Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/25/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR15 | |
| HB210 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Relating to the continuation of the Task Force on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
8:33:57 AM
GINGER BLAISDELL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SHELLY HUGHES,
reported that HCR 15 extended the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) for an additional three years. The extension
coincided with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
campus selected as a UAS test site. She described the
composition of the task force. The task force was comprised
of seven members; state employees, legislators, one member
from the Aviation Advisory Board, and one member form the
Academy of Model Aeronautics [Alaska Chapter]. She detailed
that the sponsor added the commissioner [or designee] of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT) because of the departments role as the liaison
between the state and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), and one additional public member. In addition, an
amendment that was adopted in the House Labor and Commerce
Committee added three seats; two industry professionals
from unmanned aircraft systems, and the commissioner or
designee from Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development.
Ms. Blaisdell elaborated that the legislation expanded the
duties of the task force to include investigating
complaints and concerns regarding unmanned aircraft and
identification of potential privacy problems. She relayed
that safeguarding Alaskans privacy was a main focus of the
task force. Public education regarding unmanned aircraft
was another expanded role hoped to allay the public's fears
of the new technology. Part of the university's role as a
test site would be to hold public hearings as per agreement
with the federal government. The task force previously held
meetings two that included public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed concern that the two additional
industry members were considered public members. He wanted
to avoid public misperception about their role in the
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, agreed. She voiced
that the amendment was made in the House Labor and Commerce
Committee. She suggested that one member could be
designated as a public member and the other member could be
chosen from industry.
Co-Chair Austerman revealed that he flew model airplanes.
He asked how the legislation would affect the public's use
of model aircraft.
Representative Hughes answered that different rules applied
to the flying of model aircraft which fly under 400 feet.
The task force was concerned with the integration of
unmanned aircraft allowed into national airspace by 2016.
She noted that an unmanned aircraft can also fly under 400
feet but would be differentiated for public or commercial
purposes where model aircraft was considered recreational.
The same UAS technology could be used by hobbyist.
Co-Chair Austerman expressed additional concern about the
legislation affecting recreational users.
Representative Hughes stated that the legislative task
force would have no jurisdiction over hobby aircraft.
Representative Costello asked about the fiscal note, FN1
(LEG). She cited the analysis that listed numerous
commission meetings and public hearings in addition to new
members. She wondered whether the fiscal note appropriation
was sufficient to cover expenses and member's travel.
Representative Hughes replied that last year's task force
costs were absorbed by the members. She mentioned that her
legislative account covered the refreshments. The members
of the task force were willing to continue to serve and
absorb the costs.
Ms. Blaisdell stated that the only costs incurred last year
were two mileage tickets used for staff participation. The
current legislation costs were calculated based on last
year and additional funds were added for a potential bush
or Fairbanks member. Most members were from the Anchorage
area. The sponsor anticipated holding only two or three in-
person meetings, which involved travel.
Representative Costello expressed additional concern. She
wondered whether new public members would be aware of
accepting the financial costs of travel and expenses. She
thought that the fiscal note was inadequate for the
potential costs of the task force expansion and the public
hearing. She wished to further address the costs and fiscal
note.
Co-Chair Stoltze applauded the task force for cutting the
corners and saving money.
Representative Hughes stated that last year she
intentionally kept costs low.
8:45:13 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
STEVE COLLIGAN, ALASKA PRESIDENT OF ACADEMY OF MODEL
AERONAUTICS (via teleconference), supported the
legislation. He stated that he was a member of the task
force. The academy was in existence for 78 years and guided
self-regulation of recreational model aeronautics. Over the
years many technological changes had taken place. His
mission was to separate recreational and commercial use and
protect model aeronautics. The academy fostered youth and
student interest in technology, science, and math. He noted
that little distinguished a model from a commercial
unmanned aerial. The intent or operation of the unmanned
aircraft typically differentiated recreational unmanned
aircraft. He related that unmanned autonomous systems were
once very expensive but currently could be built for
several thousand dollars. The academy was on a mission to
provide the instruction and self-regulation of unmanned
aircraft. The academy wanted to ensure that "best
practices" were being followed responsibly by the user. He
noted that the organization was proactive in helping the
recreational operator know the airspace rules and FCC
regulations.
Mr. Colligan voiced that last year the task force addressed
public safety and privacy. The task force examined the
state's laws related to privacy concerns over unmanned
aircraft and felt the laws were adequate except for a few
minor administrative issues. He qualified that the unmanned
aircraft technology would continue to evolve. He saw the
task force as a common sense approach to filter new
information and coordinate the activities at the
university. He discussed that new small unmanned aircraft
were used to develop three dimensional models used for
surveying and mapping and augmented aerial photography and
satellite imagery. The use of unmanned aircraft in mapping
was cost effective but was currently illegal for profit. He
mentioned the use of unmanned aircraft equipped with
cameras for commercial film or sports use. The academy
established rules for personal use of unmanned aerial
cameras within a controlled line of sight. He thought that
the task force would monitor evolving technology and
develop parameters in the same way as the academy. He
reported that the technology had evolved beyond the point
that the FAA could keep pace. Adding industry members to
the task force that had current experience was a
responsible approach. He reported that he had a mapping
company and was also performing testing and research and
development and hoped he was operation under legal
parameters. He felt that as the technology evolved it was
important to have a forum like the task force to
"communicate and address" privacy and public safety issues.
Mr. Colligan replied, in response to a question by Co-Chair
Stoltze, that the FAA was concerned with regulating 7,500
large unmanned drones in the airspace. He expressed concern
about the safety of general aviation. He also expressed
concern regarding the large number of small unmanned
aircraft from one vendor that was selling 15,000 UAS per
month in the United States (US) market at a cost of $450.
He anticipated rapid growth in the number of UAS coming
into private use.
Co-Chair Austerman agreed with the privacy issues involved.
He wished to avoid overregulation for recreational use.
8:55:24 AM
Mr. Colligan agreed. He explained that under new rules, the
academy was preparing to receive certification from the FAA
through a provision called community based organization
(CBO) for the self-regulation of recreational use.
Representative Edgmon appreciated the testimony. He
supported the bill. He thought that the task force was
needed in the formative stages of unmanned aircraft use to
sift through the issues and make recommendations. He
wondered how a person with questions on unmanned aircraft
use would get answers.
Mr. Colligan replied that the issue was not clear and rules
needed to be outlined. The task force first addressed
public use and required each state agency involved to find
a lead contact to field public inquiry. The university was
becoming a resource for UAS operational standards. He was
not sure that the issue was fully defined.
RO BAILEY, ALASKA CENTER FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
INTEGRATION, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), expressed support for the legislation. She
reported that she was a member of the task force. She
relayed the importance of the formation of the task force.
She related that the public appreciated the task force for
sharing citizens' concerns. The tasks force's ability to
resolve concerns and complaints presented a "valuable
bridging" to a future where unmanned aircraft systems were
understood, properly managed, and controlled through
regulation. She noted that the task force's outreach was
appreciated by the public and organizations that fear
government overreach. She recalled an article stating that
Alaska had the most progressive laws in the country for UAS
use. She stated that as the industry grew the potential for
complaints grew. She noted much interest from outside
companies and agencies who want to test systems in Alaska.
A growing group of inexperienced people were also
purchasing drones that were unaware of the rules.
Separating inappropriate behavior from responsible,
professional operation was the key to establishing "common
sense" rules. She supported the expansion of the task force
to include members of the public, industry and the
commissioner of DCCED.
JOHN BINDER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation
and the expansion of the task force. He remarked that the
task force was primarily focused on privacy and law
enforcement concerns but that the matter was rapidly
expanding beyond those concerns. He reminded the committee
that DOT only dealt with the ground aspects of unmanned
vehicles but was the primary liaison between the agencies
and the FAA, who was responsible for the airspace
coordination. The department was concerned about the
growing use of UAS and how they interact with the public
and general aviation around airports. The department was
"very interested" in developing an integrated and
collaborative role in the task force as UAS capabilities
expanded. He applauded the efforts of the task force
especially as more issues would impact the public and state
owned airports.
Representative Holmes asked whether the travel costs would
be absorbed by the department.
Mr. Binder replied in the affirmative. Most meetings would
take place in Anchorage and costs would be minimal.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Hughes responded to Representative Edgmon's
prior question. She stated that the task force meetings
were publicly noticed and her office was acting as a point
of contact. She expressed the need for the task force to
become a central point of contact. She noted that the next
issue the taskforce would address was the integration of
commercial UAS users related to first amendment rights. She
thanked her staff and the members of the task force for
their efficiency and achievement in establishing the
legislation related to law enforcement and HCR 15. She
remarked that the state's approach to UAS regulation fixed
a problem as it arose. The industry viewed Alaska as a
place to "set up shop" which was a reason for the task
force to continue to address new issues as they arise.
9:07:38 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze recently heard about a Board of Game
regulatory process regarding UAS. He requested additional
information.
Representative Hughes replied that the Board of Game had
added the following proposed regulations to exclude:
" any devise that has been airborne controlled
remotely and used to spot or locate game with the use
of a camera or a video devise…"
Representative Hughes reported that the Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) was aware of use of a drone during a moose
hunt in 2012 and wanted to prevent a reoccurrence. She
added that if the prohibition was not specified in the
regulations the practice would be allowed.
Representative Gara mentioned another aspect of unmanned
aircraft. Sometimes the planes crash and injure people. He
wished to address the need for public safety in the
resolution.
Representative Hughes replied that the FAA addressed the
safety aspects of UAS and the issue was outside of the task
force's purview.
Representative Gara requested language that the task force
could address minimizing public safety risks.
Representative Hughes replied that the task force reviewed
FAA regulations as part of its duties and would continue
the practice.
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted to change the language regarding
public members to include their role in industry. He
stressed the importance of accuracy when communicating to
the public.
HCR 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:13:57 AM
AT EASE
9:15:20 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|