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

96–870 PDF 2015

DRONES: THE NEXT GENERATION OF COMMERCE? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 17, 2015 

Serial No. 114–37 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

TROY D. STOCK, Information Technology Subcommittee Staff Director 

MICHAEL KIKO, Professional Staff Member 

MIKE FLYNN, Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 17, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Michael Whitaker, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

John Cavolowsky, Ph.D., Director, Airspace Operations and Safety Program, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Mr. Paul E. Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy, Amazon.com, 

Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Mr. Brian Wynne, President and CEO, Association for Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems International 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Mr. Harley Geiger, Advocacy Director and Senior Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

APPENDIX 

Statement of Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................... 88 

Statement of Mr. Connolly ...................................................................................... 89 

RESPONSE: Whitaker-Faa to Chaffetz QFRs ...................................................... 90 

RESPONSE: Misener-Amazon to Duckworth QFRs ............................................. 95 

RESPONSE: Wynne-AUVSI to Duckworth QFRs ................................................ 96 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

DRONES: THE NEXT GENERATION OF 

COMMERCE? 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan, 

Walberg, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais, Farenthold, Massie, Meadows, 

Buck, Walker, Hice, Carter, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, 

Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Duckworth, Kelly, Lawrence, 

DeSaulnier, Welch, and Lujan Grisham. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

I’m excited about this hearing. I appreciate the panelists that are 

here today. This is a first in a series of hearings the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee intends to have as we talk about 

emerging technologies. One of the great competitive advantages for 

the United States of America is our leadership in information technology. It’s our leadership in creativity. It is the entertainment industry. We lead in a lot of different areas. And one of the things 

that the United States has done, has been a bastion, it’s been a 

great place for entrepreneurs to come up with creativity and allow 

those ideas to enter the marketplace and thrive. And they create 

whole new industries. They create literally millions of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue and income. And there are also some interesting public policy issues that we need to discuss. 

As you have new and innovative companies and ideas and products and services that consumers are demanding and that the public wants, then we have an opportunity, I think, to make sure that 

we’re fostering that growth and creating an atmosphere where 

those businesses and entrepreneurs can thrive. So today, we’re 

going to start talking about drones, the next frontier for commerce 

because it does offer some exciting possibilities. But it also does 

create some challenges and some things that as the public and as 

a society we need to talk through. 

Right now, drones are being widely used. First responders are 

using them to deliver food and medical supplies in areas hit by disaster. Law enforcement envisions using drones to locate missing 

persons. I, in the State of Utah—we have, State of Utah, for inVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:11 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96870.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

stance, with a very big rural component, where we have, at times, 

raging wildfires and massive public lands. We have people who 

travel from out of State and want to enjoy our national parks, like 

Arches and Canyonlands, and yet they get lost sometimes. And it’s 

terrain that’s very difficult and very expensive for a helicopter to 

traverse. Maybe drones are the way to do that. 

Companies big and small are finding new and innovative ways 

to use drones for inspecting and ensuring the safety of infrastructure, railroad tracks, and telecom systems. I think about Alaska 

and the pipelines. And there are other great places where drones 

can be of great help. These drones are being used to monitor oil 

and gas pipelines, as I mentioned, crops and livestock. They’re 

using them at music festivals and giving the real estate industry 

a whole new perspective on property and real property, as people 

look at potentially purchasing things. You have the big, innovative 

companies that just a decade or two weren’t even a business, 

weren’t even around, companies like Amazon or Google, who are researching and developing systems that would allow merchants and 

customers to deliver and retrieve packages via drones. 

This is a huge, massive opportunity for the United States of 

America. On February 15 of this year, the FAA released a proposed 

rule on the commercial use of drones. This came after years of 

delays on the heels of a June 2014 report by the Department of 

Transportation inspector general that criticized the FAA for being 

significantly behind its efforts to integrate drones into the National 

Airspace System. The IG concluded that it was unlikely that FAA 

would meet the statutory deadline of September of this year, 2015, 

to integrate drones into our airspace. 

In addition, under current FAA regulations, as well as the proposed rule, it is very difficult for companies that are interested in 

developing transformative drone technology to even go through the 

testing of these ideas. Developers have been forced to either limit 

their testing to small confines of indoor spaces in the United States 

or to test overseas in a country where the rules are more flexible. 

In March of 2014, Google’s so-called Project Wing started testing 

deliveries of drones but did so in Australia. A year later, in March 

of 2015, Amazon began testing drone deliveries in Canada and the 

United Kingdom, after months of waiting for an approval here in 

the United States of America, so that they could test real-world environments in the United States. 

According to the UAV trade association—and, yes, there is UAV 

trade association—every year that integration is delayed, the 

United States loses more than $10 billion in potential economic impact. I recognize that privacy and safety concerns exist. And I personally share many of those. I don’t want my neighbor flying a 

drone over my backyard, peering in my window. 

And I certainly don’t want law enforcement using drones for constant surveillance, particularly on private property. But are there 

appropriate uses for drones in the law enforcement atmosphere 

dealing with large crowds and large events, say, the Super Bowl or 

a Major League Baseball game or whatever it might be? Yes, I 

think there are appropriate uses. But can they be overused? Yes. 

And that’s why we need to talk about, candidly, about the parameters of that. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

I also do believe that there are states’ rights; States have a say 

in this. At what point does the airspace start to become a Federal 

issue? What is the Federal nexus? At what point is it a State issue? 

Because maybe these drones are going to land. I think the States 

and municipalities probably want to have a say in that as well. 

But I would like to think that we can get this right. In fact, we 

must get it right. The opportunities truly are limitless. And this is 

why we’re having the discussion today. 

We have a leader in the transportation industry, the former 

chairman of the T&I Committee, Transportation and Infrastructure, T&I Committee here in the United States Congress. He’s the 

chair of our Subcommittee on Transportation and Physical Assets. 

I would like to yield some time to Mr. Mica for his comments. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And I’ll be brief. You’ve covered quite a 

bit, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for conducting this hearing, particularly at the full committee level because this does demand not only 

the Congress’ attention but the Nation’s attention. 

Drones are here. And UAVs are here. And they’re here to stay. 

When we worked on FAA reauthorization back in 2003, which is 

not that long ago really, a dozen years ago, we never even talked 

about drones. In the last FAA reauthorization, about 6, 7 years 

ago, we did direct FAA to move forward with rules. And we—it’s 

important, it’s important, first, for safety. I think we’ve been very 

fortunate. We’ve had some near misses, and we’ve had some hits. 

But I think you can have the potential of having deadly, involving 

fatalities incidents with so many—we now have so many of these 

UAVs and drones in the air. We now have thousands of them flying. The rules are sketchy. The rules of incomplete. 

Looking over the progress that has been made and the rule has 

been semifinalized. It’s not finalized. People have had a period to 

comment. But it’s still going to take, I’m told, at least another year 

to finalize that rule and get it in place. In the meantime, again, 

we have the safety issue. Today, we’re focusing on commercialization use of the drone. 

And I’m told that we lose as much as $10 billion a year in revenue for possible use of this, with this technology with commercial 

applications. So we can’t delay. I think this is good timing for the 

hearing. We’ll find out where we are with the progress of the approval and then some of the applications and then try to stay 

ahead of the game, which is our responsibility in Congress, particularly on the commercialization side and the benefit of the American 

people. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlemen. 

Now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Cummings of Maryland, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this hearing. 

This is a really interesting hearing and one that I think is extremely important. Drones are an exciting new technology with a 

lot of potential uses in the not so distant future. Companies are developing new technologies to use drones to fight forest fires or even 

to deliver pizza. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

However, Mr. Chairman, I share the same concerns as you and 

many other Americans. I want the use of drones to be safe. And 

I want to make sure that the privacy interests of the American people are protected. As with any new, groundbreaking technology, our 

regulatory regime has not yet fully caught up with drones. And existing rules do not fully address the concerns Americans have. Our 

goal must be to balance these concerns in a way that allows for the 

robust development of these new technologies while ensuring that 

necessary safeguards are in place. 

In 2014, there were more than 9.5 million commercial airline 

flights carrying more than 850 million passengers in the United 

States, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Our 

aviation system is among the safest in the world. And, obviously, 

we must ensure that drones do not imperil the operation of our 

commercial airlines. Allowing drones to fly in the airspace used by 

commercial jets is a long-term aspiration rather than an imminent 

possibility. 

However, although the FAA has approved only a small number 

of drones to operate in the United States airspace, the assistant inspector general of the Department of Transportation has testified 

to Congress that airline crews have already reported seeing unmanned aircraft around airports, in some cases at altitudes above 

2,000 feet. 

Right now, there does not appear to be a proven technology to 

ensure that an unmanned aircraft can act on its own to identify 

and avoid other aircraft. There also does not appear to be a proven 

technology to ensure that radio links between drones and their operators are maintained consistently. This could cause drones to 

crash or, equally dangerous, fly out of control. Our aviation system 

does not allow a wide margin of error. A system to manage drone 

traffic, even at low altitudes, is still in the very early stages of development and is not really for deployment. 

Recognizing the limits of existing technology, the FAA has proposed new regulations that would allow drones weighing less than 

55 pounds to operate only during daylight hours, under 500 feet, 

and less than 100 miles per hour. These rules would also require 

that drones fly within the line of sight of their operators, who 

would be allowed to operate only one drone at a time. 

The use of drones in the United States airspace also raises significant privacy concerns. Drones have been used to gather a wide 

variety of film footage of people and property. They have been used 

to gather real-time data on the movements of people without those 

people even knowing the drones were present. This data can be 

stored indefinitely. And it can be analyzed and integrated to create 

very detailed pictures of almost every aspect of a person’s life. 

These possibilities raise a host of privacy concerns that have not 

been fully addressed by current law or legal precedent. 

Once it has been lost, privacy is not easily regained. Successfully 

introducing drones into U.S. airspace will require all parties to 

strike a balance that threads numerous needles carefully. I’m confident that this can be achieved. But I’m certain it will take time 

and thoughtful analysis. 

And I certainly appreciate the opportunity to consider these 

issues today. And I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Mr. Chairman, you’re absolutely right. We have to get this right. 

And we have to get it right in a bipartisan way. And I look forward 

to doing that. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement. I now recognize our 

panel of witnesses. And we do appreciate all five of you participating with us today. 

We are pleased to welcome the Honorable Michael Whitaker, 

Deputy Administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration of 

the United States Department of Transportation; John 

Cavolowsky—did I pronounce that properly I hope—PhD, he’s also 

the Director of the Aerospace Systems Program Office at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Mr. Paul Misener, 

who has been with us before, I think yesterday, the vice president 

of global public policy at Amazon.com; Mr. Brian Wynne is the 

president and chief executive officer of the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International—we are pleased that you’re 

here with us as well; and Mr. Harley Geiger is the advocacy director and senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. He’ll give us an interesting perspective, particularly as it 

comes to privacy issues. 

Welcome all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before 

they testify. So if you would please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? Thank you. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate it if 

you would limit your verbal comments to 5 minutes. You’ll see a 

light there that will give you an indication. And then your full written statements will be entered into the record. 

We also anticipate that members after the hearing will have additional questions. We call them QFRs, questions for the record. 

We would appreciate your response to those as well. 

But for your verbal comments, we’ll start with Mr. Whitaker who 

is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL WHITAKER 

Mr. WHITAKER. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Cummings, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the safe integration of unmanned 

aircraft systems, or UAS, as we refer to them, in the national airspace. 

Aviation has always been an industry driven by new technology. 

Unmanned aircraft are born from that same spirit of innovation. 

As you’ve noted in your opening remarks, this technology has thousands of potential uses, from agricultural to news gathering to firefighting and border patrol. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

But it also introduces new risks into the Nation’s airspace. At 

the Federal Aviation Administration, our challenge is to allow for 

this innovation while maintaining the highest level of safety. I’m 

pleased to report that we’ve made great strides over the past year 

towards safely integrating UAS into what is the largest, most complex aviation system in the world. 

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 laid out a 

framework of the safe integration of UAS into the airspace by September 2015. And FAA has made significant progress in meeting 

those milestones. Perhaps most important among these accomplishments is the publication of the ‘‘Small UAS Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking.’’ This rule, as proposed, creates one of the most flexible regulatory frameworks in the world for UAS operations. We’ve 

received thousands of comments to the NPRM. And we’re in the 

process of reviewing those now. Issuing a final small UAS rule remains one of our highest priorities. 

At the same time, we are taking other steps to enable industry 

to take advantage of this new technology now. The FAA continues 

to issue exemptions under section 333 of the 2012 act to allow for 

commercial activity in low-risk, controlled environments. Currently, 

the FAA is, on average, issuing more than 50 section 333 exemptions each week. We also continue to work with our partners in 

government and industry to overcome the largest technical barriers 

to UAS integration, while ensuring the continued safety of the airspace. There is still a lot to learn about the capabilities and risks 

posed by UAS. That is why we are leveraging a variety of research 

tools to give industry greater flexibility and provide FAA additional 

data that could inform future standards. 

In December 2013, the FAA selected six cites to test UAS technology and operations. These test sites are providing valuable data 

to our tech center in New Jersey. And we recently announced the 

Pathfinder Program to study UAS operations in circumstances beyond those currently being approved. For example, BNSF Railroad 

will explore the challenges of using these aircraft to inspect rail infrastructure beyond visual line of sight in isolated areas. 

These partnerships with industry will help us determine if and 

how we can safely expand unmanned aircraft operations beyond 

the parameters set forth in the proposed rule. Beyond commercial 

applications, UAS’s have become increasingly available and affordable to the average consumer, most of whom are not trained aviators. Accordingly, the FAA is taking a proactive approach to educate the public on the safe and responsible use of UAS’s. We 

partnered with members of industry and the modeling community 

to initiate the Know Before You Fly outreach campaign, providing 

recreational operators with the information they need to fly safely 

and responsibly. This outreach has been successful. And several 

UAS manufacturers now voluntarily include educational materials 

in their packaging. 

The FAA also initiated a No Drone Zone campaign to raise 

awareness of the prohibition of flying unmanned aircraft near outside sporting events. In May, we built on that success and launched 

a public outreach campaign for Washington, D.C., to reinforce the 

message that the city itself and all communities within 15 miles of 

National Airport constitute a No Drone Zone. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

While our preference is to educate amateur operators about legal 

compliance, we will use administrative and enforcement action to 

gain compliance when appropriate. Local law enforcement is often 

in the best position to respond quickly. The FAA recently issued 

guidance to first responders on how they can best assist us. The 

United States has the safest aviation system in the world. And our 

goal is to integrate this new and important technology while maintaining that high level of safety. The FAA has successfully integrated new technologies in our aviation system for more than 50 

years. And we will do the same with unmanned aircraft. We look 

forward to continuing to work with Congress and industry to 

achieve these common goals. 

Thank you. And I’m happy to take questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Whitaker follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 96870.001
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 96870.002
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 96870.003
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 96870.004
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 96870.005
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 96870.006
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 96870.007
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 96870.008
16 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 96870.009
17 

Mr. MICA. [presiding.] Thank you. 

And we will withhold questions until we have heard from all the 

panelists. 

Next, we will hear from Dr. Cavolowsky. He is the Director of 

Airspace Operations and Safety Program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Welcome. And you’re recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN CAVOLOWSKY, PH.D. 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the committee, good morning. And thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on NASA’s Aeronautics Research 

Program and the R&D challenges associated with the operations of 

unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace. 

NASA’s strategic thrust and assured autonomy defines our vision 

and approach for supporting the integration of UAS in the NAS. 

Our near-term research builds the foundation for the more extensive transformative changes that autonomous systems will bring 

over the mid and far term. UAS and autonomous systems hold 

great promise for the transformation of our aviation system. And 

we are witnessing the dawn of a new era of aviation innovation, 

ushering in flight vehicles and operations that are unimaginable 

today and opening up entirely new commercial markets, much the 

way jet engines did 60 years ago. 

NASA is performing research and transitioning concepts, technologies and knowledge to the FAA and other stakeholders to help 

them define the requirements, regulations, and standards for safe, 

routine NASA access. Still, there are significant barriers and research challenges associated with the introduction of autonomous 

systems and technologies into our aviation system. Addressing 

these requires the complex systems to be comprehensibly evaluated 

to verify and validate they’re operating as designed, thus allowing 

the FAA to establish operations and equipment standards. 

Now, a significant part of NASA’s near-term research work towards safe UAS integration is focused in three areas: First, our 

sense-and-avoid research is helping to determine performance requirements for a certifiable system to ensure safe separation of 

UAS with all vehicles operating on the NAS. Second, we’re developing secure, robust, reliable communication systems and protocols. 

And, third, we’re addressing the design of ground control stations 

and displays to maximize pilot effectiveness and safety. 

Now, to transfer our research findings, NASA has built effective 

partnerships with key stakeholders, certainly the FAA, but the Department of Defense, also the Department of Homeland Security, 

and industry and academia as well. In these partnerships, NASA 

is playing a significant role, supporting critical activities from the 

executive level down to our subject-matter experts. 

Now, for mid-term applications, NASA is researching novel concepts and technologies to facilitate safe operation of the UAS at altitudes that are not actively controlled today, such as small UAS, 

55 pounds or lighter, operating at altitudes of 500 feet or below. In 

order to safely enable widespread civilian UAS operation at lower 

altitudes, NASA is developing an air traffic management-like system called UAS Traffic Management or UTM. You can think of this 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

much like today’s surface traffic management where vehicles operate within a rule-based system, consisting of roads, lanes, signs, 

and traffic lights. Similarly, the UAS system would provide services, such as airspace corridors, terrain avoidance, route planning, 

and separation management. 

Working alongside many committed partners, NASA will lead the 

research, development, and testing of the UTM, utilizing a series 

of prototypes or builds, each increasing the capability. In fact, the 

first build will be evaluated in a demonstration in August of this 

year. Also, in late July, NASA is holding a UTM convention to explore and define the needs of low-altitude, small UAS operations. 

Over 500 attendees representing the UAS stakeholder community, 

Federal, State, and local government, and the general public have 

registered to attend. 

So through game-changing, long-term research, NASA enables 

growing, sustainable, and transformative aviation systems. Achieving this through partnerships built upon clear roles and responsibilities, on long and productive working relationships, and in 

close and continuous coordination for the specific needs of UAS integration. As the challenges of UAS integration evolve and emerge, 

NASA Aeronautics will continue to advance the research and develop the enabling technologies that will assure the safe realization 

of the transformative benefits of UAS and increase the competitiveness of the U.S. Civil aviation industry. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. And I’ll be 

pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cavolowsky follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 96870.010
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 96870.011
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 96870.012
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 96870.013
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 96870.014
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 96870.015
25 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 96870.016
26 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 96870.017
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 96870.018
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 96870.019
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 96870.020
30 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Again, we’ll withhold questions until we’ve heard from all witnesses. 

Let me recognize now Paul Misener, vice president of Global 

Public Policy with Amazon. 

Welcome. And you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL E. MISENER 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cummings, 

very much for inviting me. Drones will provide the next generation 

of commercial delivery service when permitted. So policymakers 

should expeditiously adopt rules of operation that emphasize drone 

safety and system performance. Thank you for your attention to 

this important topic and for holding this hearing. 

Amazon Prime Air is a future service that will deliver packages 

of up to 5 pounds to customers in 30 minutes or less using small 

drones, also known as unmanned aircraft systems or UAS. Flying 

beyond line of sight, under 500 feet, and generally above 200 feet 

for takeoff and landing, and weighing less than 55 pounds total, 

Prime Air small UAS vehicles will take advantage of sophisticated 

sense-and-avoid technology, as well as a high degree of automation 

to safely operate at distances of 10 miles or more, well beyond visual line of sight. 

No country in which we have distribution facilities has yet adopted rules that would allow commercial UAS package deliveries. So 

we are working with government agencies to develop appropriate 

rules for small UAS operations. Such rules must allow SUAS operations to take advantage of a core capability of UAS technology, 

which is to fly with minimal human involvement beyond the visual 

line of sight of a human operator. Such rules of operation should 

be proportionate to risk, setting a level of safety but not mandating 

how that level must be met. 

Safety is Amazon’s top priority, a top priority I know we share 

with the FAA and NASA. And we are committed to mitigating safety risks. Key aviation authorities outside the United States are 

rapidly pursuing regulatory frameworks and operational rules for 

UAS. Their approach is risk and performance based and is mindful 

of the tremendous opportunities for innovation and economic benefits that UAS present. 

Here in the United States, the FAA also is taking its UAS responsibility seriously. And Amazon is grateful for the attention the 

agency is giving to this new, innovative technology. The FAA’s 

small UAS NPRM is a step forward, as it speaks to the need for 

a performance-based approach to rulemaking. We are fully supportive of this approach and agree with it. 

At the same time, the NPRM has shortcomings, mostly because 

some of the prohibitions maintained are not actually performance 

based. And if adopted as drafted, the rules would not establish a 

regulatory framework to permit Prime Air operations in the United 

States. 

More specifically, we respectfully disagree with the FAA’s current opinion that extending see-and-avoid principles to small UAS, 

as well as the potential loss of positive control of small UAS 

present, ‘‘unique safety concerns,’’ which, thereby, warrant delayed 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

consideration. Although these safety concerns present particular 

engineering challenges to be sure, such challenges are not qualitatively different from the other engineering challenges facing 

small UAS designers. So they should be assessed starting now, ultimately resulting in performance-based operating permissions. 

Granted, regulators here and abroad cannot quickly adopt actual 

rules for operation beyond visual line of sight. That may take time. 

But American policymakers should quickly propose regulatory 

frameworks and rules for future commercial SUAS operations. 

Amazon believes that the FAA should act expeditiously and asks 

that Congress provide legislative guidance to the agency and, if 

necessary, provide additional legal authority. 

First and foremost, SUAS regulations must be risk and performance based. That is, SUAS rules should take into account the risks 

of operation, including, for example, the absence of passenger and 

crew, the lower kinetic energy of aircraft, and the very low operating altitudes, and evaluate how UAS performance mitigate these 

risks. Categorical prohibitions—for example, no nighttime operations or no operations beyond visual line of sight—make no sense 

and must be avoided. Likewise, highly automated UAS vehicles 

should be allowed to fly if they meet performance-based safety requirements. And, thus, a single UAS operator should be able to 

oversee simultaneous operation of multiple highly automated small 

UAS vehicles. 

Given the interstate nature of commercial SUAS operations, 

States and localities must not be allowed to regulate SUAS that 

the FAA has authorized, including with respect to airspace, altitude, purpose of operations, performance, and operator qualifications. Uniform Federal rules must apply. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you 

and your committee and the FAA to help the United States expeditiously adopt rules for SUAS operations that emphasize safety and 

system performance and, thereby, permitting drones to provide 

Americans the next generation of commercial delivery service safely and soon. Thank you. I welcome your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Misener follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 96870.021
33 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 96870.022
34 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 96870.023
35 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 96870.024
36 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 96870.025
37 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 96870.026
38 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 96870.027
39 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And we’ll now hear from Mr. Brian Wynne, president and CEO 

of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. 

Welcome. And you’re recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE 

Mr. WYNNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify today. I represent the Association for Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems International, the world’s largest nonprofit organization 

devoted exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community. 

AUVSI has been a voice of unmanned systems for more than 40 

years. And currently we have more than 7,500 members, including 

over 600 corporate members. The unmanned aircraft industry is 

poised to be one of the fastest growing in American history. Our 

economic impact study found that the first decade following UAS 

integration will result in more than $82 billion in U.S. economic activity and create more than 100,000 new high-paying jobs. The 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 established a foundation for government and industry collaboration to advance this 

emerging sector. 

As part of this, the FAA is currently working on finalizing rules 

for commercial and public use of this technology. The Agency is 

also granting permission for limited commercial use on a case-bycase basis under section 333 of the 2012 act. But more can and 

should be done. 

Despite these positive steps, we need to permit expanded uses of 

UAS technology that pose no additional risk to the airspace system. 

For example, whether within the context of the rule, through the 

reauthorization, or by other means, we need to allow for beyond 

visual line of sight, nighttime operations, and operations over congested areas. Otherwise, we risk stunting a still nascent industry. 

UAS technology is advancing rapidly thanks to collaboration between industry and government. In order to continuing encouraging innovation and promoting safety, we need to pass and sign 

into law an FAA reauthorization measure before the current authorization expires in September. 

Let me highlight a number of specific directions that we would 

like to see reflected going forward. First, the industry supports a 

risk-based technology-neutral framework. This means regulations 

should be based on the risk profile of a particular UAS operation 

rather than the platform being flown. For example, low-risk operations, such as aerial surveys above rural farmland, would be regarded as safe with minimal regulatory barriers, regardless of the 

specific technology or platform used. This flexible framework will 

accommodate innovations rather than requiring new rules each 

time a new technology emerges. 

Second, we support a comprehensive industry government research plan. There is a lot of good work already being done and 

better coordination will ensure we’re maximizing the impact of 

these efforts. While the recently announced Pathfinder Program 

and UAS Center of Excellence show great progress, we need better 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

visibility on how they will fit into the larger UAS integration picture. 

Third, Congress should consider making the FAA UAS tests sites 

eligible for existing Federal funding. While these test sites have 

been active for over a year, access to funding will help give industry guidance and an incentive to better utilize the test sites. 

Fourth, we support the development of a UAS traffic management system. Some commercial UAS operations will occur at low 

levels. And this airspace may become complex. A traffic management system will integrate UAS into the existing national airspace 

infrastructure and ensure the continued safety of the airspace for 

all users, manned and unmanned. 

Finally, knowing that UAS integration must be done in coordination with the NextGen Air Transportation System, there is also an 

opportunity to consider linking the two efforts and their resources 

more effectively. We are pleased to see the FAA recognize the need 

for more senior-level attention, with a new director and a new senior adviser position on UAS integration and look forward to working with those individuals once they are aboard. 

In closing, UAS technology is at an exciting and pivotal stage, 

with new applications being contemplated nearly every day. Unmanned aircraft systems increase human potential, allowing us to 

execute dangerous or difficult tasks safely and efficiently. Thank 

you again for the opportunity to testify today. And I look forward 

to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 96870.028
42 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 96870.029
43 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 96870.030
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 96870.031
45 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 96870.032
46 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And we’ll get back to you for questions. 

Mr. Harley Geiger, he is advocacy director and senior counsel for 

the Center of Democracy and Technology. 

Welcome. And you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HARLEY GEIGER 

Mr. GEIGER. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and members of the committee, thank you very much for giving me 

the opportunity to testify today on the subject of unmanned aircraft 

systems, also known as drones. I am Harley Geiger, senior counsel 

at the Center for Democracy and Technology. CDT is a nonpartisan, nonprofit technology policy advocacy organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties, such as privacy and free speech, 

while enabling government agencies to provide security and companies to innovate. 

I have three overarching points that I want to make with regard 

to drones. My testimony focuses on privacy, although clearly there 

are many other policy issues that are associated with unmanned 

aircraft. First, unmanned aircraft systems are a promising technology but have potential to erode civil liberties by enabling pervasive surveillance. 

Second, current laws do not provide strong privacy protection 

from government or private unmanned aircraft. And the lack of privacy protection undermines public trust, which holds back the industry. 

Third, to earn public acceptance of UAS, which will promote its 

commercial growth, both government and the UAS industry should 

fully address civil liberties issues through a combination of legislation and an industry code of conduct. 

In my time remaining, I will expand on these points. The CDT 

wants to see UAS used for commerce, for journalism, for disaster 

relief, scientific research, and more. However, neither the government nor the UAS industry should ignore the potential for UAS to 

enable pervasive surveillance that undermines civil liberties. 

Here is a nightmare scenario for civil liberties. Law enforcement 

establishes a broad-based drone dragnet that constantly tracks individuals in populated outdoor areas, chilling the public’s right to 

free expression, free association and assembly. At the same time, 

a network of commercial unmanned aircraft record footage of virtually every American who steps out of her home, even if that individual remains on private property. 

This may seem like a far-fetched future to some. However, few 

existing laws would stand in the way. And the public does not yet 

trust the discretion of the government or the UAS industry to prevent this scenario from becoming a reality. 

When it comes to government UAS, CDT believes that prolonged, 

physical surveillance of individuals in public places violates Fourth 

Amendment principles. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Americans have no expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance. The Supreme Court has even held that the Fourth 

Amendment is not violated when a police helicopter looks into the 

interior of a private building through a hole in the ceiling without 

a warrant. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Bottom line, there’s very little protection in terms of privacy from 

government use of UAS outdoors. Law enforcement use is perhaps 

the most acute concern that the public has with UAS. And to address the public’s concern, Congress should pass legislation that, 

among other things, establishes due process standards for law enforcement use of UAS. And Congress should limit law enforcement 

use to instances where the government has a warrant or exigent 

circumstances or other narrowly tailored reasonable exceptions. 

CDT believes that the Preserving American Privacy Act from Representatives Poe and Lofgren, as well as Senator Wyden’s Protecting Individuals from Mass Aerial Surveillance Act, which was 

introduced today, would provide strong due process protection without unreasonably burdening non-law-enforcement uses, such as scientific research. CDT supports these bills and urges Congress to 

pass them swiftly. 

When it comes to private sector UAS, common law privacy torts 

provide Americans with some protection from private sector UAS 

out of the home, but only if the conduct is highly offensive to a reasonable person. However, any government regulation of private 

UAS must not violate our First Amendment right to take photographs from public places. An industry code of conduct would help 

provide privacy protections from private UAS where direct regulation cannot. But it will be effective only if the industry agrees to 

adopt a strong and enforceable code. The code proposed by AUVSI 

does not cut it. 

The code should establish reasonable limits on UAS collection 

and retention of personally identifiable information. And the code 

should also create a publically accessible registry of UAS data-collection policies, though there should be reasonable exceptions for 

that registry. And the code should also establish cybersecurity 

standards to prevent hijacking and unauthorized damage to UAS 

systems. 

And, finally, CDT recommends that the industry explore technical measures to protect individual privacy in physical space, as 

well as enhanced transparency for private UAS systems. Thank 

you very much for holding this hearing. And I look forward to your 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Geiger follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 96870.033
49 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 96870.034
50 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 96870.035
51 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 96870.036
52 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 96870.037
53 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 96870.038
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 96870.039
55 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 96870.040
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 96870.041
57 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 96870.042
58 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And I thank all of the witnesses. 

We’ll go right to questions. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, having been involved 

in this a little while, back in 2003, when we did one of the first 

FAA reauthorizations, there was nothing in the bill—it’s amazing 

how technology does change our lives. And it’s amazing how government does fail to keep up with changes in technology and craft 

a law to match that. We fall further and further behind it seems. 

In 2012, when we did the last FAA reauthorization, I tried to get 

specific and hold people’s feet to the fire. And we do that by putting 

some milestones and deadlines. 

And in the law, we said—for example, Mr. Whitaker—we said required planning for integration, this is the law that was passed, 

comprehensive plan not later than 270 days after the enactment of 

this act, the Secretary of Transportation in consultation with representatives of the aviation and Federal agencies basically would 

come up with a plan. Was that deadline met? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, sir. Both a comprehensive plan and a 5-year 

roadmap were developed. They were both published in November 

of 2013. 

Mr. MICA. 2013. Okay. To further hold the feet to the fire, and 

some things have been done, as we pointed out and I mentioned 

earlier, we put a deadline, the plan required under paragraph 1, 

shall provide the safe integration of civil unmanned aviation systems into the national airspace as soon as practical but not later 

than September 30, 2015. That’s the deadline we put in there. Is 

that deadline going to be met? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You certainly won’t have full integration of 

UAS—— 

Mr. MICA. But the deadline is not going to be met? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Okay. When do you predict the deadline will be 

met? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We’re taking the issue in manageable bites if you 

will. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. And you testified that you’re granting exemptions 

and waivers at a pretty rapid rate. What did you say, 50 a week 

or something? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. But is that, that’s not what we intended. We intended for, basically, to have the rule in place by September. It’s 

not going to be met. Now we’re going to do an FAA bill, guys and 

gals, and we should hold their feet to the fire again. 

I don’t know you hold their feet to the fire because we’ve already, 

we’ve missed the deadline that we set in here. But we’re going to 

have to do something. Is there something we’re missing, that we 

haven’t done that could provide you with the assets to move forward or make certain this happens as soon as possible? And what 

is your deadline now? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We have broken the task into pieces, if you will. 

Mr. MICA. When will it be done, what was directed by law? 

Mr. WHITAKER. So the rule was issued earlier this year in February. Comments were closed in April. We received 4,500, approximately 4,500, comments. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Mr. MICA. All that is part of the record. When will we be done? 

Mr. WHITAKER. So the rule, we have to adjudicate those comments. We’ll clear the rule out by the end of the year. 

Mr. MICA. 2016? 2017? 

Mr. WHITAKER. The rule will be in place within the year. 

Mr. MICA. Within a year? 

Mr. WHITAKER. That’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Mark that down, staff. We could do a hearing a year from now 

and see if they’ve completed the task. 

The problem we have in the meantime is, again, you’re granting 

exceptions and waivers. It’s sort of a spotty policy that’s in place. 

And some folks talked about addressing risks. And that’s the most 

important thing, wouldn’t you say, is avoiding risk? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Safety is certainly our priority, yes. 

Mr. MICA. But by the same token, we’re falling a little bit further 

behind than some of the other countries. 

Mr. Misener, what have you seen? This hearing is about commercialization and moving forward. Are we, is the U.S. falling further 

behind? I cited $10 billion, I guess $1 billion a year for the next 

10 years we would lose by not having commercial rules in place for 

operation of drones. 

Mr. MISENER. U.S. planning is not as aggressive, Mr. Chairman, 

as it in other countries. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. But there are a host of issues, privacy, and we 

had this little question here with the staff and some of us. Who basically is in charge of setting the rules for privacy? Is it the individual States and law enforcement? Is it the Department of Justice? Is this an FAA responsibility in the rules that you’re crafting? 

Mr. Whitaker, maybe you could shed some light on how we protect 

people’s privacy. 

Mr. WHITAKER. The President issued a Presidential memorandum in February designating the National Telecommunication 

Information Administration as the lead on this issue. They have 

opened for public comment. I think that has closed. We are certainly a stakeholder in this conversation, but we do—— 

Mr. MICA. So we need to call them and ask them when they’ll 

have their rules in place for protecting privacy. 

Mr. WHITAKER. They have the lead on this issue. 

Mr. MICA. But it is multijurisdictional, it’s beyond just the Federal level to protect privacy, isn’t it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Aviation has always been a Federal initiative 

and preemptive of State authorities, and I would assume—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, a drone that is operating under 500 feet, whose 

responsibility would that be? Also Federal? Or can you, I mean, 

local law enforcement is already using some devices, and other 

folks are using it. Who controls the—and that’s probably the biggest concern of privacy is somebody within 500 feet over people’s 

homes, property, surveillance capability of these drones. 

Mr. WHITAKER. By statute, even at those altitudes, it’s Federal 

airspace. 

Mr. MICA. Still our responsibility. So we’ll wait to see the development of that and specifics on that rule. I predict that there will 

be—you know, sometimes we don’t move until there’s an incident. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

There will be an incident. There will be a crash. There will be probably fatalities because you have so many of these things flying. I 

hope it doesn’t take down a big commercial aircraft. I hope it 

doesn’t have a lot of fatalities. But I think it’s inevitable. How 

many thousands of these drones are now flying on the—I’ve heard 

different figures, from several thousand to 20,000 flying. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t know the exact figures. Perhaps Mr. 

Wynne does. But I think it’s important to distinguish the vast majority of those are amateur operations. They’re not covered under 

the rule. And we’re prohibited by statute from regulating that sector of the—— 

Mr. MICA. So that still remains the primary risk. Did you want 

to comment, Mr. Geiger? 

Mr. GEIGER. To your question on who is in charge of privacy 

here, so the FAA is regulating safety. And safety is very limited, 

a very limited mandate when it comes to also providing privacy 

regulations. So I have some question as to whether or not the FAA 

could actually put forth rules on privacy. 

Mr. MICA. And that’s what’s interesting because when we were 

talking about this several years ago, when we crafted this legislation, I was told it was the Department of Justice or a judicial matter that privacy and it was outside of our realm to regulate. But 

maybe in this FAA bill, do you think we should have, rather than 

the President set by edict or whatever—however he did it, what 

was it, executive order? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Presidential memorandum. 

Mr. MICA. Presidential memorandum. Should we have something 

in the Federal law? Final question. 

Mr. GEIGER. We do think there should be standards in Federal 

law. The 2012 bill mentioned privacy exactly zero times. And the 

privacy issue has absolutely plagued the discussion—— 

Mr. MICA. You said that 2012—— 

Mr. GEIGER. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act. 

Mr. MICA. And I just explained to you, when we started down 

that path, concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle about privacy—it’s a big deal—that we were told it was outside our realm; 

it was really a judicial matter and outside the purview of the 

Transportation Committee that was considering the legislation at 

the time. So we’re basically without anything except what the 

President has set forth. And maybe that should, some parts of that 

should be codified. Is that what, that would be a summary or—— 

Mr. GEIGER. Some parts of it. Although what the President set 

forth is also quite limited. The Department of Justice essentially 

says that, there’s some good things in the policy guidance from the 

Department of Justice. But it is also very limited. It says they’ll respect laws, they’ll use UAS for an authorized use and harmonized 

with the Fifth Amendment. But it doesn’t provide any additional 

protection really beyond what is in current law. The NTIA process 

is focused just on commercial drones. So the NTIA process is not 

going to touch government use. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Well, let’s go to the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

Mr. Geiger, the expectation of privacy, you talked about that. 

And certainly we know that in court cases, a lot of the question 

comes down to what is expected of the person. I guess when you 

have drones, it really broadens the expectation, is that right? It 

kind of throws it, it just opens the door to all kinds of surveillance. 

Are you following what I’m saying? 

Mr. GEIGER. I do. And I believe this is—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you speak a little louder please. 

Mr. GEIGER. I do. And I believe that this is how courts will interpret that in the future. Right now, the Supreme Court has interpreted the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine to not include 

aerial surveillance from the publicly navigable airspace. And I can 

only imagine that that reasonable expectation of privacy standard 

or in common law torts what accounts as highly offensive to a reasonable person, I will only imagine that that will shrink as more 

and more UAS take to the skies. 

This is one reason why we are arguing that current Federal law 

does not provide adequate privacy protection. We should not just 

rely on common law or the fourth Amendment, that there ought to 

be something in Federal law that provides a due process standard. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what would you, if you were trying to put 

that law together to try to balance allowing drones to operate but 

at the same time trying to maintain some reasonable semblance of 

privacy for citizens of our country, what would that look like? I 

mean, do you have something that you all, that you put together 

that you—what elements would you be looking at. 

Mr. GEIGER. There are a couple of bills out there right now which 

provide a good starting point, Representatives Poe and Lofgren’s 

Preserving American Privacy Act, Senator Wyden’s Protecting Individuals from Mass Ariel Surveillance Act provide good starting 

points. And both of those bills are focused largely on law enforcement use. And this is, as I said, in my opening statement, in part 

because the public’s concern with privacy and UAS is most acutely 

felt with law enforcement use. I don’t think that people are quite 

as concerned with uses for research, disaster relief, and so forth. 

On the commercial side, any regulation would have to be aligned 

with the First Amendment and, therefore, will be limited. So I 

think in combination of a due process standard and an industry 

code of conduct could provide meaningful privacy protection to individuals. 

On government use, we think there ought to, generally speaking, 

be a warrant standard with exceptions for exigent circumstances 

and other reasonable exceptions for law enforcement use, as well 

as a registry of government UAS applications that is publicly available, much in the same way that the FAA currently has the registry for small aircraft. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, with all of the cameras everywhere on 

light posts, on buildings, and, of course, as you well know, many 

crimes are solved, people don’t even know that they’re being observed. And it seems to me there would be, there’s an argument 

that with all of that now, the technology out there, that why would 

one want to differ from, I mean stray away, from the idea that a 

drone is going too far. And just as I’m talking, I’m figuring out the 

argument, the drone can follow you, as opposed to the light post. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

Mr. GEIGER. We do have civil liberties concerns with a groundbased, large-scale surveillance system. Our concern is largely techneutral. But drones do have unique capabilities mostly because of 

their vantage point. If you’re taking about ground-based CCTV, 

then if you turn a corner or enter your fenced-in yard, then the 

ground-based CCTV can no longer see you. But it would be very 

hard to escape the scope of observation of a sophisticated and highflying UAS. So the privacy intrusion is potentially greater. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Misener, can you tell me, tell me about how 

Amazon, I just want to know the logistics, how that works. I mean, 

what are you all trying to do? Somebody has a package that they 

want in Iowa tonight. So what happens? 

Mr. MISENER. Well, the customer places—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And the package is in Washington. Go. 

Mr. MISENER. Mr. Cummings, I have 3 seconds. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to picture how it works. 

Mr. MISENER. It’s a very fast delivery system. We have distribution facilities throughout the country. What we would like to be 

able to do is enable that network of facilities to deliver packages 

to customers more quickly than is currently possible using the 

ground transportation network. 

We looked into all different kinds of functionalities of how to get 

things to customers on a 30-minute-or-less basis. And what really 

works are drones. And so in this way, our customer will be able to 

order something off of our Web site and have it delivered in less 

than 30 minutes to his or her home. That means that she doesn’t 

even have to go to the store, hop in the car, or try to get a delivery 

truck to bring it. It just gets delivered to her house. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So it just pops up on a drone right in front of 

your door. 

Mr. MISENER. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Mr. Wynne, the FAA’s proposed rulemaking lists some—— 

VOICE. We have got a basket of fresh fruit headed your way right 

now, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —potential uses of drones such as crop monitoring, bridge inspections, and aerial photography. Can you give us 

a few other examples of potential commercial use of drones? 

Mr. WYNNE. There are, there’s all manner of infrastructure that 

needs to be inspected in the country. For example, natural gas 

pipelines, high-utility, high-voltage lines, et cetera. That would be 

another example of large industries that are just chomping at the 

bit to embrace this technology. So there’s small uses. There’s large 

uses. There’s visual line of sight when it comes to taking pictures 

of a house from a different angle for a real estate agent, all the way 

through to insurance companies inspecting after a Hurricane 

Sandy event what is going on in a particular area, areas that are 

inaccessible to agents, for example, and gaining information as 

quickly as possible. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, Mr. Whitaker, FAA’s mission is, ‘‘to 

provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.’’ 

Can you explain some of the challenges of integrating drones into 

our Nation’s airspace. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

Mr. WHITAKER. One of the challenges is we have a much more 

complex and diverse airspace than any other country and a busier 

airspace. So in addition to four of the biggest airlines in the world 

and dozens of hubs, you have business aviation, you have nearly 

200,000 general aviation operations, helicopters, rescue vehicles 

that fly in all airspace. So integrating, instead of just setting aside 

a space to operate, but actually integrating into the airspace requires that these new vehicles be able to stay clear of the existing 

vehicles. So detect and avoid, or sense and avoid, that’s a major 

technological challenge that has to be solved. And you also have to 

solve the communications challenge, how the operator communicates with the vehicle, what the spectrum is that is allocated for 

that, and what happens if that link breaks. So these are some of 

the technology issues that are being researched in various venues 

that we need to fully understand and then build standards around 

so we can fully integrate this into the system. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, not long ago, the fellow had a, flew 

a drone in the vicinity of the White House. And all of us were very 

concerned about that. And I know that that’s a significant concern 

of many. And I’m just trying to figure out, I mean, if you’ve got all 

these objects flying around and then you’ve got a lot of people on 

the ground and you’ve got to protect airspace, it just seems to me 

like we are headed towards disaster at some point. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, we’re going to try to make sure that doesn’t 

happen. There are actually very robust technologies that will allow 

this to happen, and they’re being tested in various—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That will allow what to happen. 

Mr. WHITAKER. They will allow the vehicles to stay clear from 

humans and other vehicles. We just need to make sure that that 

technology is robust enough to incorporate into our air system. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I see my time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, I’m glad to see that we have a proposed rule here. 

We’ve been waiting on it for a long time. I serve on the Transportation Committee, and we’ve been pushing for this. I’m excited to 

see this. And I think it does allow a large class of operations that, 

heretofore, have not been able to operate. 

Mr. Wynne, can you talk about the types of commerce that won’t 

be facilitated by this rule, particularly the requirement that at all 

times, there has to be an operator that’s got visual line of sight to 

the drone? Can you talk about some of the—some of the applications that can’t be practiced because of that rule? 

Mr. WYNNE. The easy one, as Mr. Misener, the application that 

he was talking about earlier, that does require beyond visual line 

of sight. 

There is all manner of inspections that I was mentioning as well. 

BNSF was mentioned earlier, being able to check for split rails in 

advance of trains, other infrastructure, et cetera. And just, if you 

imagine, one of the early applications, early adopters of this technology will be agricultural interests, farmers, et cetera, looking to 

do all manner of inspection of their property. Some of these farms 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

are large, of course, and someone could easily be flying over their 

property but have that well beyond line of sight, again, basically 

flying a pattern that a computer is controlling, very low altitude. 

So these are the types of operations that we think—some of them 

are more complex than others. We think that there’s a way to advance the technology, to test the technology. The more we’re flying, 

again, equivalent level of safety to the current aircraft system, airspace system that we have today, the more data we can collect, the 

more we can test technologies like detect and avoid, sense and 

avoid, et cetera. There are a number of those things, low-hanging 

fruit so to speak. 

Mr. MASSIE. So, Mr. Whitaker, is there any chance before this 

rule comes out to have a category of drones that are authorized in 

low-risk situations like agriculture or power line inspection or rail 

inspection? Is there a chance to get something in the rule for that 

category? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, what we’ve done while the rule is pending 

is we issue exemptions. And we’ve done over 600 exemptions for 

commercial operators. And we’ve done even more than that for public sector operations, for fire and rescue, that type of thing. The 

rule, as you mentioned, will take care of a very large subset of operations and will allow a lot more commercial innovation without 

our involvement. 

We’ve tried to include in the rule the issues where we think we 

have a clear understanding of the safety risks and how they can 

be mitigated. The issues that are outside of the rule, like beyond 

of sight, we think we’ll get there, and we’re going to try to get there 

as quickly as we can, but there are still technology issues and 

standards that have to be developed. So we will have to work very 

diligently to keep that moving as the rule progresses. 

Mr. MASSIE. All right. Thank you. On to the privacy aspect of 

this, it does present some new challenges. One question that I have 

is, should there be a floor? I mean, we’re talking about a ceiling 

of 500 feet. Should there be a floor for operation of drones? Do you 

own the property an inch above your lawn, is a question that I 

have. If you have a gate, a locked gate, on your property and somebody climbs over the gate, your expectation is they are violating 

their privacy. What if they fly over the gate? And what if they’re 

hovering an inch above the ground? 

Mr. Geiger, could you talk to that. From a personal property aspect, when is your—when are your property rights being violated? 

Mr. GEIGER. Courts have generally said that you own a reasonable amount of airspace above your property. The 400-foot level is 

more or less arbitrary. An inch above your property? Yeah, you 

probably own that. Thirty feet above your property? Not sure. And 

what counts as reasonable, again, as more and more UAS fill the 

sky in tens, hundreds of thousands, which is what we predict in 

the coming decades, what counts as reasonable will probably 

shrink. And it’s not clear what the floor will be. 

But, generally, if you can—you have an expectation of property 

ownership and as much airspace as you can use. And so the drone 

would have to violate your—or reduce a substantial interest or use 

in your property in order to be liable for a trespass claim. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

Mr. MASSIE. Maybe the floor is the range for number 12-gauge 

with six shot in it. 

Mr. GEIGER. You know, it’s interesting that you bring that up because the concept of shooting down drones, I think, demonstrates 

the depth of concern that people have. And this is a privacy-based 

concern with drones. Now, this happens on a pretty regular basis. 

Right? I mean, just—and 2 weeks ago, there were firefighters that 

were tending to a house fire and, in the aftermath of that house 

fire, used their hose to spray a drone that was watching them. The 

drone was not directly over them. So it was not like a safety issue. 

But it was watching them. 

And, you know, I’m absolutely not condoning that type of activity. I think that it’s very risky. But it demonstrates the need for 

the depth of public concern regarding privacy and I think the need 

for a baseline. 

Mr. MASSIE. So maybe we need rules of engagement in terms— 

in addition to rules of privacy. 

I see my time is expired. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I must say, we’re in the infancy of everything here, the infancy 

of regulation, the infancy of the technology. We saw that when the 

drones landed—a drone landed in the White House and indeed on 

these very Capitol Grounds. 

And, Mr. Whitaker, I appreciate that, on May 13, there’s a release that indicates that you’re trying to make the public understand that there’s a 15-mile radius around the Nation’s Capitol, 

that you’re not supposed to fly anything. So everybody’s playing 

catch up here. 

Now, on one of my other committees, I must tell you, where we’re 

really playing catch up is NextGen. So that when I look at your 

regulations and it says ‘‘must yield right of way to other aircraft, 

manned or unmanned,’’ I mean, if we had NextGen and we knew 

where even aircraft were flying, then, of course, then we might expect drones to somehow operate within our airspace safely, more 

safely. The assistant inspector general has testified about the integration of drones into commercial airspace, and that’s what interests me. 

Does the FAA receive from commercial pilots each month or on 

any regular basis whether they have seen unmanned aircraft of 

any kind? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We do receive reports of sightings of unmanned 

aircraft. They typically will come in over the air traffic control communication network, and we do track those. 

Ms. NORTON. Are those required to be reported, Mr. Whitaker? 

Mr. WHITAKER. They are required to be reported, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Have any close calls of drones or unmanned aircraft with commercial aircraft been reported? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We—I don’t have any recollection of any evasive 

maneuvers being taken as a result. Mostly what we receive is 

sightings of unmanned aircraft in controlled airspace, usually near 

airports. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

Ms. NORTON. Is there any system of licensing these unmanned 

aircraft? I mean, do we even now how many there are in our country? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We believe that these typically are involving the 

amateur operators of what we tend to call model aircraft, but the 

kind that you can buy and operate anywhere. They are unregulated, and we’re prohibited by statute from regulating that sector 

of the operation. 

Ms. NORTON. Should somebody be regulating that sector? And 

who should be? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, what we have is we do have areas where 

these operators are prohibited from flying. And so they’re wandering into prohibited airspace. So, in that sense, they are violating 

law. So our focus, as you have pointed out, has been to have an 

education campaign to let people know where they can fly, where 

they can’t fly. We’re working to develop an app that people can use 

to see if they’re in restricted airspace or whether they can fly their 

unmanned air system. And we work with local law enforcement to 

give them guidelines on how to interact with people who are operating in an inappropriate fashion. 

Ms. NORTON. In light of these proposed rules, Mr. Misener, and 

Amazon’s interest it says an operator should be capable of seeing 

the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective 

lenses. In other words, I suppose you are supposed to be within— 

somehow you’re supposed to be able to see these drones that you 

have let loose upon the universe. How’s that going to work commercially? 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Ms. Norton. It won’t, at least for packaged delivery services. We don’t disagree that it’s a more difficult 

use case to fly drones beyond visual line of sight. It is it. It requires 

a higher degree of automation in vehicles, and we are working on 

that. That kind of technology is being developed. Our respectful 

disagreement with the FAA is that we believe that that kind of operation can be considered right now on the same risk-based approach. The risks are higher—— 

Ms. NORTON. You think the technology is—the technology would 

allow that now? 

Mr. MISENER. Oh, it’s in the works, Ms. Norton. And all I’m saying is—I’m not saying that the rules for operation need to be adopted right now, but the serious planning for those future rules need 

to be undertaken right out. And what the NPRM did earlier this 

year is essentially list that as a prohibited kind of a category of operation. And what we’re trying to say is that that ought to be considered right now, just like other countries are considering beyondvisual-line-of-sight operations right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Whitaker, this notion of lost link scenarios, 

what’s the current state of technology on the links between the operator and the drone and the possibility of the drone getting beyond the vision or, for that matter, the control? I’m sure that the 

drone that went into the White House grounds was beyond his control, for example. 

Mr. WHITAKER. So there’s research that goes on. There’s a lot of 

research that goes on at NASA, at DOD, various sectors, on loss 

of control. We have a center of excellence now at Mississippi State, 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

where there’ll be research along these lines. And as I mentioned—— 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, if you see a drone going too far, is the technology now such that you can call it back? 

Mr. WHITAKER. There is technology there that can be used for 

that. And that is the technology that’s being tested. As that technology is tested, we also have to develop standards for operation, 

particularly in the radio communications spectrum and how that 

gets defined. 

Ms. NORTON. Standards, for example, that would link—that 

would make sure that you didn’t lose—lose control of your own unmanned aircraft. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Right. And there are procedures that could be followed when that happens. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank each of your for your testimony. 

Mr. Misener, let me come to you because I think you were indicating that the United States is falling behind on this particular 

use of drone technology to some of competition that may be in Europe and other places. Is that correct? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, Mr. Meadows, it is. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if we are falling behind—obviously, Mr. 

Whitaker says, we have a vary complex air system, which I would 

agree with that, more complex than Europe—but from a regulatory 

standpoint, do you see that we could perhaps have had in this rulemaking going a little bit further to anticipate new technology to 

allow for greater innovation so that we don’t get beat out by our 

competition in other parts of the world? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, Mr. Meadows. I firmly believe that, and I acknowledge that the U.S. airspace is complicated. But it’s also complicated around Heathrow and other places around the world. And 

so we need to acknowledge that other countries are just taking a 

more forward-looking planning approach. Again, I don’t blame the 

FAA for not having rules in place. This is a big challenge, and 

NASA and the FAA and private industry are working together to 

address the technical challenges. What I’m suggesting is that the 

risk-based approach taken throughout much of the NPRM also 

could be applied to these beyond-visual-line-of-sight and highly 

automated operations that we foresee. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, Mr. Whitaker, let me come back to you, then. 

I serve on the T&I committee. We’ve had a number of hearings, 

and we’ve talked about these six regional test areas across the 

United States. And what I have found interesting is, as we have 

come out with this proposed rule, is that most of this seems to be 

a rule that is looking backwards, not forward. For example, I mean, 

looking at not being able to operate these other than line of sight 

or at night is extremely shortsighted, I believe, in terms of a rule. 

And so it’s almost like in order to meet some of the deadlines, 

you’ve put forth a rule that is very restrictive instead of really saying that if there’s the technology, which we have the technology, to 

manage this other than line of sight, could we not do that in a safe 

manner? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

Mr. WHITAKER. So we had a lot of debate around this as the rule 

was put together, and I think initially there was an attempt to boil 

the ocean, if you will, and take on all possible issues in the rule. 

And the decision was made to come up with a less onerous rule 

that covers the majority of the types of operations that we know 

people want to undertake, that the technology is there, it’s proven, 

and it can happen. 

So we defined an envelope of operation, if you will, and the 

things that are in that envelope, it will unleash a lot of the commercial needs that’s there. The issues that are still out there to be 

worked out and to have standards built around, we do have regulatory tools to allow those to go forward without waiting for a rulemaking through exemption. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But, Mr. Whitaker, if we’re talking about—you 

say that it would provide for most of what we’re talking about, I 

would disagree with that if we’re talking about line of sight. Because what Mr. Misener and Mr. Wynne are talking about really 

is not line of sight. 

You know, Doctor, you know, you work for NASA. Can you put 

something out in space or on the moon without—in a safe way and 

do it without line of sight? 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. Well, I work—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Be careful how you answer. 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. Working in the aeronautics mission at NASA, 

I won’t speak to the space applications. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, can’t some of your colleagues do that, I 

guess? I mean, do they have to view that the whole way to where 

it lands in order for it to be safe? 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. That is certainly not the case. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So I guess, Mr. Whitaker, coming back to 

you, I’m going to encourage you, as we are looking for a FAA reauth in less than 60 days, I am encouraging you to be a little bit 

more forward thinking as it comes to the line of sight and some of 

the technology that is available to us today—the stakeholders, I 

mean, it’s all over—and because if not, your regulations become the 

throttle or the choke that keeps innovation from moving us forward, and ultimately, we will lose out to competition abroad. Do I 

have your commitment that you will look at that aggressively? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We will. And I think granting the BNSF Railroad 

authority to operate beyond line of sight is part of that effort to 

lean forward. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panel members for your help this morning. 

I think all of your have contributed well to this—to the understanding that we are gaining regarding this technology. 

Mr. Geiger, I think some of the ramifications that you’ve brought 

to mind are very, very helpful. 

Mr. Whitaker, the problem that I have, the greatest concern I 

have is the interface or the fit between FAA and a technology 

which might become ubiquitous at some point in the near future. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

And in your testimony or in one of your answers, you said that the 

system being developed will allows us to keep drones away from 

people and other sensitive areas. 

The problem I have is with what you’re doing now with aircraft. 

I represent Logan Airport, that area, myself and Mr. Capuano from 

Boston, in the Eighth and Seventh Districts, we represent a semicircle around the airport. So we’re airport communities. And I hate 

to put this on you, but I would have to say that out of all the— 

of all the agencies that we deal with on this committee—and we 

deal with everybody, NSA, CIA, DOD, you know, Defense Department and others, IRS—FAA is probably the most unresponsive 

agency that we deal with in government from this committee. And 

that’s just a fact. And I want to give an example. 

I am—the FAA has adopted a—since 2013, has adopted a new 

navigation system around airports, NextGen RNAV, they call it. I 

don’t know what that means. But I do know that the result of that 

program is that instead of flights being spread out over a number 

of communities, which I represent all of them, and Mike does too, 

Mike Capuano, now we have a different system where we have a 

tractor beam system where all of the flights come over the same, 

I swear, square foot of land, every day, every night. And so the people who live underneath that tractor beam, I’m worried about their 

health. Based on the volume and the spirit of the calls that I get 

continually from those neighborhoods and those towns, this system 

is not working. And it is detrimental to their health. So, as an 

elected Representative, I tried to get a meeting with the FAA in 

the town of Milton, Massachusetts, which is under that tractor 

beam. And I wrote a letter to Mr. Huerta, who is the regional administrator in my area. He refused to come. First, they agreed to 

come in the meeting that I had with them, and then, once they got 

out of the meeting, they changed their mind and said they’d never 

agree to that. 

So I’m trying to get FAA—look, I understand how difficult it is 

to operate, you know, the airport and do your job, but we have a 

basic responsibility to meet with the people that we work for. And 

some of the folks at FAA have said: Those folks have yelled at us. 

They have yelled at me too. That’s—that’s part of the job. And 

sometimes they have a good reason to yell at me and you, and I 

think they have one now. 

But so I have been so frustrated with this process of just getting 

a meeting in the town of Milton that I had to go on the floor the 

other day and put an amendment on the floor to cut $25 million 

from FAA’s budget because we give you money to do outreach. 

Well, outreach is not happening in the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts, I can tell you right now. So I figured since 

you’re not doing that job, I’ll take that money and put it somewhere else where somebody will actually use it. So that’s where 

we’re at right now, you and me and Mr. Capuano and the FAA. 

You’re not treating—you know, I don’t mind being dissed myself. 

I can deal with that. That’s—look, Congress’ popularity is at 6 percent. I’m used to that. However, when you refuse to meet with the 

people that I represent, then I get mad. I can’t have that. Nobody 

here can have that. We all represent—look, I represent 727,514 

people. Those are my bosses. I go to work for them every single 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

day, and I can’t get a meeting with a group of them and the FAA. 

So we got a problem. 

And now here we are talking about, like I said, this new technology at some point could become ubiquitous. So I’m nervous because when we have a problem with drones, I’m going to have to 

go to the FAA for a meeting. And they’re probably going to tell me: 

Sorry, pal. You know, we’re busy. We can’t meet with you. 

I can’t have that answer. 

All right. So you got 3 seconds to answer me. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. So, first of all, I apologize if the FAA has 

been unresponsive. 

Mr. LYNCH. Apology accepted. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I’m not familiar with the issue, but I will vow to 

get back with you directly with a response to that. And I think 

community outreach and engagement is one of the most important 

things that we do. And if we don’t do it, particularly as we redesign 

airspace, it does lead to trouble. So let me make sure that we get 

back with you shortly. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. 

I appreciate the chairman’s indulgence. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. All politics is local. 

Mr. Hice. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Wait a second. Mr. Walker was next. I apologize. 

You haven’t been heard, Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Hice. 

Mr. MICA. I’m sorry, but you are recognized, Mr. Walker. And 

we’ll get to Hice next. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you very much. 

As a member on the Committee of Homeland Security, we have 

had several classified briefings as far as the concerns, even locally 

and regionally. And I know there’s a lot of issues that have to be 

worked out, particularly with the UAVs and UAS’s. 

I want to take a little bit of a turn here and talk about some of 

the pros, some of the positives, from possibly the new technology 

as we move forward. I always—if you look back historically, anytime there’s something that’s new that developed, there’s always a 

lit bit of a pushback and a reactionary—even in my 46 years, I can 

remember several different times—timelines when it comes to technological based industry or other aspects. 

I want to talk about—maybe start with Mr. Wynne. According to 

your data and your department there, believes that the U.S. Could 

be in line to lose more than $10 billion in potential economic impact every year that U.S. integration is delayed. Would you take 

just a minute to speak to that. Is that accurate? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, sir. And that’s in the community that I represent, the commercial—commercial UAS community. That goes— 

I think there’s additional value to—that can be added to other industries that want to utilize the technology that go on top of that. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. Mr. Misener, what steps—well, let me back 

up just a little bit. 

According to Amazon Prime Air, you have been doing more testing in other countries. Can you speak to that as—do you have less 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

restrictions? Why is—why do you seem to be doing a little bit more 

testing in other countries as opposed to here? 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Walker. I think we have turned 

that corner with the FAA. The FAA has streamlined their tests— 

approval process in a way that is beneficial to the industry. It’s 

going to accelerate the amount of testing that can be done here domestically. We had some difficulties getting that approval last year 

and early this year, but I think we’ve turned that corner now. 

The real direction we need to take now is sort of the planning 

for the operational rules, and we look forward to working with the 

FAA on that, that we’re eager to do so. But on testing, I think 

we’re able to do it in multiple locations, including within the 

United States. 

Mr. WALKER. What is the objective of Amazon, if you give me a 

timeline over the next year to 18 months, where are you wanting 

to see this go, providing that things are worked out with the FAA? 

Mr. MISENER. Well, we’d like to start delivering to our customers 

as soon as it’s approved regulatorily. So we are working on the 

technology as quickly as we can. We’ve got an advance team. Amazon doesn’t sound like an aviation company, but we certainly have 

staffed up with aviation experts, including, on my team, I’ve got an 

8,000-hour—military and commercial pilots on my team. We’re taking this very seriously. The safety aspect of it is front and center. 

The team is trying to develop this service as quickly as possible. 

Now, there are other things that are going on here. It’s not just 

the aviation aspects of it. We have to get our fulfillment center and 

our distribution facilities right because to get that 30-minute promise down, we have to get that item somewhere in a very large 

building ready to get to the drone. And that—so that presents another set of engineering challenges that we’re working on for 

our—— 

Mr. WALKER. And are—you said ‘‘you’re working.’’ Do you have 

the technology in place to move forward providing that all the 

other restrictions are given the green light? 

Mr. MISENER. Today, no. But we will have it in place by the time 

any regulations are ready. We are working very quickly. The 

iteration process in a company like ours and in a robotics mission 

like ours is very rapid. And so we’re confident that we will have 

it in place. And this is why we look forward to working closely with 

the FAA on preparing for those rules. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. Mr. Wynne, what specific solutions can you 

provide this committee that we could act on or—as to not only help 

the development of the commercial UAS but also satisfy the FAA’s 

concern for safety? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, I think, as I mentioned in my testimony, 

there’s a lot of research and development that’s required to prove 

out equivalent level of safety for the more complex operations that 

we can envisage today but can’t possibly—or can’t quite do yet. And 

NASA plays an important role in this. The FAA plays an important 

role in this. The DOD has successfully flown unmanned and 

manned aircraft in theatre for many, many years successfully and 

safely. They can learn from one another, and industry brings a lot 

of resources and technology to the table. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

So one of the key things is to make certain that all of that is well 

coordinated. And I think some outside pressure from—for the agencies to work together, I think, is always important. That’s beginning to happen now, and we’re very pleased with that, but I think 

there are resources, ultimately, that will be required. 

I know the fiscal constraints on the system require—make it difficult for new resources to be brought to the table, but we think 

that with the right coordination, with the right plan, we can do 

that, and I think that’s an appropriate role for Congress and this 

committee. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. 

I see my time is almost expired. So I will yield back to the chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Mr. Walker. 

Ms. Duckworth, you’re recognized. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to follow up on the see-and-avoid rules. 

Mr. Wynne, I think that your comparison to the military use is 

a little bit off mark because I was actually in charge of the State 

of Illinois National Guard’s attempt to establish the rules for flying 

shadow UAVs stateside. And we certainly had to comply with the 

keeping the aircraft in sight at all time rules under the FAA on flying it over restricted airspace only as well. And so the military actually has to—if we’re going to be flying those UAVs, actually follow the UAV in the air with another aircraft. And I don’t think 

that is something that the commercial entities are willing to do at 

this point. And I could be wrong. 

I do want to talk about the safety issue, and I think I’m going 

to direct most of my comments—my questions to Mr. Whitaker 

with the FAA. 

I was flying my aircraft over the Eastern Shore in the Patuxent 

Naval airspace area in contact with air traffic control the entire 

time. And I had an aircraft, a model aircraft, bust through the airspace 10 feet off the nose of my aircraft about 10 feet away in 

front. And I was flying at 2,500 feet. If this can happen with recreational model aircraft usage, I have real concerns about UAVs 

out there flying around. 

And I understand that you have commercial operations. This is 

something where they—what you’re trying to do is actually make 

it more regulated. And I would expect that commercial entities 

would be much more responsible about how they fly the aircraft. 

Are there any moves to require for commercial use the use of 

transponders on UAVs? 

Mr. WHITAKER. So you raise a lot of interesting issues. I think. 

In the small UAS rule, of course, there would be an aeronautical 

knowledge test requirement so your operators would be more sophisticated than the amateur operators. A lot of the operators on 

the amateur side are just not from the aviation sector and don’t 

even realize that they’ve entered the world of airspace when they 

open a box for this device. And that’s a real issue, which is why 

we have focused on public education and that type of thing. 

As far as the use of transponders, these devices, of course, come 

in all sizes. When you get to the small UAS, it—we’re not sure 

there’s going to be a technology that would allow that kind of equiVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:11 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96870.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

page. If you’re flying in airspace that requires a transponder, a 

UAS would have to have a transponder. Same for the new ADSV 

rules. But I think when you get to the smaller vehicles, you are 

really looking to systems that talk to each other and to vehicles 

around them to achieve that sense and avoid. 

Mrs. DUCKWORTH. Okay. So if I’m out there on my single-engine 

1959 Comanche, not with the most sophisticated—I’m going to 

have the correct transponders on it, but even a small UAS hitting 

the propeller of my aircraft will take me out. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Right. 

Mrs. DUCKWORTH. Even a small bird will take me out. Are you 

saying, then, that we are not looking to require some—it’s just— 

explain what you mean by—is it a transponder? Is it interrogating 

my aircraft? What is it doing? Because I want to know—here’s 

what I want. I as a pilot want to know if there’s UAS flying in my 

vicinity so I can see so that it shows up and I know that they’re 

there. And, two, if I get hit by one ofthese aircraft, I want to know 

who’s flying it. I want a serial number on that aircraft. I want the 

FAA to be able to find them and say: You just flew into actual general aviation or commercial aviation airspace. 

What is—is there anything in that rule—is there any attempt to 

go after that—those safety concerns? 

Mr. WHITAKER. So, right now, we are looking at rule separation 

and procedure separation. So, under the small UAS rule, the proposal would be below 500 feet. So you’re always going to be above 

500 feet, unless you’re around the airport. And the rule would require the UAS to be 5 miles away from an airport. So as long as 

they’re following the rules and you’re following the rules, you have 

separation. And you also have visual-line-of-sight VFR basic operations. That’s all that the rule contemplates. 

The other issues that you’re raising are some of the issues that 

we’ve been talking about that need additional research, need standardization, and a separate set of rules around those expanded operations. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Thank you. With the 30 seconds left that 

I have, I just want to put this out there, and I’ll put in a question 

for the record. If we’re going to talk about external load operations, 

I used to fly sling loads in helicopters. There are some significant 

restrictions. I would want to know what Amazon—and, Mr. Wynne, 

also—what your positions are on what are your jettisoning procedures for those loads, all of the issues that a helicopter with sling 

load operations would have to follow and adhere by as well. 

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. Hice. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, just kind of a point of clarification for me. I think 

the answer is yes, but I just want to be sure. Does the FAA or the 

administration actually have a plan for directing the traffic concerns, or is this something that’s being developed and still in process? Is there an actual plan? 

Mr. WHITAKER. There are two things I think you could put in 

that bucket. There’s a comprehensive plan that was developed in 

2013, and then there’s a 5-year roadmap that gets updated periodiVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:11 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96870.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

cally that provides sort of a master planning document, if you will, 

for—— 

Mr. HICE. So there is a plan. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. I thought that was going to be the answer, but 

it was a little confusing. 

Let me go, Mr. Cavolowsky, to you. Of course, we all know about 

the gyrocopter that went down here in the restricted D.C. area this 

past April. The technology that is being developed with you guys, 

would it have detected that gyrocopter? 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. So the research we’re doing regarding this 

UAS traffic management system is to enable the user of the system 

to be able to track and manage and plan flight routes within a very 

confined airspace. Others that are working—that are operating 

within that airspace would also be detected, but if they choose not 

to file a flight plan, they would not be managed by the UTM. So 

the opportunity for that system to identify that there is an operator 

who is not filing plans and not flying within the system can be 

alerted to the authorities—or, you know, through the system such 

that actions could be taken in order to address that. 

Mr. HICE. All right. Well, that’s no different than what we already have. It was detected with the technology we currently have. 

They thought it was an anomaly or some such kind of thing, and 

you’re saying, with your technology, it would be detected, but still 

nothing necessarily would have prevented what happened? 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. With the technology we are putting in place, 

that is correct. What our technology does is allow for the safe use 

of aircraft that are participating in the system to manage their trajectories, to be aware of other aircraft, general aviation aircraft, 

traffic helicopters and the like that are flying there so that they 

can be safely avoided and the missions and the business objectives 

can be met. 

Mr. HICE. Does your technology differentiate between drones 

and, say, movement of birds or weather patterns of what have you? 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. There are radar systems that are being developed as part of this that would be able to detect other flying things 

of particular size. At this point, I’m not sure exactly how small that 

detection goes, but it would allow for identification, certainly, of 

small drones. 

Mr. HICE. All right. Mr. Whitaker, back to you, again. Just if I 

may ask different ones this question, but end of the day, who 

should control, own, manage the traffic management of UAS? Does 

this come down to NASA? Does it come down to the government? 

Does it come down to private enterprise or nonprofits? Where does 

this belong? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, we would envision that as NASA develops 

this UTM, we would go through a normal handover process and it 

would become part of our airspace that we would manage. 

Mr. HICE. All right. So you say FAA. 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. Yes. If I may, sir. That’s exactly correct. We 

have a very formal process we’ve developed with the FAA. We refer 

to them as research transition teams. We work closely with NASA 

researchers, NFA researchers. At the earliest stages of our development of concepts and technology, to be able to hand to them at deVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:11 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96870.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

termined times that we work by plan for that technology at technology readiness levels such that they have the opportunity to fit 

it into their overall program planning and the requisition process. 

So it’s very rigorous activity. We have had great success with that 

with other NextGen deliverables over the last half a dozen years. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So NASA’s developing the technology but the 

FAA would be using it, and ultimately the buck would stop there. 

Mr. WHITAKER. That’s correct. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. All right. 

Mr. Geiger, let me go back to you real quickly, just because I 

think the issues you’ve brought up are a great—grave concern constitutionally and to many others. And I’ve just got 20 seconds, but 

preemptively, what actions do you believe Congress needs to take 

in order to assure that both the First and the Fourth Amendment 

are not violated to U.S. citizens? 

Mr. GEIGER. For government UAS, we recommend legislation 

that establishes a due process standard for law enforcement use, 

and we think that, generally speaking, with some exceptions, that 

that standard should be a warrant when the UAS is used to surveil 

individuals in a personally identifiable way or private property. 

When it comes to commercial UAS, we think that the First 

Amendment is going to constrain the scope of any sort of privacy 

regulation, and you could start with common law privacy torts, 

which have a highly offensive to a reasonable person or a reasonable expectation of privacy standard. But beyond that, it should be 

an industry code of conduct, which will, because it is voluntary, 

avoid the First Amendment issues. And I think that the goal ought 

to be to provide a reasonable privacy assurance to the public so 

that applications that have a low impact on civil liberties, such as 

commerce or scientific research, can grow and the industry itself 

will take off, so to speak. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Sir, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Ms. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. Do we have—Mr. Whitaker, do we 

have a proposed timeline for the—officially accepting these rules or 

the process to go through to modify them, make any corrections? 

Do we have a timeline? 

Mr. WHITAKER. So there’s a statutory 16-month timeframe from 

the close of comments, which was in April. We plan to move more 

quickly than that. We’ve got 4,500 comments that we’re adjudicating now, and our internal working target is to have the FAA 

portion of this finished by the end of the year so it can go into coordination with the administration and be out early next year. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. So many of you are aware that there is an app: 

I can call Siri, and I can say, ‘‘What’s flying above me,’’ and it will 

tell me what flights are above me in the sky and where they’re 

going, what airline it is. Do you anticipate any such app because 

my concern right now is, as a citizen, and there’s drones flying 

above me, how do I identify what they are and why they’re there 

and who they belong to? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

And that piece—it was interesting to me when this application 

was introduced to me. And I’m wondering if something similar to 

that will be required of the—this type of flying vehicle. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, in today’s world, if there’s a drone flying 

above you, it’s probably an amateur operator, and there’s no system 

to track who that is and where they’re going. It’s an unregulated— 

by statute, an unregulated sector of the market. 

As you move forward with more fully integrated operations in 

the controlled airspace, you would expect to have some ability to 

know who’s out there. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Well, you said you would expect. I want us to 

move toward the point of if there is a drone flying in my personal 

property space, that I as a citizen have the right to know who owns 

it, what’s their purpose, and there would be a way for me to, if I 

have any issues, to have a way as a citizen to process that concern. 

And that, to me, is a very high concern of mine and people that 

I talk to. 

So getting back to the public, what will be the process of educating the public? And I would like to ask Mr. Geiger. 

Mr. GEIGER. Geiger. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. What is the proposed process so that when we— 

I anticipate an increase in the number of drones that we’ll see. 

Where’s the education process? When we adopt the rules and we 

get them accepted, where’s the education of the public? 

Mr. GEIGER. I think that you’ll see education of the public from 

both government and private entities, and certainly there’s been a 

lot of media attention about it to—if the question is how will the 

public know when there’s a drone in their—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. What are my rights? 

Mr. GEIGER. Well, your rights are evolving, and I—as I said in 

my testimony, I think that your rights ought to be strengthened by 

Congress. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. 

Mr. GEIGER. When it comes to being able to tell whether or not— 

or what—identify a drone that is in your vicinity and where it’s 

going and so forth, we think that the industry and government 

ought to work on technology that will enable that sort of transparency for citizens. There—transponders would be one option, but 

I understand that there are technical limitations due to their 

weight. I understand also that NASA is working with Verizon to 

leverage cell towers and that may hold some promise, although 

that also depends on the network. In addition, we think that there 

are other technical measures that individuals could use to signal 

their privacy preferences. One is geofencing. So, for example, 

noflyzones.org is sort of nascent effort in that regard where you can 

delineate some property and say: We would prefer if you did not 

fly here. 

And I think there’s a variety of technologies that could get you 

there. I think that they are not quite yet ready for prime time, but 

I think what’s important is that industry and government continue 

to work on them. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. The other question, I have a few minutes, to 

Mr. Whitaker, in the rules, it talks about reporting an accident or 

damage within a certain amount of time. Will there be a requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:11 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96870.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

ment if you are licensed as a drone operator that you have insurance because if you—if your drone disables and then crashes on my 

property, or if there is a package being delivered and it destroys 

my prized rose garden or something, what will be the requirement 

for insurance? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Typically we do not regulate insurance requirements in aviation so we leave it up to individual operators for insurance. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I just want to say for the record that if we are 

going to allow—I find it interesting. You don’t require airlines to 

have insurance? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Airlines have insurance for their own reasons, 

and most general aviation pilots have insurance for their own reasons. We’re prohibited from regulating model aircraft, amateur aircraft operations. So we would not be allowed by statute to have 

that provision. But as a rule, we don’t get into that area of requirement. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. So if there was an accident, it was reported in 

10 days, what happens? 

Mr. WHITAKER. What happens with respect to? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. FAA would just have a record of it. It would not 

be any—any requirement for drone operators to be insured? 

Mr. WHITAKER. And there typically is a—will be a reporting requirement for accidents, and we investigate the cause of accidents 

but don’t get involved in adjudicating liability. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. My time is up, but I just want to say for the 

record that that is a concern of mine. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

We’ll now recognize long-suffering waiting and senior member 

and also former chairman of the Aviation subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 

don’t have any questions, but I do want to express some concerns, 

and to do that I want to read a couple of—read from a couple of 

articles that have come out just in the last few days. 

I’ve read several articles about drones over the last year, year 

and a half, but Bari Weinberger, who’s a lawyer who specializes in 

this area wrote a few days ago: For example, will a drone scheduled to deliver your overnight package be allowed to collect information about you during drop off. And if so, what kind of data? 

With drone technology advancing at a fast and furious pace, there 

are now UAVs with the ability to record video and audio, use facial 

recognition technology and collect electronic data, including signals 

from cell phones, garage door openers and radio frequency identification data, RFID, a technology used in consumer credit cards. 

And he mentions a case in—and some cases in which they are 

now using drones in divorce cases. 

And then Jeramie Scott, who is the head of an organization 

called the Electronic Privacy Information Center, wrote a few days 

ago: The FAA has also failed to consider the data collection implications of commercial drones. In an age of Big Data, companies flying commercial drones will likely look to surreptitiously collect data 

as they fly around performing other tasks, such as delivering packages. We saw a similar occurrence when Google Street View cars 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

collected WiFi data while taking images for Google Maps. One company has already tested using drones to pinpoint cell phone and 

WiFi signals in order to identify customers for location-based advertising. 

And he goes on to say: There exists a lot of potential for the commercial use of drones, but there needs to be rules in place to protect against broad surveillance and data collection. That’s why 

more than 100 experts and civil liberties organizations petitioned 

the FAA to develop privacy rules for drones. The FAA denied the 

petition, and Epic has subsequently filed suit again the agency to 

force it to consider privacy. Currently voluntary best practices are 

being developed, but best practices will not establish meaningful 

privacy safeguards. 

There’s a lot of concern out there. Most people feel that we really 

don’t have much privacy left anymore anyway due to the Internet 

and all the modern technology and not just drones. But to show 

you how much concern there is, I understand that 10 states have 

now passed laws. And my own home State of Tennessee, which is 

a very pro-law-enforcement state, very pro-law-enforcement, the 

legislature passed a law banning law enforcement agencies from 

using drones to collect evidence, to do surveillance, except in extremely limited circumstances. And so what I’m hopeful is, is that 

to maybe the FAA and some of your organizations will take a look 

at all these State laws, because the States seem to be sort of taking 

the lead in this so far, and see if you can’t pick out some good 

things out of those State laws. 

And I think that, Mr. Misener, even companies that want to use 

this technology extensively, that because there is so much concern 

about privacy that you would be—your company would be well advised to try to come up with every possible way that you can to protect what limited—what little privacy or what very limited privacy 

people still have. 

And that’s all I’ve got to say, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for making those points. 

Did you want to response to any of that, Mr. Misener, or Mr.—— 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Duncan, I agree that a company like ours has to take privacy 

extremely responsibly. We’ve done it for 20 years now, and we’ll 

certainly extend those kinds of privacy protections with respect to 

Amazon Prime Air, which, of course, is a delivery service, not a 

surveillance operation. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Geiger. 

Mr. GEIGER. If people don’t think that they have much privacy 

now, they should just wait for the new class of technologies that 

will enable very intrusive physical surveillance. That’s just coming. 

The examples that you read are indeed troubling, and I glad that 

you mentioned in those passages that there are other types of surveillance that can be enabled by drones besides just video observation. They can be outfitted with an array of sensors that include, 

for example, cell phone tower emulators that we saw the Federal 

Government use these on tens of thousands of individuals just in 

the past year. 

In terms of how to provide individuals with that kind of privacy, 

you know, the privacy torts get you some, but, again, it’s limited 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

because it’s limited to a reasonable—reasonable—what is highly offensive to a reasonable person standard. And it is unclear the degree to which Congress can directly regulate those kinds of uses 

without violating the First Amendment right to collect data in public places. 

However, we think that the industry should take the lead and in 

a strong and enforceable code of conduct. And, unfortunately, the 

existing codes of conducts are not sufficient for that purpose. 

You mentioned your State laws. States are indeed taking the 

lead on privacy laws, but the—and part of that is because of Federal inertia in response to the concerns of their citizens. But the 

patchwork of State privacy laws is also going to be difficult for the 

industry to navigate, particularly for a technology like UAS, which 

could fly between the borders of individual States. So I think that 

providing some sort of regulatory certainty with regard to privacy 

will benefit both individuals as well as commerce. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for holding this hearing. It really raises some 

pretty fundamental questions about the future and values and 

parts of our philosophy we thought were settled. 

And I think, Mr. Geiger, you’re quite right to raise the flag on, 

what does privacy mean as we move toward the future? I mean, 

even a commercial drone whose mission is purely the delivery of a 

good could be equipped with surveillance equipment and actually 

penetrate the walls of a house and look into what’s going on. Now, 

technology isn’t far away from being able to do that. I’m not arguing anyone would do that, but we’re going to—you know, and the 

proliferation of drones is going to make it very difficult to enforce 

even those regulations we ultimately adopt. So it’s a fascinating 

frontier kind of issue for us, and I don’t think we have easy answers yet. But I thank you so much for helping highlight them. 

Mr. Whitaker, I was listening to Mrs. Lawrence, and before I ask 

Mr. Misener some questions about Amazon and their operation, 

what is—if I’m a homeowner, how high up do I go in my property 

control? Can someone fly 500 feet from my roof? 

Mr. WHITAKER. So I think, as Mr. Geiger has—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m going to ask all of you please to speak into 

the mic and move it closer. 

Mr. WHITAKER. So I think Mr. Geiger articulated earlier, it’s a 

bit unsettled. Clearly, if it’s 500 feet above your house, it’s federally 

regulated airspace. And when federally regulated airspace was defined decades and decades ago, there was no thought of a gray 

area. But I think now we’re probably facing a gray area. But by 

statute, all the airspace is Federal airspace and regulated federally. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So if a commercial drone is flying within 3 feet 

of my roof, is that federally regulated airspace? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think you’re pushing at those gray areas. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. Yeah. I just think we’re going to have to 

revisit that too because, I mean, presumably if somebody’s flying 

in to deliver fine chocolates and French bubbly to my neighbor, did 

I mention fine chocolates and French bubbly, you know, they may 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
80 

need to get close to land, if that’s what they’re doing, and they may 

be violating, from my point of view, my—they’re trespassing. 

They’re trespassing on my property, including above my roof. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think these are real issues and the legal structure hasn’t had to address them—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So we’ve got legal issues, and we’ve got 

privacy issues, and we got constitutional issues, and we got commercial issues, and we got economic issues, and all kinds of issues. 

Mr. Misener, Amazon’s been vocal about its concerns regarding 

the FAA proposed rule, and Amazon argues, ‘‘Overly prescriptive 

restrictions are likely to have the unintended effect of stifling innovation and, over time, will fail to offer any corresponding safety 

benefits as small UAS technology evolves.’’ 

How do you believe the proposed rule stifles innovation? And I’m 

going to ask you particularly to speak into the mic. Thank you. 

Mr. MISENER. Mr. Connolly, I will speak directly in. Thank you. 

We believe that it’s overly prescriptive in the sense that it draws 

distinctions between—within visual-line-of-sight and beyond-visualline-of-sight kinds of operations in a way that is just artificial. I 

mean, both should be subjected to a risk- and performance-based 

analysis. Certainly the risks involved in beyond-visual-line-of-sight 

operations are greater than those within visual line of sight. Highly 

automated operations require higher performance than less automated operations. Those are very clear. 

But the method of analyzing the different kinds of operations 

should be identical, and so we are concerned that the NPRM tends 

to just cut those ones off and proscribe them, just basically say: 

We’re not going to deal with them. 

Now, Mr. Whitaker said the FAA is going to get to them. We’re 

just suggesting that they get to them now and consider all these 

types of operations simultaneously, acknowledging that there are 

different risks involved and different performance requirements 

necessary to mitigate those risks. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I understand that Amazon’s offered to actually 

show on a pilot basis that some of the concerns being discussed in 

the rulemaking can be managed without overly prescriptive regulation, including a line of sight, including multiple drone operation, 

and other such issues. 

Is that the case, that you’ve offered to do that kind of pilot program? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, sir, in a variety of ways. We’re working closely with NASA. In fact, we’ll be a keynote presenter at your conference at the end of July, and, you know, the Pathfinder Project 

being undertaken by BNSF, that’s something looks interesting to 

us. Some—figure out a way to—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But, I mean, have you made that proposal to Mr. 

Whitaker and his colleagues that why don’t you let us show you 

how it can be done safely before you adopt a final rule? 

Mr. MISENER. Yeah, I think these are parallel paths. One is to 

show the technology, the other is to work on the rules. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Whitaker, is your—are you and your agency 

open to that kind of demonstration to at least evaluate the parameters and scope of what is doable and what is problematic? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think the Pathfinder Program, which did that 

with BNSF, is the kind of program we need to have to prove those 

technologies. So we certainly are open to that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I—if the chair will allow one final question, 

another provision you have expressed concern about, Mr. Misener, 

Amazon, that is to say, is the requirement that one operator control no more than one drone system at a time. Why do you believe 

that’s too restrictive? 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Because the technology 

exists so that a single operator could allow—could oversee the operation of multiple UAVs, and it—just to restrict one drone to one operator is just overly restrictive and certainly unnecessary, from a 

technological—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Whitaker that sounds reasonable on Amazon’s part. I mean, I look at FAA controllers. We don’t say to an 

FAA controller: You follow one plane coming in or going out. That’s 

it. Because, otherwise, we don’t believe you’ve got control, and it 

taxes the system. 

Maybe that’s not a perfect analogy, but technology kind of does 

allow us to do more than one thing at a time. What’s wrong with 

Amazon’s point of view on that? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think that we will get there in certain circumstances. I mean, right now, you have two pilots in each airplane and you have controllers, and in a new system, you—if it’s 

a large aircraft, certainly there will be one per aircraft, but if it’s 

quite small, there could be scenarios where it’s multiple units, but 

the technology has to be proven, standards have to be developed, 

and then it comes into play. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

so much for having this hearing. I hope we have more of them, 

frankly, because I think we’ve just begun to look at new territory. 

Mr. MICA. It’s an important subject. 

Mr. Hurd. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In 2001, when I was under the tutelage of Ambassador Hank 

Crumpton and we were prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, the 

CIA, the Counterterrorism Center and Special Operations Division 

kind of was the innovator in the use of drones in operations. Right? 

You know, we had Air Force bird Army ordnance under the operational control of the CIA. Something like that had never happened. And almost 15 years ago, when we were doing that, I never 

would have thought that I’d be sitting somewhere talking about 

using UAVs to monitor, you know, the herds of cattle in west Texas 

or having fine chocolate or bubbly delivered to Mr. Connolly’s 

neighbor. So this is an exciting time. 

But one of my concerns is, you know, one of the things that’s 

made this country great is we’re always on the edge of innovation. 

You know, we have the greatest entrepreneurs in the world, and 

my question is to Mr. Wynne. Are—in the development of this technology, is the U.S. leading on this? Do we have other competitors? 

Are there other countries that are beating us? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, it’s a great question, sir, and thank you for 

your service. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
82 

I would say simply that this is a global phenomenon. UAS are 

really being taken up at very rapid pace around the world for a variety of different reasons. And, ultimately, we want global harmonization of the regulations so that there is safe and responsible flight 

everywhere. 

I would say that we are—we have the potential to continue to 

lead in aviation innovation in this country. I think we’re on the 

right path to getting back to that. I think there had been a little 

bit of a culture clash from the technology world into the aviation 

world. I’m an aviator myself, as are some of the other panelists, 

and we appreciate the fact that, you know, that this is a different— 

a different type of approach to aviation. But there’s a lot of sky up 

there that can be used efficiently for an awful lot of things, and a 

lot of lives, frankly, that can be saved doing things that are very 

dangerous today that don’t need to be done by humans. So we call 

that enhancing human potential. 

Mr. HURD. So my next question is to Mr. Misener. You know, the 

possibility—when I came up to D.C. from Texas this week, I forgot 

my running shoes. And the idea of possibly having those delivered 

by an Amazon UAV within a couple of hours is pretty interesting. 

But you’ve heard a lot of these privacy concerns that we’ve talked 

about here. And they’re valid. And this is going to continue to be 

an issue. How are you all, I think one of the things you all are 

leading in this area in commercial development, how are you planning to gain the trust of the American people? 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Hurd. 

It’s a core question about this service for anyone who is responsibly pursuing the commercial activity here. We have to engender 

trust. And the trust on privacy matters that we’ve garnered over 

the past 20 years is because—has been a result of our focus on consumer information privacy. And we will continue to that when it 

comes to Amazon Prime Air. 

We are strongly supportive of the NTIA process. And we’re going 

to be participating in that and, hopefully, developing solid, serious, 

best practices for an entire industry. 

Mr. HURD. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Cavolowsky, the question to you is on this UAS traffic management system that you all are working on, what are kind of the 

main challenges you all have left that are the barriers to the deployment of the system? 

Mr. CAVOLOWSKY. So many of the same concerns that have been 

brought up by other panelists are things that we need to address 

in a technological fashion. So these are very complex software systems where there is coordinated interaction among the aircraft. 

Being able to verify and validate that they are safely, providing 

that safe separation is a critical challenge. Ensuring safe operations for all UAS but also other general aviation aircraft in that 

airspace is also a technical challenge we need to step up to, certainly beyond line of sight. 

And another key element that has been brought up by the panel 

is the challenge of the first and last 50 feet of flight. In particular, 

the last 50 feet, if you will, with the interaction or potential interaction with property and people. The elements of the control of the 

management of that safely in an environment that can be unpreVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:11 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96870.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
83 

dictable is a major element of what we’re trying to develop technology solutions around and procedural solutions around. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And, waiting patiently, I want to recognize the lady from New 

Mexico, Ms. Lujan Grisham. 

Thank you for your patience. You’re recognized. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to 

thank you for the hearing. 

And I agree that we ought to have potentially more of the hearings because there’s a broad base set of issues that do need to be 

addressed. And there needs to be a regulatory environment to do 

that. 

I certainly agree that we want to deal with the public safety 

issues. We want to deal with the privacy issues. But there’s a real 

opportunity to enhance the economic benefits and making sure that 

that’s addressed in a meaningful and balanced way. 

I represent a State that has been very slow to recover from the 

2008 recession. In fact, we’ve got the slowest recovery rate in the 

country. And we’ve got a company, Volo Pervidi, that has just gotten FAA approval. Our office worked with you all to do that, to do 

the kind of mapping and the kind of work that we’re hearing a lot 

about in today’s hearing. And not only are they talking about the 

vast economic opportunity in our State, and whenever I have an 

opportunity to talk about jobs, that’s the number one priority, but 

they talk about nationally that the billions of dollars that could be 

generated—so I appreciate having Google here at the table—by 

these investments. 

There’s also a public safety factor that I don’t want to ignore, not 

just in the regulatory environment that we need to proceed with for 

unmanned aircraft, but if we’re using them to assess problems on 

the Golden Gate Bridge or we’re using them to inspect power lines, 

we’re creating a public safety benefit by not having to use workers 

to do that work directly and physically, which is high risk and continues to be problematic. When I think about liability for companies and governments and local governments and utility companies, it’s significant. So I’m seeing great opportunity. And, with 

that, there is risk. 

I have really two questions. You’ve been working to address that 

you recognize there’s got to be a thoughtful but balanced approach. 

And as a former long-time and I would like to think effective bureaucrat for 17 years, bureaucracies don’t always find themselves 

in the most flexible environment. And the problem here is that this 

technology is changing every minute, probably every second, as all 

technology does. 

And in the thoughtful process that you all have to address privacy and public safety and managing that airspace productively 

and encouraging companies to come forward and give you ideas so 

we’re not thwarting those economic, valuable economic investments, by the time you make those rules, arguably, they could be 

outdated. 

What is your process for thinking about making sure that this 

is a fluid, ongoing environment so that we avail ourselves of every 

opportunity without mitigating our responsibility to manage proVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:11 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96870.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
84 

ductively for my constituents and for the country real risks associated with any aircraft? 

Mr. Whitaker, maybe that’s something for you. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think several times this morning it’s been mentioned that we need a risk-based and a performance-based regulatory system. And that’s very much, we’re all very much aligned 

on that point. We don’t want to necessarily tell you how you’re 

going to achieve certain levels of safety, but we want to define 

what those are and what the necessary standards are to get there. 

So when we, for example, get to a final rule, then it will provide 

parameters. And in the operations within those parameters, we 

don’t have to guess what they might be. They’ll be allowed as long 

as they continue to be safe. As we continue to expand the acceptable range of operations, that same principle will apply. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. And maybe, Mr. Wynne, what can Congress 

do that is more productive in this environment, that provides both 

productive resources and investments in just exactly this, this sort 

of risk assessment and performance model? What is Congress’ role 

here? And what can we do to enhance these efforts? 

Mr. WYNNE. I appreciate the question. I think the point that I’ve 

been laboring to articulate here is that the economic opportunity is 

not just immediate, it needs to be sustainable. And so all of the 

questions that we’re discussing, in technology, we call it a binary 

conversation. Really cool technology can do a lot of good stuff, but 

we have safety, we have security, we have privacy questions. We 

go through this with every technology pretty much. And the same 

kinds of questions Mr. Geiger is bringing up can also be applied on 

a technology-specific basis to license-plate readers. They can be applied to body cameras. They can be applied in a whole bunch of 

technology contexts. 

The industry needs to do this in a way that’s sustainable. Otherwise, it won’t work. And I agree with Mr. Misener when he said 

it’s in our customer—it’s in our interest to make certain that our 

customer’s privacy is protected. And it’s in our interest also, as an 

industry, to make certain that we can do this on a sustained basis. 

Incidents, mishaps, et cetera, while they are common in aviation 

and we learn from them, we don’t want them. And we’re doing our 

best to make certain that we maintain the extremely high level of 

safety going forward. 

To your question, ma’am, I think all of this comes back to FAA 

reauthorization, which is an extremely important matter before 

Congress immediately. And we have submitted for the record of the 

Transportation Committee what we think is important in that regard. So I won’t enumerate that here. But I think it’s also really 

important for the safety of the entire system that we do that on 

time. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Fair enough. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Thank you for the panel. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And thank you for your patience. 

I want to thank our panel too. 

I’ve got a couple of quick points. One, okay, Mr. Whitaker, you 

testified today that it would, in 1 year, you would have the rule 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
85 

out. Is that going to be September 30 of 2016? Or is that going to 

be June 17 of 2016? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Hopefully before June 17, 2016. 

Mr. MICA. That’s 1 year from today. We’ll note that in the record. 

And I’ll ask the staff to schedule a hearing in June of next year. 

And we’ll see how we’re going there. 

I think you got to have milestones to get things done. I put a 

milestone in the bill, which was September of this year. It’s not 

going to be met. And we’re operating on sort of a helter-skelter 

basis with these waivers and exemptions. And you told me you 

have been doing about 50 a week, is it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. That’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. So 50 a week. We’ve got 10 weeks; there’s 500. By the 

time of next year, we should be doing how many? Several thousand 

at that rate. So we’ll have a patchwork of exemptions and waivers 

until we get to the final rule, I mean, if you keep it up at that rate. 

WHITAKER. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Just an assumption. See, that’s not totally acceptable. 

I know you have to have something in the interim. The other thing 

too is the Office of Inspector General published this report June 26, 

2014, with a list of recommendations. I’ve got—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 

8, 9, 10—11 major recommendations by OIG. Now, I have a report 

as of June—that’s this month—of 2015. All of these are unmet. All 

of these are unmet. Some were supposed to be achieved and accomplished by—here’s one, October 30, 2014. I’m going to submit to 

you and FAA this list. And within the time, we’re keeping the 

record open for 10 days, I want a response that will be in the 

record of—make certain—that this is your response to OIG. But I 

want to make certain that that is in the record and confirm when 

you will achieve the recommendations that OIG put in their audit 

from 2014 that they’re giving me this report on, this month, 2015. 

Mr. MICA. Do you see what I want? Any questions? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. 

Mr. MICA. In the record by the time—again, we’re going to do another hearing a year out. You said you’re going to do that. These 

are important milestones that OIG identified a year ago to be completed. And I want that report in the record so that we have these 

milestones met. 

All right. The final thing, you talked about, Mr. Misener, that 

sensor and avoidance technologies, now, they’re important because 

you can put these things up, you testified, and you have technology 

either being developed or on the shelf that can avoid collisions or 

incidents. Is that correct? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. But those systems have to be approved by FAA 

for use, wouldn’t they, Mr. Whitaker? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. We’ll have to verify the technology. 

Mr. MICA. See, this goes back to my point at the beginning, I 

think the last member, too, raised this technology is changing dramatically. But we have a failure of the law to keep up with rules 

and regulations to keep up. So we’re going to have to have some 

mechanism to make certain that, in fact, the equipment that can 

avoid risk, avoid a disaster, avoid collision is certified in a manner. 

Do you have a separate office to certify this type of equipment? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
86 

Mr. WHITAKER. We certify aircraft on a number of fronts. And ultimately—— 

Mr. MICA. I know. But that is also, I hear lots of complaints, how 

long it takes for certification, how further behind we’re falling. But 

we’re doing an FAA bill, we’re doing FAA appropriations. We need 

to make sure that you have the resources, that you set in place a 

mechanism to quickly certify the technologies or do it in some reasonable fashion. The problem you’ve got now is by the time they 

get the damn technology done and you get it approved, there will 

be another technology right behind it that is even faster. So we’re 

falling further behind in our certification of equipment that will 

avoid disaster. 

Do you see what I’m saying? FAA doesn’t look very prospectively 

or how they’re going to sometimes handle these things. If this is 

all just rolled into normal FAA certification, I don’t think it’s going 

to succeed. So if you have a recommendation or something you 

want to come back at, what you need to beef up, if you need to separate out, if we need someone in FAA focused on this for the future—at stake is, one, safety, and two is our entering the commercial age, which this is all about. But you can’t do that unless you’ve 

got the rules, the certification, and keeping up with the technology. 

They’ll find a way to get that, I thought you said chopped liver— 

Hurd said chopped liver, but it was fine chocolates to Mr. Connolly. 

I had a little fun with that. But, in any event, whatever we’re delivering, it’s a commercial opportunity and a great economic boost. 

Okay. So those are my quick questions. It’s amazing what we’ve 

done. They’ve already flown an unmanned vehicle—or an aerial vehicle from Australia to Los Angeles, a cargo plane, without a pilot. 

And then another thing too is certifying the pilots because there 

are different categories of what is going up there, but different categories of who should be qualified if they’re not in the drone but 

they’re piloting the drone. We’ve got to make certain we’ve got the 

rules in place so those people also have the qualifications. 

But I’m afraid we’re not keeping up with it. And we’ve got to be 

able to set it in law in the FAA reauthorization or wherever. And 

then we haven’t even talked about the privacy issue here. Again, 

I go back to the problem we had when we developed this, we were 

told no to privacy; it was a different domain and jurisdiction. But 

that is very important. And I’ll look at the proposed legislation and 

the other things you mentioned. But, again, the Transportation 

Committee was not allowed to go down that path. But it’s a serious 

one we need to address. 

I think that those are some of the major issues. And we’ll look 

forward to your responses. We’ll make certain the staff gives you 

a copy of this list. And we want that in the record. 

Again, I thank each of you for participating, our members for 

their patience. It was a productive hearing and hopefully move this 

all forward together. 

There being no further business before the full Committee on 

Government Reform and Oversight, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(87) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
88 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 96870.043
89 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 96870.044
90 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 96870.045
91 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 96870.046
92 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 96870.047
93 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 96870.048
94 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 96870.049
95 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 96870.051
96 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 96870.052