Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
02/12/2014 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB218 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 255-UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
2:26:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT announced the next order of business would
be House Bill 255, "An Act relating to unmanned aircraft
systems; and relating to images captured by an unmanned aircraft
system." [Before the committee is CSHB 47(STA)]
2:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHELLY HUGHES, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 255, explained that the
bill is the result of recommendations by the Unmanned Aircraft
Systems Legislative Task Force that met over the interim and
received input from the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The
bill allows the University of Alaska to establish a training
program for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and
speaks to law enforcement operation requirements for use in
criminal investigations, the retention of images, and provides
definitions. Unmanned aircraft systems are an emerging
technology and the task force believes it is important to
harness it for good and at the same time attend to privacy
issues. She opined that Alaska is fortunate to have explicit
[privacy] provisions in its state constitution that are actually
stronger than those in the U.S. Constitution. She noted the
bill applies to DPS and all law enforcement agencies, including
at the local level. Since unmanned aircraft is becoming more
affordable and potentially something that local law enforcement
agencies might decide to use, although she was unaware of any
using it at this time, she opined that it is important to apply
the bill across the board.
2:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested the definition of an unmanned
aircraft pilot and crewmember.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES directed Representative LeDoux to the
definitions located on page 3, of the bill.
2:30:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there is someone on the
ground pushing a lever that causes the unmanned aircraft to fly.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) addresses all of the safety and operations regarding use
of unmanned aircraft. In response to Representative LeDoux,
Representative Hughes explained there must be a certified pilot
on the ground operating a computer or device and there must be
an observer as well. She further explained that one of the
reasons the legislature set up the task force, she opined, was
that there will be manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft all in
the same air space, and thus the need for qualified crews. She
added there is a target date of 2015 to begin to integrate
unmanned aircraft into national airspace.
2:32:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned if the crew would be an
assistant to the pilot who is the operator.
2:32:41 PM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, specified the definitions of a pilot and
crewmember and unmanned aircraft are consistent with federal
law. She explained that the pilot of an unmanned aircraft is
someone who is actually trained as an airline pilot and able to
speak to an FAA tower as a pilot who understands the language of
operating an aircraft in national air space. Ms. Blaisdell
described the crewmember as a good "gamer," someone who could
work a computer console well, follow the aircraft while watching
it on a screen, read responses coming through the computer, and
determine how to guide the unmanned aircraft and direct it. She
expressed that the combination of an individual with excellent
computer skills and a pilot are the two people needed to operate
an unmanned aircraft.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised then that it is similar to a
grownup computer game except that it involves serious
consequences if the individuals make a mistake.
2:34:00 PM
MS. BLAISDELL pointed out that currently the pilot and crew
member are discussed as being on the ground because that is the
most typical place unmanned aircraft is being used at this
point. However, Representative Hughes's office recently
received an article denoting a crewmember and pilot in a Cessna
following and chasing an unmanned aircraft to determine if they
have "sense and avoid" technology. There is no human, she
emphasized, in the unmanned aircraft.
2:34:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES, in response to Representative LeDoux,
confirmed that there could be future unmanned aircraft with
passengers and no pilot. In fact, Mrs. Ro Bailey, Special
Projects Coordinator, University of Alaska Fairbanks, was in a
military aircraft in which the pilot let go of the controls and
a pilot controlled the aircraft on the ground.
2:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that unmanned aircraft are
not that unusual as a missile is an unmanned aircraft and roller
coasters are controlled from the ground. However, he suggested
that for a large bomb, a pilot and co-pilot would seem necessary
in case the pilot has a heart attack, for instance.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES related that the FAA will be addressing
such issues. Currently, there are six test sites, including one
in Alaska, that are working out issues so regulations can be
defined and refined. She said she was not familiar with FAA
regulations regarding manned aircraft, but suggested the size of
the unmanned aircraft may be part of its decision.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN advised that when he flew a F94C in the
military, the aircraft had "data link" and could then be
controlled by another pilot on the ground. In fact, the space
shuttle, although manned can land itself.
2:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT addressed whether the bill limits the size
of the unmanned aircraft or is the legislature was waiting on
the federal government to determine the size.
2:40:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES explained that although there is nothing
in HB 255 to restrict the size, the FAA does have very stringent
restrictions that nothing can be dropped from an aircraft, in
order to avoid an unmanned aircraft being used as a weapon.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT queried as to whether conversations are
taking place regarding commercial viability as in transporting
items to rural areas or were there still limitations on that at
this point.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES advised that although the goal is to open
up national air space for unmanned aircraft for commercial use,
currently it was only for public entities. She recalled that
DPS is considering an [unmanned aircraft with a size of] around
50 pounds. She then informed the committee of the first two
incidents in which unmanned aircraft were used in the U.S. In
August 2013 unmanned aircraft were used twice in Alaska by the
oil industry; the unmanned aircraft had about a 9-10 foot wing
span and weighed less than 50 pounds.
2:42:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, referring to the proposed language in AS
18.65.902, acknowledged the task force is considering a number
of hypotheticals and specific parameters, but inquired as to
what the expectations are regarding law enforcement utilization
for these types of aircraft.
2:44:04 PM
LIEUTENANT STEVE ADAMS, Statewide Search and Rescue Coordinator,
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, responded
that the primary missions within DPS for which unmanned aircraft
would be used is for the mapping of serious injury or fatal
traffic collisions. The unmanned aircraft would save time,
particularly in locations such as the Seward Highway or Glenn
Highway where there are no other routes to reroute traffic. The
unmanned aircraft could be utilized in search and rescue
missions in dangerous places such as rough canyons or rivers
where officers would not place anyone on the ground and it would
be too dangerous for a manned aircraft. Unmanned aircraft would
be used in situations such as Amber alerts, Silver alerts,
hazardous material spills, natural disasters, and terrorism
incidents, situations in which it would be dangerous to use a
manned aircraft to look at a possible explosive, and also for
situational awareness for barricaded individuals who are armed.
2:45:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT posed a scenario in which DPS flies the
unmanned aircraft system over a home with a barricaded
individual in an attempt to understand the situation and obtain
feedback and during the fly over captures a crime taking place
two houses away. He asked whether DPS could utilize those
images and the information obtained to arrest individuals
committing a crime separate from the original intent for the
unmanned aircraft.
LIEUTENANT ADAMS characterized the situation as a complicated
legal question and that he believes is for the courts to decide.
Currently, DPS faces has the same types of situations without
unmanned aircraft and those are often addressed in evidentiary
hearings, he related.
2:47:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES pointed out that this legislation is
trying to be neutral on technology since it is a tool that is
not good or bad itself. As Lieutenant Adams mentioned, DPS uses
cameras on a pole, buildings, and vehicles to receive the same
type of images and the legislation tries not to single out the
unmanned aircraft in a manner that penalizes it.
2:48:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the only
change embodied in CSHB 255 (STA) is the deletion of the
language on page 2, lines 24-26, of the original bill.
2:49:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES confirmed that was the only change and was
unnecessary as all of the important pieces of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, Recommended Guidelines for the
Use of Unmanned Aircraft is included in the legislation. In
further response to Representative Gruenberg, Representative
Hughes advised the operation requirements specifies law
enforcement can use an unmanned aircraft outside of a criminal
investigation. Furthermore, the operations requirements ensure
that individual Alaskans' privacy protections are upheld, she
opined.
2:52:03 PM
DEAN DAWSON, Statewide Archivist, Statewide Archives and
Museums, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
advised that state records law, AS 40.21, does require state
agencies to retain their records in accordance with a schedule.
Mr. Dawson contended that according to state law, the Department
of Public Safety would have to retain images under law and under
records retention schedules as the images do constitute state
records material. For example, murder cases filed under the
Department of Law's retention schedules are retained for 50
years and all other felonies are retained for 10 years. If
these images were used as evidence the images would need to be
retained for a certain length of time and, therefore, Mr. Dawson
expressed concerned that using the "negative" in proposed AS
18.65.903 might not be in compliance with state records laws.
2:53:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the language on believed page 3,
lines 7-10, would cover Mr. Dawson's concerns.
MR. DAWSON responded that it would cover his concerns, but it
was "kind of flip flopped" in that if it is a public record it
"shall" be retained according to a specific retention timeframe.
He felt it somewhat connoted that these images are not records
when in fact they are records and even though the images may be
ephemeral or transitory they are still record material. He
acknowledged privacy concerns with personal information, but
believed the public had an interest in knowing the state is
retaining records as per its policies.
2:54:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Mr. Dawson, the bill
sponsor, and legal counsel could review whether language changes
are necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his preference for the bill's
language as he did not want the images retained unless there is
a specific reason. He further related his preference for as
little as possible is retained. He characterized it as privacy
and cost issue.
2:55:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that images are being captured
everywhere. For instance, the Boston Marathon bombing culprits
were arrested and incarcerated due to images captured by video
cameras on the street. He noted those images could well have
been captured by an unmanned vehicle, if available.
2:56:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised from Mr. Dawson's remarks that
the language on page 3 of the bill may be superseded by law
already on the books that require images to be retained.
Therefore, to achieve Representative Pruitt's desire the
language would have to be changed. To that end, he suggested
that possibly a committee member could review the matter with
Mr. Svobodny to determine whether both the Department of Law and
the State Archivist's Office could be accommodated in this bill
or the public record's law.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the language on page 3,
line 7, addresses specific situations such as murder
investigations in which records need to be retained. With
regard to Representative Pruitt's concerns, other statutes that
may require records be retained may be. However, for purposes
of this bill, Representative LeDoux said she did not see a
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified he did not necessarily see a
problem with the language, but the archivist has expressed a
concern.
2:59:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT announced public testimony open would be
left open and HB 255 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 218 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 ver. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Proposed Amendment A.2.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Legal Memo re Amendment A.2.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Leg. Legal Memo.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Supporting Document~AS 12.55.155.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Fiscal Note Court System.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Fiscal Note~DOC.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Fiscal Note~Law.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Fiscal Note~OPA.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Fiscal Note~Public Defender Agency.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| CSHB 255 ver. C work draft.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |