In This Issue

 

In the Month of March, Lobbyit secured a room and a speaker (Congressman Ted Yoho, R -Fl3), for NCISS's Hit The Hill (HTH) Day, April 14.  Lobbyit also met with the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce committee to discuss data breach legislation and pending Federal Drone regulations.  Finally, Lobbyit attended a March 24 hearing on drone safety convened by the Aviation Security subcommittee on the Senate Commerce Committee.

 

Stakeholder Activity

 

March began with Lobbyit finalizing arrangements for NCISS's Hit the Hill (HTH) day in mid-April.  Lobbyit identified a sponsor for a room for the NCISS luncheon, and secured a Member of Congress, the Honorable Ted Yoho from Florida's 3d District, to speak at the event.   As a sponsor of drone legislation last Congress, NCISS thought it was important to hear from Members of Congress who are involved in the debate. 


 

Senate Commerce Committee -Lobbyit met again with the Senate Commerce Committee to discuss data breach and data privacy legislation.  Like in past meetings, they assured us that private investigators were not targets of the bills, and presumably wouldn't be impacted.


 

Lobbyit conveyed our concern with efforts to ban pretexting, which staff indicated they didn't think would be implicated because they were after people calling under false pretenses to acquire information for nefarious reasons.  In their mind, it was the intent of the artifice which wold draw the legal distinction.


 

If legislation is considered in this alley, they would be amenable to considering language which would make this more clear, or which might even include language providing immunity for PIs and others engaged in lawful activity.


 

House Commerce Committee -- Even though jurisdiction over drones falls primarily with the House Transportation and Infrastructure, Aviation Subcommittee, House Commerce staff did indicate an interest in the issue, as they have  subsequent jurisdiction.


 

Congress is going to hold off on anything related to drones until the FAA makes some final decisions. They generally support regulation of the industry, but not in a way that strangles market development, and/or various commercial and recreational uses.


 

They listened politely to our concerns about line of sight (LOS) restrictions, not flying over individuals in public, and restriction to daytime hours.  Lobbyit related that all these provisions could unnecessarily restrict operation of drones for surveillance purposes, and could increase risk of public harm from having to physically follow someone.  Lobbyit plans to file comments to this extent with the FAA before the comment period closes near the end of April. 


 

DRONE HEARING


 

On March 24, 2015, the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, held a hearing titled "Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Key Considerations Regarding Safety, Innovation, Economic Impact, and Privacy."


 

The purpose of this hearing was to examine the potential benefits and pitfalls to the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) by Amazon and in agricultural practices, as well as to explore privacy concerns regarding their usage. The committee also examined the rule-making process in relation to UAS, as designed and implemented by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).


 

Opening Statements:


 

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security: Ayotte said UAS could increase manufacturing jobs and boost the economy, but she explained the necessity of considering priorities like safety and privacy when using them. She placed heavy emphasis on safety, and she said the primary concern people have is their privacy. So, she said, unlimited surveillance by the government isn't something people will accept, and while existing legislation acknowledges this, it is not really in terms of UAS devices.


 

Sen. Cantwell (D-WA), Ranking Member: Cantwell said the new FAA rule is an important advancement, but there are remaining issues regarding recreational uses, as drones are becoming less expensive and more widely available. She said virtually all industries would benefit from UAS, as it can help with procedures related to agriculture, it can enhance worker safety by completing the more dangerous jobs, etc. She also emphasized the need to examine privacy issues and how they will be addressed by current laws.


 

Witnesses:


 

Ms. Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration: Gilligan explained the focus of the FAA, in this regard, is the integration of UAS into current airspace. She noted the challenge in doing so is creating a regulatory framework that allows for continuing innovation, while protecting safety and privacy. She said the FAA now has six fully operational test sites with research agendas, and it has reached out to educate the public on safe and responsible uses of UAS. Gilligan did agree the rule-making process, as well as the authorization and certification process for the aircrafts, must be streamlined. She insisted safety standards must be adequately addressed before the FAA will be able to change certain regulations.


 

Mr. John B. Morris, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Policy Analysis and Development, National Telecommunications and Information Administration: Morris explained NTIA generally focuses on Internet policy, but it has shifted some of that focus to user privacy more recently. He called for a multi-stakeholder approach when discussing UAS, which allows multiple parties to share best practices, etc. He said NTIA has reached out to the public for its opinion on having this sort of discussion regarding UAS. Likely to be discussed would be best practices for mitigating privacy challenges, ways to ensure users comply with regulations and whether there are different policy questions raised by different size aircrafts.


 

Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office: Dillingham focused on three areas he deems most critical in moving forward with the integration of UAS into commercial airspace, which where: 1) the status of the FAA designated UAS test sites; 2) how other countries are integrating UAS in commercial airspace; 3) critical next steps for integration. In regards to the status of the test sites, Dillingham mentioned the issues with communication between the FAA and these sites. For example, some sites said they weren't provided adequate guidance by the FAA as far as what research to report and how to report it. He noted a number of countries that allow UAS, and he said a key difference is that these other countries generally have a different legal structure, one which may allow for more flexibility in regulations. And they often have less air traffic/less complicated airspace. However, he said, if UAS flew today in the US, they would be under similar regulations as in other countries, except for in these certain ways. As for critical next steps, he called for the FAA to develop a detailed implementation plan detailing drone activities, schedules, etc., in an effort to hold them accountable. He also called for the FAA to continue reporting questions it receives, to continue in efforts to make test sites useful, and to consider expanding their public education campaign.


 

Prof. John Villasenor, Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution: Villasenor's main concern was privacy. He noted how easy UAS make it to capture overhead imagery, and he worries about their potential to be used in ways that violate privacy laws, even inadvertently. He questioned to what extent current legal frameworks are able to address this privacy issue, but he believes current regulations do more to address it than we recognize. He mentioned cases where votes have been based upon Constitutional Amendments and emphasized their ability to do so in this area, as well.


 

Mr. Paul Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy, Amazon, Inc.: Misener explained the hindrance the current regulations put on Amazon Prime's use of UAS. Currently, among other things, these regulations prohibit UAS from flying outside of an individual's line of sight, which makes it impossible for Amazon to use them for their intended purpose, which is to deliver packages around the country within 30 minutes.  He called for the FAA to work with government agencies to develop appropriate rules on usage, which should include the devices being able to fly with minimal human interaction and outside the line of sight. He praised the FAA for what it has done to address regulation concerns, but he said it should be proposing the frameworks for future regulations, now, seeing as innovation is occurring so rapidly.


 

Mr. Jeff VanderWerff, VWO, LLC., representing the American Farm Bureau Federation: VanderWerff detailed the agricultural uses for UAS and the benefits and pitfalls of such usage. UAS allow farmers to monitor vast farmlands at a much more efficient rate. And rather than having to treat an entire field for a consolidated issue, they are able to use spot-treatment by identifying the problem areas with the drones. He did note certain privacy concerns, such as the question as to whether regulatory or environmental agencies could gain access to a farmer's data via subpoenas and use this information against said farmer. He questioned who owns and who controls the data collected when used for agricultural purposes, and he said it is critical this ownership is given to the farmer and isn't available to government agencies without the farmer's permission.


 

Concerns/Question and Answer:


  • Sen. Ayotte questioned how the FAA plans to fund efforts to implement new rules and regulations, and she asked for the thinking behind the rule prohibiting the usage of UAS over people. Gilligan explained along with making requests, the FAA has absorbed a lot of the cost, and it may make future requests if necessary. Gilligan said the UAS in question are without any FAA standards, so they are prohibited as a safety precaution.
  • Numerous concerns were voiced about the need to reevaluate current regulations and to streamline the process of exempting UAS from certain regulations. A major concern with the current system, as voiced by VanderWerff and Sen. Booker (D-NJ), among others, is it keeping America far behind foreign countries in permitted usage of these devices. 
  • Sen. Cantwell (D-WA) asked if the new interim rule, which allows for aircrafts flying below 200ft to do so without permission, puts us on par with Europeans. In response, Gilligan reiterated the US is in a different place because of our more complex aviation process and crowded airspace. Misener echoed this concern in that, he said, the US lags behind in planning for the future, be it in terms of innovation or rule making. Sen. Booker said the FAA allowing Amazon to start testing outdoors is a good start, but it was in such a limited fashion, they are still able to do more overseas. He asked what Congress could do to help the FAA offer exemptions faster and more broadly. Gilligan said they already have this authority, but they have to thoroughly evaluate safety standards. Sen. Booker called for a separate hearing on the recreational use of drones, and he drew a distinction between the salacious stories about drones being used irresponsibly and the fact that those haven't been commercial drones.
  • Sen. Peters (D-MI) asked Gilligan what plans FAA has to streamline the process of granting exceptions. Gilligan said they are using summary grants, which means if a similar grant is already out for public comment, the process needn't be repeated for other grants. She said the broad Certificate of Authorization (COA), which allows users to fly drones 200 ft and below, exempts them from having to even go through the process.
  • Sen. Booker also asked how to determine how to handle the out of sight issue, and Gilligan said the UAS currently can't "sense and avoid", which means they can't sense if an aircraft is near and avoid it if necessary. Thus, she said, a standard and a system must be designed and implemented.
  • Sen. Moran (R-KS) asked VanderWerff just how necessary beyond line of sight operations are for agricultural purposes. VanderWerff explained, multiple times, that they are very necessary, and European countries have been using them for years. Venderwerff also suggested such regulations are not necessary because if the drone runs low on battery, loses control, etc., it will fly back to where it initially took off. Sen. Peters asked VanderWerff asked what drones can do that a farmer cannot, and what that means for his/her bottom line. VanderWerff explained that it allows farmers to monitor fields without walking the entire length of the field, which can take several hours. He also noted that if a certain area needs water or fertilizer, drones allow them to identify and treat that single area, which saves money while lessening potential environmental impacts. Misener echoed this concern in regards to delivering Amazon packages, because there is no way they could do so if they aren't permitted to send the drones farther than their line of sight.
  • Sen. Schatz (D-HI) questioned what guidelines are in place for aircrafts flying below 400ft, and who has regulation over that airspace. He expressed concern that the FAA is preempting local lawmakers from deciding where drones can fly. No direct conclusions were made about exactly how low commercial airspace extends. Villasenor noted his concern with putting a specific limit on commercial airspace, suggesting that it could invite people to sit right at that limit. Sen. Moran echoed the concern over a lack of regulations, but he focused on there being no requirement for certification of equipment or flight training. Gilligan said, when reviewing the language in the reauthorization bill, they found there to be no need for certification if certain other criteria were met. And, she said, there is an operator testing requirement, and, in order to pass, it is necessary to receive some education on standards to operate in airspace.
  • Sen. Markey's (D-MA) primary concern was with privacy protections. He grilled Gilligan, about the data collected by drones. If he were to see a drone flying over his house, he asked, would he be able to find out how it uses the data collected and whether it can sell his information. Gilligan explained the information about commercial operators that have been awarded exemptions exists online, where it also lists in which airspace they are operating. Sen. Markey called for strong, enforceable laws on the books that ensure Americans know that their information is being collected, potentially sold, and that there are currently no regulations against that. Sen. Daines (R-MT) echoed privacy concerns, asking if there is an appropriate role for local regulation of hobbyist uses of these aircrafts. Gilligan wasn't sure the FAA had a stance on this topic. Sen. Danes asked who regulates the airspace, who has control of the information collected and what are the best means for regulating this data and ensuring enforcement of regulations. VanderWerff said in his scenario, the data should belong to farmer, and he/she should have the right to determine who can use it and for what purposes.
  • Sen. Heller (D-NV) compared the use of drones to the use of helicopters by newsgathering organizations, and he noted the fact that those are able to fly over populated areas. Gilligan reiterated that this is currently prohibited with UAS because they don't have standards like manned vehicles, so they aren't sure how to mitigate risks. Sen. Heller also expressed concern that the current approval process seems to inhibit rather than promote innovation. Misener said improvement will require the FAA understanding that UAS are a different aircraft than they are used to, and that our biggest concern should be that we aren't properly planning for the future where drones can fly out of sight.

Legislation


S 177 -- Data Security and Breach Notification Act

Official Title: A bill to protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a breach of security. 


S 288 -- National Labor Relations Board Reform Act

Official Title: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to reform the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of the General Counsel, and the process for appellate review, and for other purposes. 


S 356 -- Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act

Official Title: A bill to improve the provisions relating to the privacy of electronic communications. 


S 407 -- Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

Official Title: A bill to regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices. 


S 498 -- Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Official Title: A bill to allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms. 


S 512 -- The Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act

Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to safeguard data stored abroad from improper government access, and for other purposes. 


S 668  

Official Title: A bill to require data brokers to establish procedures to ensure the accuracy of collected personal information, and for other purposes. 


S 740  

Official Title: A bill to improve the coordination and use of geospatial data. 


S 754  

Official Title: An original bill to improve cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes. 


S 801  

Official Title: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide for appropriate designation of collective bargaining units. 


HR 47  

Official Title: A bill to ensure secure gun storage and gun safety devices. 


HR 612 -- National Right-to-Work Act

Official Title: A bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. 


HR 656 -- Online Communications and Geolocation Protection Act

Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to disclosures to governments by communications-related service providers of certain information consisting of or relating to communications, and for other purposes. 


HR 689 -- Surveillance Order Reporting Act

Official Title: A bill to permit periodic public reporting by electronic communications providers and remote computer service providers of certain estimates pertaining to requests or demands by Federal agencies under the provisions of certain surveillance laws where disclosure of such estimates is, or may be, otherwise prohibited by law. 


HR 699 -- Email Privacy Act

Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to update the privacy protections for electronic communications information that is stored by third-party service providers in order to protect consumer privacy interests while meeting law enforcement needs, and for other purposes. 


HR 719 -- TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act

Official Title: A bill to require the Transportation Security Administration to conform to existing Federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator positions, and for other purposes. 


HR 752 -- Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

Official Title: A bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. 


HR 791 -- Cell Phone Freedom Act

Official Title: A bill to prohibit the unauthorized remote shut down of a cellular phone. 


HR 798 -- Responsible Skies Act

Official Title: A bill to amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to prohibit the flying of unmanned recreational aircraft near commercial airports. 


HR 827 -- Robo Calls Off Phones (Robo COP) Act

Official Title: A bill to direct the Federal Trade Commission to revise the regulations regarding the Do-not-call registry to prohibit politically-oriented recorded message telephone calls to telephone numbers listed on that registry. 


HR 950 -- Prohibiting Automated Traffic Enforcement Act

Official Title: A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to prohibit automated traffic enforcement, and for other purposes. 


HR 1385  

Official Title: A bill to provide for a legal framework for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes. 


HR 1431  

Official Title: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prohibit the preemption of State stalking laws. 


HR 1432  

Official Title: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prohibit the preemption of State identity theft laws. 


 Provided for NCISS by ... 


 


Please contact Francie Koehler for questions or issues regarding private 
investigators and Brad Duffy re the same for security professionals. 

 

                         Francie Koehler-Investigations  -- or --  Brad Duffy  - Security

                                                             
                       



Permission granted to repost
Until next month,


Lobbyit.com | 1425 K Street, NW | Suite 350 | Washington, DC 20005 | Phone: 202.587.2736 | Fax: 202.747.2727
[email protected] | lobbyit.com