand the dangers of using one 

near an airport, near any airport large or small, because the results could be catastrophic. 

We introduced recently a local ordinance which calls for a $500 

fine, which is the most that our County can levy, for people who 

use a drone, if you will, near one of our airports. 

Our ordinance has been shared with the directors of other airports in the state of Florida, I might add, because we are the only 

ones that have a local ordinance that addresses the use of UASs 

near an airport. 

61 

So we have done what we can. We understand that there are 

some things that we cannot do. But I think that we can positively 

affect the person who genuinely wants to use a drone for commercial, recreational, personal reasons. It may very well be that they 

accidently go onto airport property. But I am always looking ahead. 

You can educate people so far. 

You can find people, to Senator Markey’s point, that have incredibly bad instincts and reasons to want to cause harm. And so we 

also, on the airport side are constantly looking for technologies that 

will provide us—even if it is limited—at least a veneer of protection 

like geo-fencing. We had a demonstration a couple of weeks ago at 

one of our General Aviation airfields. But we are looking for technology. 

If I cannot get the 100 percent solution, I as an airport director, 

if I can find the 80 percent solution, until such time as we do get 

a 100 percent, I am going to seek it out and I am going to do it 

with my own funds if I have to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Anything more? No? Are we 

good? Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Duckworth. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I would like to thank the Chairman and 

Ranking Member for convening this very important hearing. 

This is an issue that is personally very important to me. And I 

noted during the confirmation of Secretary Chao’s hearing, I experienced a near-hit in flight while piloting an aircraft myself. 

I was in a small, single engine aircraft, general aviation. My husband and I were flying. We were in controlled airspace transitioning Patuxent, talking to Patuxent radio, above 3,000 feet when a 

very large remotely operated airplane flew up and missed my propeller by, I would say, 10, 15 feet; scared the bejeezus out of me. 

If that thing had hit us, I would not be here today. 

So I understand the commercial purposes. I understand the recreational purposes. I support the aviation community. But there 

has got to be something that we can do. 

And I do believe those who are going to engage in commercial activities, we can come up with systems to regulate or require training of those drone operators, licensing of those drone operators, or 

registration. But there has got to be something we can do. 

Mr. Lawrence, I would like to chat with you a little bit about 

what is it that we can mandate of drone manufacturers? I am not 

talking about going and making them comply with ADS–B 2020. 

That is a huge expense. Although, for some of the larger drones 

and for a large operation, maybe that is where we need to go, 

where we are certainly expecting it of the G.A. community. Why 

would we not expect it when those airplanes sometimes cost far 

less than some of these drones do? 

So it is equivalent in terms of cost to the consumer where it is 

a $35,000 General Aviation airplane or it is a $50,000 commercial 

drone that is being used. So why would we not require ADS–B out 

of those folks as well? 

62 

And maybe it is something where we have some sort of a system, 

a reporting system, that is required to be part of the drone. 

Every drone that can fly about 3,000 feet and can be more than 

a certain distance from the drone operator, say, another 1,000 feet 

from the drone operator. That every one of those drones should be 

required to have the capacity of continuously emitting an identification code so that if it engaged in an accident, a collision, or if 

it is flown in an area like Miami-Dade that we know exactly what 

that serial number is and we can track down that drone operator 

because the number would have been registered at the point of 

purchase. 

I am not talking about a little quad copter. That is a whole other 

issue that we are talking about there. But when you have a drone 

that can go up to 3,000 feet and you have a drone that can go more 

than a certain distance from its operator, then we should have 

some requirements on that. 

And maybe it is not a transponder. Maybe it is GPS technology 

using software so that it is emitting continuously some sort of a 

code. 

Are you looking at doing any of that in terms of the FAA committee? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Senator. 

And absolutely, these are focus areas for us right now, and I 

think first and foremost is the Part 107 Rule to start off with. It 

has only been out there for 6 months, and that was key. 

As you articulated, 400 feet is a limit in that rule. Until we had 

that rule, we did not have that opportunity to work with the manufacturers that they put an altitude limiter on your aircraft so that 

they do not go above 400 feet, so that they are not interfering with 

traffic. So getting that basic set of rules is the first and foremost 

thing. 

The next part of that are the instructions we have had from this 

committee to look at I.D. And you mentioned ADS–B like. And I 

like that you said the word ‘‘like’’. ADS–B itself, we do not believe 

is appropriate because of interference with the manned system. 

So some of the larger aircraft, it has to do with density and the 

size of these aircraft. But we very much understand there is that 

need for I.D.-ing and tracking. It is also needed to support our 

UTM system and it is needed to support our privacy concerns and 

our security concerns. 

As I was articulating a little earlier, this is one of our focus areas 

this year. We are working with our security partners. We are working with local law enforcement, and we are working with the industry itself to identify the suite of technologies. 

So when we report back to you in this committee, not just reporting of, ‘‘Here are some standards we can use.’’ But, ‘‘Here is how 

they will actually address the issues, and here is what the costs 

are, and here is what the range of options are.’’ 

So we are looking to do that this summer and come back with 

some good solutions, not just a report on ‘‘here are some standards 

for you.’’ 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I look forward to that report because if 

something is not done, I will be introducing legislation to address 

this. And I certainly want at least the same level of fairness. 

63 

If you are asking G.A. pilots and G.A. aircraft operators to pony 

up to the tune of thousands of dollars with ADS–B out, but you are 

not going to do this of commercial drone operators? We have a 

problem. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. As a G.A. pilot who is pony-ing up for that, I appreciate your comment. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

I am going to come back to Dr. Gonza ́lez. I share your concern 

about safety at our Nation’s airports and the questions that you answered earlier to Senator Klobuchar, I think, are very helpful as 

we think about these issues as we head into this next FAA reauthorization bill. 

But there is a pilot program for drone detection and mitigation 

that was included in last year’s reauthorization. I think that reflects the shared concern that we have about that issue. 

Could you offer us your perspective on the FAA’s communications 

and enforcement as seen at the local level and how you think that 

might be improved? 

Dr. GONZA ́LEZ. Thank you, Senator. 

We have an excellent relationship with the FAA. We communicate often. We meet often. The enforcement issue is one that we 

had to take on ourselves because we wanted immediacy, if you will. 

We kept seeing an increase in sightings of drones, UAS’s, pilots 

were reporting them. Our numbers as an airport were growing to 

the point where it was just going to become a statistical issue. Not 

as an ‘‘if,’’ but a ‘‘when.’’ 

So whatever we could do at our level to create a deterrence factor. Admittedly, being fined $500 is not a whole lot of deterrence, 

but it is what we have. And it is something that we coordinate with 

the tower a lot when these sightings happen, and we will continue 

to do so. We work with other airports. We are going to work with 

our colleagues at the State level. 

But for me interestingly, and I mentioned this before, I am a 

huge fan of the technology and the potential of the UAS. But I also 

have an overarching responsibility of providing safety for almost 45 

million people. And all it takes is one. 

And as a result, we try and be as proactive and forward leaning 

as we possibly can to include looking for alternative technologies, 

using our own funds, pushing the envelope, if you will, working 

with our local police departments. We even work with our local 

school districts in different municipalities to let them know that 

you cannot fly a drone near an airport, that there are consequences. And that if we can, we will find you, and we will prosecute you. 

But again, it is at a very limited level. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lawrence, could you speak about the FAA’s 

efforts on enforcement? And also about the testing the agency is 

doing with mitigation technology at airports to address this issue, 

as sort of a follow up to Dr. Gonza ́lez’s answer? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Sure and thank you for the opportunity to follow 

up on that as well, because Miami is one of our focus areas. 

64 

And it is also one of our best local, we call them FSDO, but the 

local office down there actually is going out to homes around that 

airport, handing out flyers, informing people of the criticality of operating around there is. It has been a great joint effort to reach 

out. And it just goes to show how much work is actually being attempted to be done. 

Also as you mentioned, the research that is going on about the 

detection equipment that is out there. Airports themselves are a 

unique environment, and they are a little bit different than protecting a prison or some of these other fixed assets in the sense 

that aircraft are coming in from long distances at great altitudes. 

Also, there is a lot of activity going on electronically around airports. 

And so it was very important to do this initial testing to understand how these systems are going to operate, how big of an area 

they can detect, and what are all the various systems that are 

available to us, whether they be R.F., or optical, or radar. There 

are a lot of different things that we are looking at. 

I think we have learned a lot so far, and we are looking forward 

to reporting out a little bit later this year. And as it was mentioned, it is a layered approach, though. The testing is absolutely 

something we have to do. We need that information, but we also 

need our rules. 

In addition to the detection equipment, we certainly need to support our I.D. and tracking as we talked about here. We need to 

support the infrastructure that the FAA needs to really support the 

UTM network, the authorization system, all this data has to be 

housed somewhere. And this is a definite focus area for the agency 

right now. How do we make sure we get restricted areas dedicated 

in place? How do we make sure we are talking to the operators 

electronically so they know where they can and cannot operate? 

This is a major challenge to the Agency going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Professor Villasenor, in your testimony, you 

made some comparisons between UAS and other emerging technologies. You also noted the limitations of those comparisons based 

on technological or operational differences. We are now in the thick 

of the Digital Age with unmanned aircraft systems as only one 

technology. 

So the question is can you talk about other specific technologies 

where privacy has been raised as a concern and how the industry 

or government has responded in a way that addresses the issue 

without being technology-specific in the form of either legislation or 

regulation? 

Dr. VILLASENOR. Thank you, Chairman. That is an incredibly important question. 

The short answer is actually I am not aware of any specific situation where there is the perfect solution out there because, frankly, 

I do not think the perfect solution exists. 

But I do think the challenge is that we can easily come up with 

the kind of nightmare scenarios for all of these technologies with 

respect to privacy. And that applies not only to unmanned aircraft, 

but it applies to these, like I mentioned in my opening statement, 

these always-on consumer devices that have video and audio capaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
65 

bility. It applies to autonomous vehicles. It applies to smart phone 

applications and so on. 

The challenge, I think, in addressing those is to not create legislative frameworks that have enormous collateral damage in terms 

of infringing or impeding completely innocuous non-privacy violating uses. 

So I think the solution is a couple of things. I think the voluntary 

frameworks like the NTIA stakeholder process is an absolutely terrific contribution to the dialogue. I think the education initiatives 

which I talked about here with respect to safe operations, but there 

can be an analogous education and awareness initiatives with respect to privacy. 

I also think that we do have perhaps less appreciated than it 

could be a substantial privacy framework out there already. Obviously, we have the Fourth Amendment with respect to government. 

We have a very significant set of protections at the State level with 

respect to invasion of privacy statutes, both criminal and civil. We 

also have unmanned aircraft specific language in some of those 

statutes. 

So for example, in the state of California, the statute for physical 

invasion of privacy was amended in the last year or two to specifically cite to bring it under its scope of privacy violations made with 

the use of unmanned aircraft. 

So I think there is a matrix of solutions that can be used to address these. But I do not think there is one sort of silver bullet that 

we could use. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we have no more members to ask 

questions and you have all covered it really well. 

I appreciate your patience today. Thank you for the great testimony and response to questions. This is an issue, as you know, 

that is not going away. We want to make sure we get the policy 

right going forward. 

And so, we have to do another FAA authorization. The current 

one expires at the end of September of this year. And so in the run 

up to that, we want to make sure that we are making informed decisions and shaping policy based on what is happening out there. 

Both in terms of addressing the wonderful applications that are 

available, but also recognizing that there are safety considerations 

that have to be dealt with, as mentioned, privacy and other things 

as well. 

So a great upside, just need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to manage it in the right way from this perspective in the oversight that this committee has. 

We will keep the hearing record open for a couple of weeks, and 

if there are Senators who want to submit questions for the record, 

they can do that. And we hope that when you all receive those 

questions that you will try and get the answers back to us as 

quickly as possible. 

With that, thank you all very much. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

Washington, DC, March 13, 2017 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation Committee, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. BILL NELSON, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation Committee, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

On behalf of the over 1.2 million members of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) and its affiliates, the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM), 

and the REALTORS® Land Institute (RLI), thank you for holding this hearing, ‘‘Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Innovation, Integration, Successes, and Challenges.’’ REALTORS® were among the first to recognize the potential of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for marketing properties, and look forward to other applications—including land surveying, inspections, and even repairs—for UAS in the real estate 

and property management industries. 

NAR was pleased when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released its 

Small UAS Rule last summer, which was an important first step towards integrating UAS into the National Air Space (NAS). That rule created a clear pathway 

for commercial UAS use while protecting safety in the NAS and on the ground. It 

is important that the FAA continue making progress with its UAS rulemaking, including regulations for operating UAS over crowds, beyond-visual-line-of-sight 

flights, and night flights. Real estate professionals are excited about the possible 

uses for UAS in the real estate industry, but the current regulatory framework 

stops short of providing the type of guidance and flexibility needed for the technology to reach its full potential. 

NAR has been active in the rulemaking process, participating in the FAA Micro 

UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which released recommendations on 

rules for micro-UAS flights over people, as well as the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA) working group on privacy best practices. 

The Association looks forward to seeing the results of this work translated into Federal guidelines for safe and responsible UAS use in a variety of situations. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing. NAR looks forward to continuing to 

work with Congress and the FAA to create a safe and reasonable regulatory environment for the commercial use of UAS. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM E. BROWN, 

2017 President, 

National Association of REALTORS®. 

cc: Members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee 

68 

1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Innovation, Integration, Successes, and Challenges, 115th Cong. 

(2017) S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, http://www.commerce.senate.gov/ 

public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=FD65111D-3DD5-472B-8C91-AEED13D00AE0 (March 15, 2017). 2Testimony of EPIC Domestic Surveillance Project Director Amie Stepanovich, Hearing Before 

the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations, Mar. 20 2013, https://epic.org/privacy/testimony/EPICDrone-Testimony-3-13-Stepanovich.pdf; Testimony of Amie Stepanovich, Hearing Before the 

House Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Using Unmanned Aerial Systems Within the Homeland: Security Game Changer?, Jul. 19, 2012, https://epic.org/privacy/testimony/EPIC-Drone-Testimony-7-12.pdf; Testimony of EPIC Domestic Surveillance 

Project Director Jeramie Scott, Hearing before the Majority of Policy Committee, Pennsylvania 

State Senate, Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones), Mar. 15, 2016, https://epic.org/privacy/drones/EPIC-Drone-Testimony-20160315.pdf. 3 JD Supra, EPIC Continues its Fight Against FAA for Drone Privacy Regulations (Mar. 6, 

2017) (‘‘The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed its 65-page brief in its case 

against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week’’), www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ 

epic-continues-its-fight-against-faa-71113/; EPIC v. FAA, No. 16–1297 (D.C. Cir. Filed Mar. 2, 

2017, https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/1664208-EPIC-Amended-Brief.pdf; 

EPIC v. FAA: Challenging the FAA’s Failure to Establish Drone Privacy Rules, EPIC, https:// 

epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/. 4 EPIC FOIA: Drone Industry Cozied Up to Public Officials (Dec. 21, 2016), EPIC, https:// 

epic.org/2016/12/epic-foia-drone-industry-cozie.html. EPIC v. DOT, No. 16–634 (D.C. Cir. Filed 

Apr. 4, 2016), https://epic.org/foia/dot/drones/taskforce/1-Complaint.pdf; EPIC v. Department 

of Transportation—Drone Registration Task Force, EPIC, http://epic.org/foia/dot/drones/ 

taskforce/. 5 Aaron Smith, U.S. Views of Technology and the Future, Pew Research Center, Apr. 17, 2014, 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/17/us-views-of-technology-and-the-future/. 6Sally French, Drone Sales in the U.S. More Than Doubled In The Past Year, Market Watch, 

May 28, 2016, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/drone-sales-in-the-us-more-than-doubled-inthe-past-year-2016-05-27; FAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 2016–2036, FAA, 2016, https:// 

www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace 

_Forecast.pdf. 

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (EPIC) 

Washington, DC, March 13, 2017 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Chairman, 

Hon. BILL NELSON, 

Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

We write to you regarding the upcoming hearing on ‘‘Unmanned Aircraft Systems: 

Innovation, Integration, Successes, and Challenges.’’ 1 We appreciate your interest 

in this issue. EPIC has previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 

the House Homeland Security Committee, and state legislatures regarding the privacy risks associated with drones.2

EPIC is now proceeding in the U.S. Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit against 

the FAA for the agency’s failure to establish drone privacy safeguards.3 EPIC has 

also pursued several open government matters regarding the FAA’s decision making 

process, which appears intended to purposefully avoid the development of meaningful privacy safeguards.4

EPIC believes that strong drone privacy rules are vital for the safe integration 

of commercial drones in the National Air Space. The present course is simply not 

sustainable. 

Aerial Drones: A Unique Privacy Threat 

Drones pose a unique threat to privacy. The technical and economic limitations 

to aerial surveillance change dramatically with the advancement of drone technology. Small, unmanned drones are already inexpensive; the surveillance capabilities of drones are rapidly advancing; and cheap storage is readily available to maintain repositories of surveillance data. A Pew Research Center and Smithsonian 

Magazine survey found that 63 percent of Americans objected to the idea of giving 

personal and commercial drones permission to fly through most U.S. airspace.5

However, in recent years individual drone use has soared, and the FAA predicts 

that 7 million drones will be sold by 2020.6 As drone use increases so do the risks 

to privacy and safety. 

69 

7Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by EPIC, Mar. 8, 2012, https://epic.org/apa/lawsuit/ 

EPIC–FAA-Drone-Petition-March-8-2012.pdf; Univ. of Wash. Tech. and Pub. Policy Clinic, Domestic Drones: Technical and Policy Issues 12 (2013), https://www.law.washington.edu/clinics/ 

technology/reports/droneslawan policy.pdf. 8DJI, Inspire 1, http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/feature. 9 Hubsan, X4 Star Pro, http://shop.hubsan.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products 

_id=%20519. 

10Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by EPIC, supra note 7. 11 Id.; Ciara Bracken-Roche et al., Surveillance Studies Centre, Surveillance Drones: Privacy 

Implications of the Spread of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Canada 46, Apr. 30, 2014, 

http://www.sscqueens.org/sites/default/files/Surveillance_Drones_Report.pdf; Mary Papenfuss, 

Utah Couple Arrested Over ‘Peeping Tom’ Drone, Huffington Post, Feb. 17, 2017, http:// 

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peeping-tom-drone_us_58a6847fe4b045cd34c03e56. 12 Alan Levin, Drone-Plane Near misses, Other Incidents Surge 46 percent in U.S., Bloomberg, 

Feb. 23, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-23/drone-plane-near-missesother-incidents-surged-46-in-u-s; Steve Miletich, Pilot of Drone That Struck Woman at Pride Parade Gets 30 Days in Jail, The Seattle Times, Feb. 24, 2017, http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/pilot-of-drone-that-struck-woman-at-pride-parade-sentenced-to-30-days-in-jail/. 13Kacey Deamer, How Can Drones Be Hacked? Let Us Count the Ways, Live Science, Jun. 10, 

2016, http://www.livescience.com/55046-how-can-drones-be-hacked.html. 14Wang Wei, You Can Hijack Nearly Any Drone Mid-Flight Using This Tiny Gadget, The 

Hacker News, Oct. 27, 2016, http://thehackernews.com/2016/10/how-to-hack-drone.html. 15 Joint Planning and Dev. Office, Fed. Aviation Admin., Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Comprehensive Plan: A Report on the Nation’s UAS Path Forward 4 (2013), https:// 

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agi/reports/media/UAS_Comprehensive 

_Plan.pdf. 

16Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 81 Fed. Reg. 42,063 

(June 28, 2016) (codified at 14 C.F.R. pts. 21, 43, 61, 91, 101, 107, 119, 133, and 183). 

Drones are now regularly equipped with high definition cameras that increase the 

ability of a user to conduct domestic surveillance.7 The DJI Inspire 1 is a high-end, 

commercially available hobbyist drone about the size of a small desktop printer and 

weighs less than seven pounds, yet it can transmit high definition video to an operator up to five kilometers away and can stream that video live to YouTube.8 Even 

lower-end hobbyist drones costing less than $100 can stream live video. The Hubsan 

X4 Star Pro, a drone that can fit in the palm of your hand, utilizes a front facing 

high definition camera with 720P resolution that can stream live video up to 300 

meters away.9 Drones can be used to view individuals inside their homes and can 

facilitate the harassment and stalking of unsuspecting victims.10 Drones can also be 

modified with tools that can enable them to gather personal information using infrared cameras, heat sensors, GPS, automated license plate readers, and facial recognition devices.11

Drones also pose risks to security and cybersecurity. Close calls between drones 

and traditional aircraft have risen significantly as their use becomes more widespread.12 Furthermore, the very features that make drones easy to operate also 

make them susceptible to cyberattacks.13 Hackers have the ability to exploit weaknesses in drone software to take over operation of a drone and access the camera 

and microphones.14

The privacy risks of drones, as well as the safety and security vulnerabilities, underscore the need for the FAA to develop drone privacy regulations. We urge the 

Committee to question why the FAA has not yet taken steps to issue regulations on 

drone privacy despite prior Congressional directives to do so. 

The FAA Has Failed to Implement the Requirements of the FAA Modernization Act 

The FAA has failed to take the action mandated by Congress. The FAA Modernization Act required the FAA to create a Comprehensive Plan to integrate drones 

into the National Airspace and subsequently conduct a notice and comment rulemaking. In the Plan, the FAA identified privacy as an important issue to address, 

acknowledging that ‘‘as demand for [drones] increases, concerns regarding how 

[drones] will impact existing aviation grow stronger, especially in terms of safety, 

privacy, frequency crowding, and airspace congestion.’’ 15

Under the FAA Modernization Act, Congress required the FAA to implement the 

recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan via a public rulemaking within 46 

months of the enactment of the Act. The FAA identified privacy as an important 

issue directly related to domestic drones, yet the agency has failed to address privacy in the agency’s only public rulemaking on drones in the National Airspace.16

Indeed it has been 60 months and the FAA has failed to implement the rulemaking 

70 

17FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–95 § 332, 126 Stat. 73–75. 18 160 Cong. Rec. 1186 (2014), https://www.congress.gov/crec/2014/01/15/CREC-2014-01-15- 

bk2.pdf. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/EPIC-16-07-20-FAA-FOIA-20160921- 

Production.pdf 22 EPI Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by EPIC, supra note 7. 23Letter from Fed. Aviation Admin. to EPIC (Nov. 26, 2014), https://epic.org/privacy/ 

drones/FAA-Privacy-Rulemaking-Letter.pdf. 24Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 80 Fed. Reg. 9,544 (proposed Feb. 23, 2015). 25Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 81 Fed. Reg. 42,063 

(June 28, 2016) (codified at 14 C.F.R. pts. 21, 43, 61, 91, 101, 107, 119, 133, and 183). 26 EPIC v. FAA, No. 16–1297 (D.C. Cir.); https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/ 

. 

that addresses the issues identified in the Comprehensive Plan, including privacy, 

as required by Congress.17

The FAA Has Failed to Conduct the Required Drone Privacy Report 

The FAA was ordered by Congress to conduct a drone privacy report, which the 

agency failed to do. In the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress required 

the FAA to conduct a drone privacy study, stating: 

Without adequate safeguards, expanded use of UAS and their integration into 

the national airspace raise a host of concerns with respect to the privacy of individuals. For this reason, the FAA is directed to conduct a study on the implications of UAS integration into national airspace on individual privacy.18

The report specifically required the FAA to study ‘‘how the FAA can address the 

impact of widespread use of UAS on individual privacy as it prepares to facilitate 

the integration of UAS into the national airspace.’’ 19 The report was to be submitted 

to Congress within 18 months of enactment of that appropriations bill and completed ‘‘well in advance of the FAA’s schedule for developing final regulations on the 

integration of UAS into the national airspace.’’ 20 Nearly 38 months since the bill 

was enacted, the FAA has failed to produce the report. Furthermore, EPIC obtained 

documents through a Freedom of Information Act request that suggested that the 

FAA has no intention of complying with Congress’ directive to produce a report.21

EPIC’s Lawsuit, EPIC v. FAA 

Immediately after the passage of the FAA Modernization Act, EPIC and more 

than one hundred legal experts and organization petitioned the FAA to undertake 

a rulemaking to establish privacy regulations prior to the deployment of commercial 

drones in the National Airspace.22 More than two years later, the FAA responded 

to the petition by refusing to conduct a separate drone privacy rulemaking but said 

privacy would be considered in an upcoming rulemaking on small drones.23 However, the FAA later stated that privacy issues were ‘‘beyond the scope of the rulemaking’’ 24 and did not consider privacy in its final rule,25 prompting EPIC to file 

suit.26 EPIC is challenging the FAA’s refusal to consider privacy and to conduct a 

comprehensive drone rulemaking as required by Congress. The FAA has failed to 

explain why the agency did not evaluate privacy in their final rule despite the requirements of the FAA Modernization Act, EPIC’s petition calling for the agency to 

address privacy, the FAA’s own statements establishing privacy as an important 

issue to address, and the hundreds of comments that raised privacy issues in the 

small drone rulemaking. 

EPIC urges this Committee to ask the FAA why the agency has failed to take steps 

to protect the public from the privacy risks posed by drones. Any privacy and security 

risks are no longer hypothetical and the longer the FAA waits to issue comprehensive privacy rules, the longer the public is at risk. 

71 

Conclusion 

We ask that this letter be entered in the hearing record. EPIC looks forward to 

working with the Committee on these issues of vital importance to the American 

public. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ MARC ROTENBERG

Marc Rotenberg 

EPIC President 

/s/ JERAMIE SCOTT

Jeramie Scott 

EPIC National Security Counsel 

/s/ CAITRIONA FITZGERALD

Caitriona Fitzgerald 

EPIC Policy Director 

/s/ KIM MILLER

Kim Miller 

EPIC Policy Fellow 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee for 

the opportunity to provide a statement on ‘‘Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Innovation, 

Integration, Successes, and Challenges.’’ The Property Casualty Insurers Association 

of America (PCI) is composed of nearly 1,000 member companies, representing the 

broadest cross section of insurers of any national trade association. Our members 

write more than $202 billion in annual premium and 35 percent of the Nation’s 

home, auto and business insurance, reflecting the diversity and strength of the U.S. 

and global insurance markets. 

PCI members recognize the great potential of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

technology that will benefit policyholders in the expeditious settlement of claims and 

in post disaster property damage assessment. Members of Congress should encourage the FAA to lift operational restrictions that prohibit insurers from flying UAS 

at night, beyond the visual line of sight of the operator, and over individuals not 

involved in the UAS flight as a way to provide safe and efficient service to policyholders. Congress should include an explicit exemption for insurers from those operational restrictions. An exemption for insurers will be particularly important during 

federally declared disasters when property owners are eager to rebuild. It is critical 

that insurers be permitted to use UAS technology to the greatest extent possible following disasters so homeowners and businesses can begin the recovery process as 

soon as possible. 

PCI appreciates the Committee’s continued interest in UAS technology, and we 

are pleased that you are holding this hearing. Insurers continue to take steps to integrate UAS technology into daily insurance operations for the benefit of consumers 

and post-disaster relief efforts. PCI and our members stand ready to work with Congress on the best way to balance safety and privacy concerns without needlessly limiting the utility of this technology for commercial entities. This statement highlights 

some of the many benefits of UAS technology for homeowners, businesses, and insurance company employees. 

Practical and Economic Applications 

UAS technology enables insurers to respond more quickly to the needs of impacted people and businesses by assisting in catastrophe response and claims adjustment. After major events like Hurricane Sandy, the Moore Oklahoma tornadoes, 

and the 2016 Louisiana flooding, many geographic areas impacted by these disasters 

were initially inaccessible to claims adjusters. Unmanned Aircraft Systems can be 

immediately deployed to survey the damage and give some idea of an initial loss 

estimate to increase the speed of recovery assistance all while keeping adjusters and 

policyholders safely out of harm’s way. 

The geographic area impacted by a catastrophe can span several miles. For example, the 2013 Moore tornado was an EF5 tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, and 

adjacent areas on the afternoon of May 20, 2013. This disaster, with peak winds 

estimated at 210 mph, killed 24 people and injured 377 others. The tornado was 

part of a larger weather system that produced several other tornadoes across the 

Great Plains over the previous two days. The tornado, 1.3 miles wide at its peak, 

touched down west of Newcastle at 2:56 p.m. CDT, staying on the ground for 39 

minutes over a 17-mile path, crossing through a heavily populated section of Moore. 

The substantial damage from an event like the Moore tornado crosses city, county, 

and state lines. Following a weather event of this scale, insurer use of UAS technology helps expedite post-disaster recovery and the claim adjustment process for 

homeowners and businesses. 

72 

Drones also promote safety by reducing the number of perilous roof inspections 

that create the risk of a fall. Claims adjusters may be called upon to inspect rowhouse style properties with roofs three stories high. In addition, dwelling structures 

may be unstable after a tornado or hurricane event. According to the National Safety Council, more than 30,000 people are injured each year as a result of falls involving ladders. Over 6,000 people die each year from falls of all types including from 

roofs, ladders, stairs, and slippery surfaces. Insurance industry use of UAS technology reduces the risk of injuries and deaths of claim adjusters and policyholders 

climbing ladders to inspect roofs. 

The P&C industry provides $11.4 billion in crop insurance and almost $3.7 billion 

in farmowners insurance. The ability to use drones to inspect barns, farm fields, and 

other agricultural machinery significantly increases safety and the ability to respond more quickly to the farming community after a severe weather event. 

Privacy and Safety 

Insurers recognize and respect the privacy rights of homeowners and businesses. 

According to the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), many state legislatures have drafted legislation to protect their citizens from an invasion of privacy 

by drone operators. While it is important to protect privacy, it is also important that 

businesses not be inadvertently prohibited from otherwise legitimate uses of UAS 

within the scope of their business operations. 

The safe operation of UAS is essential for homeowners, businesses, and first responders. There have been notable media accounts of UAS near misses with aircraft 

near airports. Such instances clearly pose a safety threat to the flying public as well 

as individuals and property on the ground. In addition, there have been several notable instances of UAS flights interfering with wildfire suppression operations in 

California and Utah. Insurers strongly support safety measures to curtail the reckless use of UAS that puts lives and property at risk. 

Conclusion 

Unmanned aircraft systems have tremendous potential to benefit society for a variety of purposes. Insurers may use UAS technology to expedite claim adjustment 

so that policyholders receive settlement checks sooner. Following a disaster, unmanned aircraft systems can be rapidly deployed to geographically inaccessible 

areas to quickly assess damage and determine where insurance adjusters are needed. While privacy and safety are important concerns, it is critical that future UAS 

related legislation and regulation not inadvertently limit the use of this rapidly advancing technology by insurers. 

Congress should recommend that the FAA lift operational restrictions for insurers 

that unnecessarily limit the potential use of UAS technology for the benefit of policyholders. Specifically, problematic restrictions related to flying include: (1) flying 

at night; (2) flying beyond the visual line of sight; and (3) flying over individuals 

not involved in the drone flight. These restrictions make it very difficult to survey 

property damage over a wide geographic area following an event like Hurricane 

Katrina. The FAA currently has a waiver process in place for certain operational 

restrictions. However, the waiver process adds an administrative burden that creates an unnecessary delay for policyholders who would otherwise benefit from expedited claims settlement. 

The current authorization of the FAA is set to expire on September 30, 2017. Congress will consider a FAA reauthorization bill later this year and we request that 

reauthorization language includes an explicit exemption for insurers to operate unmanned aircraft systems. This is especially critical following a federally declared 

disaster. This important exemption will help homeowners and businesses begin the 

recovery process more quickly. PCI members welcome a discussion with members 

of Congress on the best path forward for integration of UAS technology into the national airspace. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODIN LYASOFF, CEO, A3

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee: 

I applaud the Committee’s interest in the public policy issues related to the safe 

integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace system 

(NAS). Also, I commend the FAA for its continued leadership on this important 

issue. 

A3 is the Silicon Valley outpost of Airbus, with the aim to define the future of 

flight. Airbus is a global leader in aeronautics and space, with thousands of aircraft 

flying in the national airspace every day. 

73 

1 Consumer Technology Association (CTA). ‘‘UAS Could Reach 1 Million U.S. Flights a Day 

in 20 Years.’’ https://www.cta.tech/News/Press-Releases/2015/May/CEA-Research-UAS-CouldReach-1-Million-U-S-Flights.aspx. 5 May 2015. Web. 2Federal Aviation Administration. ‘‘A Plan for the Future: 10 Year Strategy for the Air Traffic 

Control Workforce.’’ 2016. 3Government Accountability Office. ‘‘Integration of Current Implementation Efforts with 

Long-term Planning for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.’’ 22 Nov. 2010. Web. 

As you know, the aerospace industry is leveraging advanced technology in interesting ways that could make our skies more safe and secure. From the acceleration 

of commercial UAS to the new advances in airspace management, government 

should expand industry collaboration to design flexible solutions to integrate UAS 

into the NAS. Today, thousands of operators are using UAS in the NAS to save lives 

during emergencies, optimize crop yield, inspect pipelines and waterways and capture images for real estate, security and TV/news. And, in a few years, the commercial readiness of cargo-carrying UAS and self-flying passenger-carrying electric aircraft will further expand the NAS to new users. 

By 2025, researchers estimate a million UAS flights per day, spanning the range 

from small foam aircraft designed for children to multi-million dollar automatic systems 1. Without a scalable air traffic management system, it will be impossible to 

guarantee that millions of flights are safely coordinated and that vehicles comply 

with the operational rules dictated by federal, state, and local governments. 

The future of air traffic management 

Over the next 5 years alone, FAA must hire more than 7,400 air traffic controllers 

to both integrate UAS and address its aging workforce.2 In addition, NextGen efforts to modernize air traffic control could quadruple in cost beyond the estimated 

$40 billion budget. At the same time, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) project is in the very early 

stages of development.3

Airbus understands the complex and critical nature of managing traffic in the 

NAS. Our ventures Metron and NavBlue are leading providers in various air traffic 

management services to air navigation service providers (ANSPs), FAA, NASA, airlines and airports around the world. By leveraging our expertise and new technology, A3 envisions a real-time system providing trajectory management, deconfliction, and an airspace reservation system that could alleviate workforce demand 

while integrating new types of aircraft, including UAS, and their associated missions. 

Under this envisioned system, controllers could monitor and direct the thousands 

of vehicles in their airspace while allowing aircraft to fly more efficient routes without compromising safety. We encourage the Committee to support policies that enable: 

• Risk-based Routing: A scalable air traffic system can enable broader commercial 

deployments while minimizing risk. In the age of Big Data, we can create 

hyper-local risk analysis for every square meter on the planet, at every moment 

of the day, while taking into consideration routing constraints, aircraft size, performance, and reliability. For example, a certified UAS with the reliability of 

an airliner and advanced sense-and-avoid technology could be allowed to fly 

over a populated area, while simpler, less reliable aircraft would be constrained 

to sparsely populated areas. By tying vehicle risk to operational airspace, governments can have fine-grained control of their airspace while incentivizing operators to invest in more robust vehicles and safety equipment. 

• Intelligent Routing and Deconfliction: Mature and reliable algorithms exist that 

can deconflict thousands of 4D routes with guaranteed constraints on minimum 

separation, while taking into account weather conditions, visibility, and other 

factors. This enables a human controller to regulate the parameters of an airspace rather than the individual vehicle flight path. Under this system, a single 

controller could thus safely manage thousands of vehicles with significantly 

lower workload than today. 

• Onboard Collision Avoidance: Modern aircraft can reliably follow given flight 

paths with airspace routes selected free of obstacles. Still, occasional component 

failures or uncooperative traffic incursions will necessitate some onboard sensing and collision avoidance technology, and the ability to execute contingency 

actions. Take-off and landing, typically in proximity to buildings and people will 

always require some collision avoidance capabilities. While the hardware and 

software airborne sense-and-avoid systems solutions are maturing quickly, the 

slow pace of design standards limits the pace of UAS integration in the NAS. 

74 

4 Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. ‘‘The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States.’’ N.p., Mar. 2013. Web. <http:// 

www.auvsi.org/auvsiresources/economicreport>. 

• Decentralized Route Planning: Traditionally, air traffic management and flight 

path deconfliction have taken place in centralized systems which are aware of 

all participating vehicles and solve the routing problem for everyone at once. 

However, such systems are safety and mission critical, and therefore require a 

high-degree of reliability, often at a higher cost. The development of distributed 

network technologies in the past decade have shown that decentralized, quasilocal, consensus-based algorithms can perform as well or better than their centralized equivalents. Such a system is scalable and fully distributed but requires no additional ground infrastructure, making it easily deployable even in 

very remote areas. 

Integrating emerging technology into the NAS 

There is a clear need for an advanced air traffic system that will be safe, efficient, 

and scalable. This system must also be capable of addressing the needs of new types 

of aircraft as they become a permanent part of our transportation ecosystem. Commercial UAS operations in the United States (US) are heavily restricted. While we 

applaud the FAA for developing commercial UAS rules under Part 107, the regulatory process for new types of aircraft is still not clear. These regulatory gaps limit 

development of new types of aircraft and send investment dollars abroad. 

While most countries look to follow the U.S. lead on regulation, several governments around the world are now committed to gaining first mover advantage and 

enabling new types of aircraft operations. For example, Germany recently certified 

the Volocopter, an electric ultralight aircraft, and China’s Civil Aviation Authority 

issued an airworthiness certificate for the RX1E Ruixang, an electric passenger aircraft. It is becoming apparent that commercial UAS growth is restricted primarily 

by the regulatory environment, not by technology. 

At A3, we’re building a self-flying passenger-carrying electric aircraft that can 

automatically detect and avoid obstacles and other aircraft. Vahana is designed to 

carry a single passenger and we’re aiming to make it the first certified passenger 

aircraft without a pilot. We hope to have a complete prototype by the end of this 

year and a production capable demonstrator by 2020. Vahana’s full automation will 

allow it to achieve a high level of safety. The aircraft will follow predetermined 

flight paths, with only minor deviations if obstacle avoidance is needed. 

Beyond developing the vehicle itself, A3 stands ready to assist in finding solutions 

to address the regulatory challenges that limit the integration of Vahana and other 

new types of aircraft in the NAS. As Congress prepares to reauthorize the FAA, we 

encourage the Committee to: 

• Advance regulations that lead to the certification of automatic cargo-carrying 

and passenger-carrying aircraft: Automatic manned aircraft currently have no 

clear certification path in the United States. Without a certification pathway, 

commercial development of Vahana or other new types of automatic aircraft will 

be significantly delayed and costly. 

• Support standards for new types of aircraft: To encourage development of air 

taxi operations, a certification basis is necessary for new types of aircraft flyby-wire systems, functional software, sense-and-avoid systems and electric propulsion systems. This guidance will accelerate the approval and improve the 

safety of new types of aircraft operating in the NAS. 

• Extend Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations in the NAS: We commend current efforts at FAA to research BVLOS automatic operations under 

the Pathfinder program. FAA’s Pathfinder program is proof that government 

can be a champion for innovation. Moving forward, government should expand 

BVLOS testing to include new types of aircraft and work with industry to develop a certification pathway for approval. 

Conclusion 

A robust aviation industry underpins our economic success. An industry study 

shows that 70,000 jobs and more than $13 billion in economic value will be created 

in the first three years of integrating UAS in the NAS.4 Today, UAS and other types 

of new aircraft are already being used in agriculture, construction, energy and 

transportation without being fully integrated in the NAS. Full integration relies on 

a scalable air traffic management system and appropriately flexible regulations that 

allow for safe operation of these new types of aircraft. 

75 

A3 is ready to partner with government to advance the future of flight and we 

thank the Committee for this opportunity to comment. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

EARL LAWRENCE

Question 1. It has come to my attention that manned aircraft attempting to use 

the Eastern Oregon Regional Airport have been prevented from doing so because of 

safety concerns with UAS using the same airport. Are airports able to prioritize unmanned aircraft over manned aircraft to the extent that manned aircraft are unable 

to make full use of an airport? If not, what can the FAA do to ensure access to airports is equitable between manned and unmanned aviation? 

Answer. The FAA’s mission is maintaining the safest aerospace system in the 

world. All small UAS operating within existing regulations must give way to 

manned aircraft at all times, regardless of the type of operation. Under P.L. 112– 

95, Section 336, all recreational UAS users must notify all airports and air traffic 

control facilities prior to flying with five miles of the airport. Remote Pilots operating under part 107 (the small UAS rule) must have authorization from the FAA 

to operate in the controlled airspace around airports. 

We are unfamiliar with the specific situation you referenced at the Eastern Oregon Regional Airport, however if your staff provides additional information to the 

FAA’s Office of Government and Industry Affairs, we are happy to look into it. 

Question 2. When we discuss the developing industries around UAS, we hear 

about the possibilities of UTM, or UAS traffic management, as a way of deconflicting unmanned air traffic from traditional manned aviation. Do you envision the 

hobbyist UAS owner and operator being a part of the UTM? 

Answer. The FAA is currently working with industry to develop a notification and 

authorization system as a first step toward UAS traffic management. This system 

is expected to provide both authorization (part 107) and notification (hobbyist) services for small UAS operations. However, the primary objective of a UTM system is 

to provide a low-altitude air traffic management system for non-recreational operations. Hobby operators who operate under FAA regulations (part 107 or subsequent 

enabling rules) may be required to or have the option to take advantage of the anticipated opportunities of UTM, depending on future regulatory developments. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROY BLUNT TO

EARL LAWRENCE

Question 1. A recent Homeland Security paper noted: ‘‘the FAA estimates combined hobbyist and commercial UAS sales will rise from 2.5 million in 2016 to 7 

million by 2020.’’ Missouri has a number of well attended amusement parks such 

as Six Flags of St. Louis, Silver Dollar City in Branson, and Words of Fun in Kansas City. 

With this projected increase in the number of drones, the safety and security risks 

presented by drones at these parks will only increase. 

What is the FAA doing about this potential threat? 

Answer. The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114–190) requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a process to allow applicants to 

petition FAA to prohibit or restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close 

proximity to a fixed site facility, including amusements parks. The FAA is currently 

working with the Department to determine a way forward. Additionally, several of 

the facilities mentioned above are located in airspace that, per FAA regulation, already requires specific operational authorization. 

Additionally, the FAA has engaged in ‘‘No Drone Zone’’ public outreach campaigns 

to educate the public about where UAS flight is prohibited. We also have ‘‘No Drone 

Zone’’ branding materials and signage available on our website at www.faa.gov/uas 

for state or local governments, and other stakeholders such as amusement parks, 

to use at their discretion. Further, state and local governments may utilize their 

land-use, zoning, and traditional police powers to implement certain requirements 

on UAS. The FAA has provided guidance in this area in a Fact Sheet on State and 

Local Regulation of UAS which can also be found on our website at www.faa.gov/ 

uas. 

Question 2. I understand there are many kinds of drones and many various purposes. Some involve small drones at low altitudes for delivery and other purposes, 

and others involve larger drones at higher altitudes for cargo. 

76 

I assume a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach won’t work for the communications links 

for these different kinds of drones. 

What is being done to confirm the right spectrum solutions for communications 

links for small, low-altitude drones? 

Answer. The FAA is utilizing a risk-based approach to determine most UAS requirements, including those for communications links. Requirements for communications will stem from the risk level of the operation and the criticality of the link, 

which may dictate the use of protected spectrum and specific equipage versus unprotected spectrum and commercial off-the-shelf equipment. The FAA is exploring 

numerous solutions to determine the best path forward for spectrum concerns. We 

are working with industry, including mobile data providers, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess the current spectrum capacity and develop 

solutions amenable to all parties. 

Question 3. Will it be possible for small low-altitude drones to use existing communications infrastructure (today’s wireless networks) to support small, low-altitude 

UAS communications functions (control links, tracking, diagnostics, payload communications, collision avoidance)? 

Will this help to avoid unnecessary costs and regulatory delays? 

Answer. Mobile network providers and small UAS operators have been researching and testing UAS communications functions over the LTE network. The FAA is 

exploring the possibilities in consultation with mobile data providers and the FCC. 

We are working to ensure that the responsible data infrastructure—mobile data or 

otherwise—has sufficient capacity to support safe long-term UAS integration. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

EARL LAWRENCE

Question 1. The FAA UAS Center of Excellence has been operational for almost 

two years, but at this point one of the anchor members and the largest university 

UAS program in the U.S., the University of Alaska Fairbanks, has yet to receive 

any funding to support UAS research. Can you advise when you expect to leverage 

the skills of all the core members of the ASSURE program? (ASSURE is a coalition 

comprised of twenty-three of the world’s leading research institutions and more than 

a hundred leading industry/government partners. The mission is to provide the FAA 

the research they need to quickly, safely and efficiently integrate unmanned aerial 

systems into our National Airspace System with minimal changes to our current 

system.) 

Answer. The UAS Center of Excellence (COE), managed by ASSURE, is responsible for assigning projects based on partner competencies. The new Executive Director of ASSURE is from Alaska, and we’re working with the COE to support their 

mission to provide the best possible UAS research. Alaska is best positioned for 

flight testing, which only one research project to date has required. Subsequent research projects utilizing flight tests may be better suited for the expertise provided 

by the University of Alaska. 

Question 2. The U.S. Army Gray Eagle Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles stationed 

at Ft. Wainwright, Alaska, are some of the most proven and reliable unmanned aircraft in the world. The Gray Eagles are certified by the military as airworthy and 

the pilots are certified by the military as well. They have a real-time first person 

view that allows the operator to see what is in front of the aircraft and avoid any 

potential collisions. So, why is the FAA requiring that the Gray Eagles have chase 

planes when they transit between Ft. Wainwright and the restricted airspace they 

use for training? 

Answer. The FAA is working with the Army to eliminate the requirement for a 

chase plane by establishing a Ground Based Sense and Avoid (GBSAA) system similar to what the Air Force is using at Cherry Point. The Army has submitted a list 

of bases flying the Grey Eagle where it wants to use GBSAA. The first COA request 

submitted was for Fort Campbell, which was approved on March 10. A subsequent 

request for Fort Riley is currently being processed, and the Army is operating with 

a chase plane in the interim. 

First Person View (FPV) as a standalone safety mitigation does not adequately 

mitigate the potential for a mid-air collision or allow the UAS operator to comply 

with the requirements of 14 CFR § 91.113, Right-of-way. Research is ongoing by 

DOD and FAA to find low-cost detect and avoid systems that will help prevent midair collisions and allow compliance with 14 CFR § 91.113. 

Question 3. Beyond visual line of sight operations will be key to meeting Alaska’s 

infrastructure monitoring, hazard response, domain awareness, and other needs, but 

77 

the infrastructure to support these operations is severely lacking. Will ADS–B and 

NextGen provide the infrastructure needed to conduct these operations in Alaska? 

If not, what would? 

Answer. While ADS–B may provide solutions for larger UAS, it is not the only 

solution being considered. The FAA expects initiatives like the Low Altitude Notification and Authorization Capability (LAANC) and UAS Traffic Management (UTM) 

to contribute to the infrastructure needed for these operations. The FAA also plans 

to launch a new Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) made up of a diverse group 

of aviation, technology, law enforcement, and safety stakeholders that will help the 

FAA create standards for remotely identifying and tracking unmanned aircraft during operations. These efforts will ultimately enable the technological solutions needed for more routine beyond visual line-of-sight operations (BVLOS) at lower altitudes (below 400 feet). 

The FAA is also currently evaluating potential updates to existing Air Traffic 

Management (ATM) systems that form the NextGen infrastructure, including 

ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization), STARS (Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System), and NAS Voice Switch, that will support BVLOS operations with more complex unmanned aircraft at higher altitudes in the future. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

EARL LAWRENCE

Question 1. Florida is home to many amusement and theme parks. The safety of 

the millions of guests who attend these parks annually is of concern to me. In the 

FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016, Congress included Section 2209, 

which would provide amusement parks an opportunity to apply for a designation 

which if approved by the FAA would close the airspace above their parks to unauthorized UAS. Where are you on implementing this provision? 

Answer. Many amusement and theme parks across the country are located in airspace that, per FAA regulation, already requires specific authorization for drone operations. Additionally, FAA’s final rule for small UAS operations (Part 107) prohibits operation over people unless the operator has received a waiver from the 

FAA. And recreational UAS operators operating as a model aircraft must comply 

with the safety guidelines of a nationwide community-based organization as directed 

by Congress in Sec. 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

The FAA is currently working with the Department to determine a way forward 

on implementing Section 2209 of the FAA Extension Safety and Security Act of 

2016, which will likely require rulemaking due to the discretion that DOT/FAA will 

be exercising in implementing the legislative requirements. Currently, amusement 

parks and other entities may utilize the tools described below in answer 2 to assist 

with the concern you described. 

Question 2. I believe a strong public relations campaign is needed to accompany 

any and all prohibitions on drones. Does the FAA public relations material note the 

vulnerability of amusement and theme parks in the same manner that they note 

the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, pipelines, roads and public gathering 

areas such as stadiums? 

Answer. The FAA has engaged in ‘‘No Drone Zone’’ public outreach campaigns to 

educate the public about where UAS flight is prohibited. We have also published 

‘‘No Drone Zone’’ branding materials and signage on our website at www.faa.gov/ 

uas for state or local governments, and other stakeholders such as amusement 

parks, to use at their discretion. Ski resorts and other recreational areas are making 

use of this signage, as is the National Park Service. Further, state and local governments may utilize their land-use, zoning, and traditional police powers to implement 

certain requirements on UAS. The FAA has provided guidance in this area in a Fact 

Sheet on State and Local Regulation of UAS which may also be found on our 

website at www.faa.gov/uas. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

EARL LAWRENCE

Issue: The need to ensure recreational drone users understand basic safety 

More than 750,000 recreational drone owners have registered with the FAA— 

more than 5,000 in Connecticut. 

It’s anticipated that there could be tens of millions more in the years to come. 

Many of these owners are teenagers or novices in handling powerful technology. 

78 

And the only training and education they require is reading a few bullets on the 

FAA’s site before clicking a box. 

In last year’s FAA extension legislation, there was a provision that required manufacturers to inform consumers about safety laws governing drone use. The legislation gives the FAA a year to write guidance on the ‘‘safety statement’’ and manufacturers a year thereafter to provide it to consumers. 

I strongly support efforts like this, which of course in no way supplant the need 

for tough rules governing operations and technological specs. But even requiring inclusion of a basic safety statement in a reasonable time-frame was met with resistance. 

To me and I’m sure many others, two years is more than enough time to provide 

a statement. I offered an amendment that would require this statement be provided 

in 120 days of the bill’s enactment—which is still far more than enough time. We’re 

just talking about a few pieces of paper that tell consumers the law. This info is 

already on the FAA’s website. 

Until then, the only education is the brief visit to the FAA site. And the statement 

that is required by law won’t be included in packaging until the summer of 2018. 

Question 1. Do you agree a two-year timeline for the inclusion of a safety statement is too long? 

Answer. The FAA published a digital toolkit for manufacturers, which includes 

the safety statements required by the FAA’s 2016 Reauthorization, in November 

2016. Extensive outreach was conducted with the UAS industry, including manufacturers, to alert them of the requirement and that the statements were made available for UAS manufacturers to include in UAS packaging today. The FAA is currently drafting additional written guidance for manufacturers, which will be in the 

form of an Advisory Circular and is expected to be published this summer. The safety statements can be found at http://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/manufacturers/. 

Question 2. Do you agree that such basic information in no way supplants a 

strong set of rules governing operations and technology? 

Answer. Safe and successful UAS integration will require a multi-faceted approach to regulate this emerging aircraft, educate a new airspace user community, 

and integrate this technology into our society. No one approach will apply or resonate with everyone. Experienced model aircraft enthusiasts understand our airspace 

system, but many new users have no pilot or aviation experience and need to understand the rules of the sky. Some are flying for fun, while others are flying for business. The FAA recognizes that it needs to tailor its approach and method—whether 

educational, regulatory, or enforcement—to the specific user and situation as appropriate. The Agency’s Compliance Philosophy reflects this rationale, calling for a 

spectrum of responses that range from education in situations of ignorance to enforcement in situations of negligence or defiance. All of these approaches working 

in tandem will help build a strong safety culture within the emerging drone community. Upon request, the FAA is available to provide technical assistance to Congress 

regarding the Agency’s authority to develop rules governing recreational UAS operation and technology. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

EARL LAWRENCE

Question 1. The proliferation of autonomous technology, from drones to self-driving vehicles, represents a major opportunity for states and localities to become critical testing grounds for these new innovations, and to begin to reap consumer and 

economic benefits. As with any new technology, we must also be mindful to ensure 

adequate safety and privacy provisions are included to protect our citizens. As a 

former Governor, I’m pleased that this Committee plans to examine at the important roles of both Federal and state regulators in advancing innovation in self-driving vehicle technology. 

Mr. Lawrence, how is the FAA working with state and local governments to ensure that they are able to preserve their traditional areas of jurisdiction, meet the 

privacy and safety needs of their communities, while still ensuring U.S. leadership 

in the UAS field? 

Answer. The Federal Government retains authority over the shared use of and access to our Nation’s airspace system. Based on our experience with the manned 

aviation industry, this approach prevents the development of a patchwork of regulations that can stifle innovation for an emerging industry. However, state and local 

governments may utilize their land-use, zoning, and traditional police powers to implement certain requirements on UAS. 

79 

The FAA has provided guidance to state and local governments in a Fact Sheet 

on State and Local Regulation of UAS, which can be found in the Resources section 

of our website at www.faa.gov/uas. We have also provided guidance specifically to 

law enforcement agencies for responding to unauthorized or unsafe UAS incidents 

and what their authorities are in such circumstances, which is also available on our 

UAS website. 

The FAA also supported the effort led by the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce to work 

with stakeholders on developing best practices on privacy, transparency, and accountability regarding commercial and private use of UAS. More information on this 

effort can be found at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-unmanned-aircraft-systems. 

The FAA’s Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) also has a task group evaluating the 

roles and responsibilities of Federal, state, and local stakeholders with regard to 

UAS operations. That task group presented their initial report to the full DAC on 

May 3. 

Question 2. As you may know, New Hampshire is home to many small businesses. 

Innovative technologies like drones, can be a major positive force when it comes to 

empowering small businesses. Whether it’s a real estate company taking aerial 

photos of a property in New Hampshire, a small-town broadcaster using drones to 

enhance news gathering where in the past he would have needed a helicopter, or 

a local farmer using UAS to survey crops—this technology provides endless opportunity for creative entrepreneurs to provide new and better services to the benefit 

of their business and their customers. While I’m thrilled large companies like Amazon and CNN are utilizing this technology, I want to make sure we’re providing opportunities for smaller businesses to reap similar benefits as well. Waiver and exemption processes can be especially burdensome on small businesses. Can you describe how the FAA is working to make the UAS operating rules and application 

processes easy and accessible to small businesses? 

Answer. The FAA provides extensive plain language explanations of operating 

rules and application processes on its website. The Agency also staffs a Help Desk— 

both phone and e-mail—to provide members of the public a direct resource for questions and concerns about UAS rules and application process. To make the waiver 

and exemption processes as easy as possible, we provide plain language instructions, 

explanations, and examples of successful applications for anyone to use. Finally, the 

Agency also maintains the B4UFLY app for both Apple and Android users, which 

is a free mobile app designed to help non-aviators understand where it is and isn’t 

safe to fly. 

On April 27, the FAA also published the first set of 238 UAS Facility Maps, which 

depict areas and altitudes near airports where UAS may operate safely. Remote pilots must still submit airspace authorization requests online to the FAA before they 

can operate in controlled airspace. However, publishing these maps will help drone 

operators, including small businesses, improve the quality of their Part 107 airspace 

authorization requests and help the FAA process the requests more quickly. Additional UAS Facility Maps will be published on an ongoing basis throughout the remainder of this year. More information on these UAS Facility Maps can be found 

at https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/uas_facility_maps/. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

DIANA MARINA COOPER

Question. In August 2016, the FAA implemented the first regulatory framework 

for commercial UAS operations, commonly known as Part 107. Many businesses are 

operating within this framework. Several hundred, including Alaska Aerial Media, 

have obtained waivers to operate outside of it, especially to operate at night. However, like many rapidly evolving technologies that have the potential to have a tremendous impact on our economy, commercial UAS have outpaced nascent regulations. I understand that the FAA was scheduled to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking by the end of 2016 that would permit additional commercial UAS operations, but that it has been put on hold indefinitely amidst the interagency review 

process. While it is important for all stakeholders to weigh in, is there a way for 

this Committee to help facilitate and expedite the interagency review process so 

that future rulemakings that will enable innovation and industry growth can move 

forward? 

Answer. Safety and security are of the utmost importance and PrecisionHawk 

participates in a number of advisory committees, including the FAA Drone Advisory 

Committee, NASA’s UTM program, and the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team 

80 

(UAST), that are working to ensure that UAS are integrated into the national airspace as safely and securely as possible. We also applaud the FAA for announcing 

on March 27 that it will establish a remote identification Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to develop standards for remotely identifying and tracking UAS and 

look forward to supporting this important effort. However, we firmly believe that 

efforts to ensure safe and secure integration can move in parallel to the development of a permissive regulatory framework that will enable routine operations that 

are critical to the success of the United States commercial UAS industry, including 

those over people (as contemplated by the stalled notice of proposed rulemaking 

scheduled to be published for comment by the end of 2016) and beyond the visual 

line of sight (BVLOS). 

The UAS industry stands ready to engage in an open dialogue with appropriate 

agencies to discuss potential solutions to address any safety or security concerns. 

To that end, we respectfully ask that Congress engage the interagency UAS Executive Committee (ExCom) concurrent to the remote identification ARC to ensure dialogue with industry addresses all safety and security concerns with the goal of moving the operations over people proposed rulemaking—and subsequent rulemakings— 

forward expeditiously. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TODD YOUNG TO

DIANA MARINA COOPER

Question 1. Ms. Cooper, one of the areas in which commercial UAS are already 

making an economic impact is agriculture, a vital sector to the Hoosier economy. 

Can you elaborate on some of the use cases for UAS in agriculture and comment 

on any regulatory hurdles that are currently preventing farmers and others in the 

agriculture industry from fully embracing the benefits of UAS technology? 

Answer. Agriculture is among the foremost sectors of the economy that is benefiting from the introduction of UAS. Farmers are using UAS throughout the season 

to monitor their crops and take critical decisions that affect crop health, yield, and 

in turn, the profitability of their operations. There are countless UAS applications 

within the agriculture industry, including plant counting, waterpooling, assessing 

vegetative health, and detecting nitrogen levels. Every day, UAS are delivering actionable data that directly impacts the livelihoods of farmers and fuels the American 

economy. 

In order to realize the full economic potential that UAS can bring to the agriculture sector, we must act swiftly and implement permissive risk-based regulations 

that allow routine beyond visual line of sight operations over farms. PrecisionHawk 

has conducted extensive research on beyond visual line of sight operations under the 

Pathfinder Program to provide the FAA with a safety case to inform the proposed 

rule for expanded operations. Much of our research has been conducted in agriculture settings, which typically carry lower operational risk due to low population 

density and distance from airports. These unique characteristics of agriculture regions—and the resulting lower operational risk—warrant the application of less 

stringent requirements for beyond visual line of sight operation in comparison with 

operations taking place in areas that carry an increased risk. We look forward to 

continuing to work with the FAA and to provide data to assist with the development 

of regulations for BVLOS operations, which we believe will bring significant value 

to our economy. 

Question 2. Can you also discuss your partnership with the Innovate Indiana 

Fund and the Indiana University and how it is helping fuel development of UAS 

technology that will benefit the agriculture sector? 

Answer. PrecisionHawk has strong roots in Indiana, which is our state of incorporation. Some of our early key employees are graduates of Indiana University and 

Indiana State University. Innovate Indiana Fund is an early investor in 

PrecisionHawk, having led our $1M Series A round, and having subsequently participated in our Series B and C financings. These investments have been instrumental in providing us with the necessary capital and resources to develop and commercialize a sophisticated end-to-end UAS platform that is ideal for the agriculture 

industry. In recent years, we have developed cooperative relationships with both Indiana University (through which we provided UAS equipment to their geology department) and Indiana State University (through which we conducted UAS training 

and demonstrations). PrecisionHawk provides UAS services and solutions to some 

of the largest agriculture companies in the state, and we recently opened a UAS 

training and flight servicing office in Lebanon, Indiana. Our UAS services and solutions are benefiting the agriculture sector by enabling farmers to manage their crops 

81 

more effectively and efficiently while also reducing the environmental impact of 

their operations. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

DIANA MARINA COOPER

Issue: The need to ensure recreational drone users understand basic safety 

More than 750,000 recreational drone owners have registered with the FAA— 

more than 5,000 in Connecticut. 

It’s anticipated that there could be tens of millions more in the years to come. 

Many of these owners are teenagers or novices in handling powerful technology. 

And the only training and education they require is reading a few bullets on the 

FAA’s site before clicking a box. 

In last year’s FAA extension legislation, there was a provision that required manufacturers to inform consumers about safety laws governing drone use. The legislation gives the FAA a year to write guidance on the ‘‘safety statement’’ and manufacturers a year thereafter to provide it to consumers. 

I strongly support efforts like this, which of course in no way supplant the need 

for tough rules governing operations and technological specs. But even requiring inclusion of a basic safety statement in a reasonable time-frame was met with resistance. 

To me and I’m sure many others, two years is more than enough time to provide 

a statement. I offered an amendment that would require this statement be provided 

in 120 days of the bill’s enactment—which is still far more than enough time. We’re 

just talking about a few pieces of paper that tell consumers the law. This info is 

already on the FAA’s website. 

Until then, the only education is the brief visit to the FAA site. And the statement 

that is required by law won’t be included in packaging until the summer of 2018. 

Question 1. Do you agree a two-year timeline for the inclusion of a safety statement is too long? 

Answer. PrecisionHawk has a corporate commitment to promote the safe integration of UAS into the national airspace, and our company supports the inclusion of 

a safety statement that informs consumers about safety laws. We agree that a twoyear timeline is unnecessarily lengthy, and in fact PrecisionHawk amended its Lancaster UAS Product Manual as of 2016 to incorporate safety information. 

Question 2. Do you agree that such basic information in no way supplants a 

strong set of rules governing operations and technology? 

Answer. Consumer education is an important tool for promoting safety in operations, however educational initiatives must be augmented by risk-based rules that 

are tailored to operations. Technology also plays a critical role in ensuring operational safety. Unmanned traffic management or ‘‘UTM’’ solutions can enable us to 

integrate a large volume of UAS into the national airspace system while enhancing 

the level of safety that we enjoy today through features such as remote identification, authentication, tracking, situational awareness, and dynamic route planning. 

Because UTM holds immense promise in terms of safety and security, and in doing 

so, will unlock applications like package delivery, we respectfully request Congress 

to direct the FAA, and allocate sufficient resources, to speed up the implementation 

of a nation-wide UTM system. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

BEN FOWKE

Issue: The need to ensure recreational drone users understand basic safety 

More than 750,000 recreational drone owners have registered with the FAA— 

more than 5,000 in Connecticut. 

It’s anticipated that there could be tens of millions more in the years to come. 

Many of these owners are teenagers or novices in handling powerful technology. 

And the only training and education they require is reading a few bullets on the 

FAA’s site before clicking a box. 

In last year’s FAA extension legislation, there was a provision that required manufacturers to inform consumers about safety laws governing drone use. The legislation gives the FAA a year to write guidance on the ‘‘safety statement’’ and manufacturers a year thereafter to provide it to consumers. 

I strongly support efforts like this, which of course in no way supplant the need 

for tough rules governing operations and technological specs. But even requiring inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\26594.TXT JACKIE
82 

clusion of a basic safety statement in a reasonable time-frame was met with resistance. To me and I’m sure many others, two years is more than enough time to provide 

a statement. I offered an amendment that would require this statement be provided 

in 120 days of the bill’s enactment—which is still far more than enough time. We’re 

just talking about a few pieces of paper that tell consumers the law. This info is 

already on the FAA’s website. 

Until then, the only education is the brief visit to the FAA site. And the statement 

that is required by law won’t be included in packaging until the summer of 2018. 

Question 1. Do you agree a two-year timeline for the inclusion of a safety statement is too long? 

Answer. At Xcel Energy, we support the joint efforts of the FAA and industry to 

ensure the safe operation of UAS technology. As I discussed in my testimony, the 

FAA should develop and implement a number of high priority rules pursuant to authority granted to it by Congress in last year’s FAA reauthorization bills and other 

statutes. These rules will help protect critical infrastructure and encourage the safe, 

efficient use of this important new technology for utilities and other industries. A 

safety statement should be part of the FAA’s rulemaking agenda and should be 

issued without further delay. 

Question 2. Do you agree that such basic information in no way supplants a 

strong set of rules governing operations and technology? 

Answer. As my testimony indicated, UAS technology presents a significant opportunity for the utility industry. It can help reduce the cost of maintaining our system, 

improve system reliability and enhance the safety of our operations. At the same 

time, UAS technology represents a potential threat to substations or other critical 

infrastructure if it is not properly managed and controlled. Good policy would encourage the appropriate use of UAS technology while discouraging unsafe UAS operations near critical infrastructure. 

Sound FAA regulations can help achieve both of these goals. Sound FAA regulations should create a streamlined process allowing utilities authority for beyond visual-line-of-sight operations. As stated in my testimony, Section 2210 of the FAA reauthorization legislation already allows the FAA to approve beyond visual-line-ofsight UAS operations for pipelines and all aspects of the electric power system. The 

FAA should develop appropriate rules that implement to Section 2210. 

Additional rules, regulations and policies should recognize that utilities warrant 

regulatory protection specific to the industry. FAA rules could help reduce the possibility that personal or hobbyist use of UAS could harm infrastructure critical to the 

reliability of the electric or gas systems. As these rules are developed, special care 

should be taken to allow this beneficial technology to enhance the reliable operation 

of America’s critical natural gas and electric infrastructure without creating new 

threats to the critical infrastructure on which our system relies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

TO BRENDAN SCHULMAN

Issue: The need to allow state and local governments to establish rules and 

regulations governing drone use—like banning armed drones 

A provision was inserted into the FAA bill last year to bar state and local laws 

that protect citizens from the dangers of drones. I led the effort in the Committee 

and fought on a bipartisan basis with many of my colleagues on the floor to strip 

that measure from the text before it passed the full Senate. 

In few places is the need for local rules more compelling than in Connecticut, 

where a high-profile incident in the town of Clinton in 2015 involved a teenager 

arming a drone with a gun and then posting on YouTube a video of his homemade 

weapon. In response to this troubling incident, legislators in my state have considered banning armed drones, an effort I strongly support. 

Eight states have already taken action to ban weaponized drones. 

You represent the industry as a major manufacturer. In your testimony you contend that local rules lead to an airspace system that is ‘‘less safe’’ and replete with 

‘‘confusion,’’ ‘‘disdain’’ for the law, and ‘‘non-compliance.’’ 

I understand the important concept of Federal preemption in airspace at say 

20,000 or 30,000 feet. I fail to understand why Federal law would preempt state law 

at 20 or 30 feet. 

Question 1. Should Connecticut have the right to ban armed drones? 

Answer. DJI makes its products purely for peaceful purposes, which is how the 

overwhelming majority of pilots use them, and we deplore any use of our drones to 

83 

bring harm to anyone. There is significant history of differing laws among the states 

concerning restrictions on firearm ownership and use. My testimony is not intended 

to address this issue. Our concern about potentially inconsistent and conflicting 

local rules concerns the regulations pertaining to the operation of the drone itself: 

where it can be flown, when it can be flown, pilot requirements, speed and altitude 

limitations, safety equipment requirements such as lighting, and other rules governing the safe operation of drones. If these laws vary from state to state, county 

to county, and city to city, it is difficult for DJI to educate its customers about them, 

and for drone pilots to comply. This is especially true as drone technology becomes 

even more portable. The result of conflicting, inconsistent rules is a less safe operating environment for everyone. 

DJI does agree that drones raise some issues that are more local in nature, such 

as those related to privacy, and that those issues may be managed, governed, or administered by localities more efficiently than by the Federal Aviation Administration. Traditional doctrines developed to address the movement of people and cargo 

by aircraft may not be suitable to these new technologies, although those doctrines 

play a crucial role in creating harmonized national regulations. The importance of 

these questions, which you have recognized, is precisely why I am working hard to 

contribute to a consensus-based approach at the FAA’s Drone Advisory Committee 

to the subject of the roles and responsibilities of government. 

Issue: The need for rules governing the technical capabilities of drones 

The FAA extension bill enacted last year took an important step forward, it required identification standards for drones, established a small test program to consider ways of averting the threat that drones can cause near airports, and required 

development of a traffic management system for drones. 

Still, there is much more to be done. 

We need standards governing the technological capabilities of drones: how they’re 

built, not just how they’re operated. We require cars go a certain speed; we also require they be built with airbags. 

Section 2124 of the FAA bill that passed the Senate required the FAA establish 

rules governing drone technology. 

Unfortunately, that section did not make it into the final bill that became law. 

The industry is developing some of this technology on its own, but the industry 

is not acting not with any sort of mandate. 

That’s like crossing our fingers that cars get built with seatbelts. 

I want to ensure that the kind of language that was in section 2124 moves forward in the next FAA bill we’re likely to consider later this year. 

Question 2. With millions of these taking the skies, shouldn’t we demand more 

safety components built into the hardware? Isn’t a legal mandate the best way to 

ensure these devices are made safer? 

Answer. DJI is a leader in incorporating safety features into our products. For examples, we developed and implemented GPS-based geofencing into our products 

over four years ago, long before reports of drone sightings near airports. What we 

have learned from that first-hand experience with safety features is how important 

it is to maintain flexibility and to accommodate exceptions. We have many customers doing pro-safety operations at airports, such as runway inspection and wildlife mitigation. It turns out that geographical location is a poor proxy for operator 

authorization. So while we support having these features, it is critical that they be 

developed by industry. 

This approach enables us to make these features even better, as soon as we can. 

For example, last year, we upgraded our geofencing system from a static system to 

a live system that can reflect the changing nature of airspace restrictions. So although we share a common interest in providing the latest in safety features to customers, a legal mandate is the wrong approach because it locks in the current generation of technology, overlooks the need for exceptions, prevents the industry from 

making adjustments to features as we go, and disincentives industry to create new 

and even better safety features in the future. 

You have noted that ‘‘we require cars to go a certain speed.’’ More precisely, we 

require drivers to obey the posted speed limit, and there is no speed limitation device built into cars, many of which display a speedometer that is well in excess of 

any posted speed limit in the United States. This reflects the important principle 

that the operator is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, and 

has to make decisions based on a variety of factors, including weather, traffic, and 

whether there is an emergency condition. Our safety features are primarily an educational tool for operators, who must ultimately make their own operational decisions. The best way to ensure safety as the number of operators grows is to continue 

to educate users on the rules and guidelines to safe operation. 

84 

Issue: The need to ensure recreational drone users understand basic safety 

More than 750,000 recreational drone owners have registered with the FAA— 

more than 5,000 in Connecticut. 

It’s anticipated that there could be tens of millions more in the years to come. 

Many of these owners are teenagers or novices in handling powerful technology. 

And the only training and education they require is reading a few bullets on the 

FAA’s site before clicking a box. 

In last year’s FAA extension legislation, there was a provision that required manufacturers to inform consumers about safety laws governing drone use. The legislation gives the FAA a year to write guidance on the ‘‘safety statement’’ and manufacturers a year thereafter to provide it to consumers. 

I strongly support efforts like this, which of course in no way supplant the need 

for tough rules governing operations and technological specs. But even requiring inclusion of a basic safety statement in a reasonable time-frame was met with resistance. 

To me and I’m sure many others, two years is more than enough time to provide 

a statement. I offered an amendment that would require this statement be provided 

in 120 days of the bill’s enactment—which is still far more than enough time. We’re 

just talking about a few pieces of paper that tell consumers the law. This info is 

already on the FAA’s website. 

Until then, the only education is the brief visit to the FAA site. And the statement 

that is required by law won’t be included in packaging until the summer of 2018. 

Question 3. Do you agree a two-year timeline for the inclusion of a safety statement is too long? Do you agree that such basic information in no way supplants a 

strong set of rules governing operations and technology? 

Answer. DJI is strongly committed to educating our customers on the rules and 

guidelines of safe operation. We have been including the FAA-approved ‘‘Know Before You Fly’’ campaign safety insert in our packages since the early days of that 

program in 2015. We provide on-screen tutorials and a built-in flight simulator 

within our flight app for novices. We help organize local ‘‘New Pilot Experience’’ sessions which include discussion of the rules of safe operation. We have a Tutorials 

video channel on YouTube with instructional information on safe operations. We use 

our social media platforms, which have approximately 3 million followers, to send 

out information about safety. We also partner with organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics, to promote local education. Additionally, we are working 

on an innovative new educational mechanism that we hope to announce in the coming weeks. A product insert is only one way to educate people. 

Placing an insert into the packaging can be more complicated than it sounds, 

when products are sold into global channels, and we cannot speak for other manufacturers and their capabilities. While a reasonable amount of time should be given 

before product insert mandates become effective, we agree that two years would be 

more than enough time. We also agree that educational information should communicate rules that make sense and are reasonable, to encourage the development of 

a culture of compliance in which drone operators correct each other when they are 

flying unsafely. The rules should not only be ‘‘strong,’’ they should be reasonable 

and be premised on mitigating risk as determined by science rather than sensational media headlines. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

JOHN VILLASENOR

Issue: The need to ensure recreational drone users understand basic safety 

More than 750,000 recreational drone owners have registered with the FAA— 

more than 5,000 in Connecticut. 

It’s anticipated that there could be tens of millions more in the years to come. 

Many of these owners are teenagers or novices in handling powerful technology. 

And the only training and education they require is reading a few bullets on the 

FAA’s site before clicking a box. 

In last year’s FAA extension legislation, there was a provision that required manufacturers to inform consumers about safety laws governing drone use. The legislation gives the FAA a year to write guidance on the ‘‘safety statement’’ and manufacturers a year thereafter to provide it to consumers. 

I strongly support efforts like this, which of course in no way supplant the need 

for tough rules governing operations and technological specs. But even requiring inclusion of a basic safety statement in a reasonable time-frame was met with resistance. 

85 

1 In addition to changing the time periods from one year to 90 days, Sen. Blumenthal’s amendment would have changed the language of § 2203(a). However, in my response I am focusing 

here only on the changes in the time periods. 

To me and I’m sure many others, two years is more than enough time to provide 

a statement. I offered an amendment that would require this statement be provided 

in 120 days of the bill’s enactment—which is still far more than enough time. We’re 

just talking about a few pieces of paper that tell consumers the law. This info is 

already on the FAA’s website. 

Until then, the only education is the brief visit to the FAA site. And the statement 

that is required by law won’t be included in packaging until the summer of 2018. 

Question 1. Do you agree a two-year timeline for the inclusion of a safety statement is too long? 

Answer. The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114–190), 

enacted July 15, 2016, contains a section addressing ‘‘Safety statements.’’ More specifically, § 2203(a) provides that: 

Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of publication of the guidance under subsection (b)(1), a manufacturer of a small unmanned aircraft shall 

make available to the owner at the time of delivery of the small unmanned aircraft the safety statement described in subsection (b)(2). 

§ 2203(b)(1), in turn, states that 

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue guidance for implementing 

this section. 

In combination, the two 1-year time periods identified above mean that safety 

statements will need to be provided by no later than two years after enactment, i.e., 

by no later than July 2018. 

In contrast with the above, Sen. Blumenthal’s amendment, had it been adopted, 

would have replaced each of the 1-year requirements with a 60-day requirement. 

In combination, this would have meant that safety statements would have been 

required by no later than 120 days after enactment. 

I will address the two time periods separately. 

First, with respect to the one-year time period for the FAA to issue guidance, I 

would certainly agree that, prior to the July 2016 enactment of the FAA Extension, 

Safety, and Security Act of 2016, it was quite reasonable to raise the possibility of 

modifying the time limit for the FAA to issue guidance from one year after enactment to something shorter, such as 60 days. However, the one-year period that was 

included in the enacted legislation concludes in mid-July 2017, i.e., not much more 

than 60 days from the current (May 3, 2017) date. Thus, at this point, the issue 

of whether that period should have been 1 year or something shorter is largely 

moot, since under the enacted legislation the FAA is required to issue the guidance 

by mid-July 2017. 

Second, once the guidance is issued, the enacted legislation gives manufacturers 

1 year to put in place mechanisms to provide the safety statement. I can understand 

the desire to 1 shorten this time period, as Sen. Blumenthal’s amendment would 

have done. That said, I can also understand the potential complexities that would 

be introduced if the period is too short. For example, the supply chains involved in 

manufacturing and shipping commercial UAS can span multiple months. In mandating the inclusion of a safety statement, it is important to avoid inadvertently 

stranding significant amounts of newly noncompliant inventory in the supply chain. 

Question 2. Do you agree that such basic information in no way supplants a 

strong set of rules governing operations and technology? 

Answer. Provided that a safety statement is properly drafted and that mechanisms for disseminating it are properly designed and implemented, I believe that 

it would not reasonably be construed as supplanting the rules governing operations 

and technology. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

EMILIO GONZA ́LEZ, PH.D. 

Issue: The need to ensure recreational drone users understand basic safety 

More than 750,000 recreational drone owners have registered with the FAA— 

more than 5,000 in Connecticut. 

It’s anticipated that there could be tens of millions more in the years to come. 

86 

Many of these owners are teenagers or novices in handling powerful technology. 

And the only training and education they require is reading a few bullets on the 

FAA’s site before clicking a box. 

In last year’s FAA extension legislation, there was a provision that required manufacturers to inform consumers about safety laws governing drone use. The legislation gives the FAA a year to write guidance on the ‘‘safety statement’’ and manufacturers a year thereafter to provide it to consumers. 

I strongly support efforts like this, which of course in no way supplant the need 

for tough rules governing operations and technological specs. But even requiring inclusion of a basic safety statement in a reasonable time-frame was met with resistance. 

To me and I’m sure many others, two years is more than enough time to provide 

a statement. I offered an amendment that would require this statement be provided 

in 120 days of the bill’s enactment—which is still far more than enough time. We’re 

just talking about a few pieces of paper that tell consumers the law. This info is 

already on the FAA’s website. 

Until then, the only education is the brief visit to the FAA site. And the statement 

that is required by law won’t be included in packaging until the summer of 2018. 

Question. Do you agree a two-year timeline for the inclusion of a safety statement 

is too long? Do you agree that such basic information in no way supplants a strong 

set of rules governing operations and technology? 

Answer. I agree wholeheartedly that two years is ample time to comply with a 

requirement that can easily be accomplished by including the information in the 

product support material already provided by drone manufactures. I would take it 

one step further and require that a safety review and the registration process be 

initiated at the point of sale and a condition of final sale of all recreational UAVs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

EMILIO GONZA ́LEZ, PH.D. 

Question. Drones have a unique ability to surveille and collect a host of sensitive 

information about consumers, as detailed by a letter sent to this Committee by the 

Electronic Privacy Information Center. Dr. Gonza ́lez, should privacy be considered 

when integrating drones into the National Airspace? 

Answer. Yes, without a doubt. The safety and security risk posed by drones on 

air transportation is of paramount importance to me and other airport directors 

around the country. My top priority is the safety of the passengers utilizing our national airspace. However, critical infrastructure including airports and seaports continue to be vulnerable from drones and the FAA must complete and implement a 

plan to address these vulnerabilities and safely integrate drones into the national 

airspace. Managers of critical infrastructure must also be provided the tools, both 

legislative and funding, to mitigate the impact of these risk. 

Æ 

87 

This page intentionally left blank. 

88 

This page intentionally left blank. 

89 

This page intentionally left blank.