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.