Unmanned Aerial Systems: An Examination of the Use of Drones in Emergency Response (U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence)

Hearing	Unmanned Aerial Systems: An Examination of the Use of Drones in Emergency Response
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence
Date	May 16, 2024

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Emergency Responder Use of Drones and Similar Technologies: The hearing focused on how emergency response agencies (including police and fire departments) are deploying drones to improve their operational capabilities and to execute their responsibilities. Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed broad support for these emergency responder drone deployments and stated that these drone programs enable first responders to access remote or hazardous areas, gather real-time intelligence, provide aerial support in emergency situations, de-escalate situations, reduce emergency response times, and identify missing persons (including both persons that are lost and persons evading capture). They also expressed support for Drone as First Responder (DFR) programs, which equip emergency response agencies with drones to more quickly respond to urgent calls. Mr. Sidhu added that the deployment of DFR programs help public safety agencies to establish drone detection and airspace monitoring infrastructure. Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY) further noted how it is significantly cheaper to deploy drones than it costs to deploy helicopters, which makes drones a more cost-effective solution for addressing public safety.
  • Use of Drones by Police Departments: Members, Mr. Daughtry, Mr. Chell, Mr. Sidhu, and Mr. Robbins highlighted how police departments are using drones to respond to 911 calls, assist with search and rescue efforts, inspect emergency incidents, monitor crowded events, and obtain intelligence to inform police responses to a variety of situations (including protests, hostage situations, train jumping, and shark attacks). Mr. Daughtry and Mr. Chell discussed how drones have become an important tool for the New York City Police Department and mentioned how the Department’s use of drones had increased by 419.8 percent in 2023 as compared to 2022. Mr. Robbins also noted how drones can augment police forces with staffing shortages.
  • Use of Drones by Fire Departments: Members, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Sidhu, and Mr. Robbins also highlighted how fire departments are using drones to respond to fires. They noted how drones provide fire departments with enhanced monitoring capabilities, including the ability to engage in thermal imaging (which enable firefighters to monitor the progress of fires) and to obtain information from areas that are unsafe for humans to enter. They also noted how plastic sphere dispenser (PSD) drones can assist with firing operations to hold critical fire breaks and how larger drones can be used to carry water and fire retardants to prevent the spreading of fires.
  • Use of Drones for Medical and Safety Purposes: Members and the hearing’s witnesses discussed how drones can be used to support the delivery of lifesaving medication (such as naloxone for addressing opioid overdoses), medically necessary equipment (such as automated external defibrillators (AEDs)), and floatation devices to assist people that are drowning. Mr. Sidhu and Mr. Fetterman also noted how the thermal imaging capabilities of drones enable first responders to better search for people in need of care (which can be especially useful during fires and natural disasters).
  • Use of Drones to Support Building and Infrastructure Safety: Mr. Daughtry, Mr. Chell, and Mr. Robbins discussed how emergency responders can use drones to more safely inspect buildings and critical infrastructure for structural defects. Mr. Daughtry mentioned how the New York City Police Department had recently partnered with the New York City Department of Buildings to use drones to inspect local bridges for structural defects following New York City’s recent earthquake.
  • Technologies to Prevent High-Speed Police Vehicle Chases: Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) and Mr. Daughtry also expressed interest in how police departments can deploy remote tracking technologies that prevent their need to engage in high-speed vehicle pursuits of suspects (which can threaten the safety of police officers, suspects, and the public). Mr. Daughtry discussed how the New York City Police Department had implemented the StarChase pilot program that uses specialized global positioning system (GPS) tracking equipment in order to reduce the number of high-speed vehicle pursuits. He explained that the StarChase Program involves the attachment of GPS-enabled devices to vehicles that can be monitored remotely. He testified that the StarChase Program has helped the New York City Police Department to recover 42 vehicles and make 58 arrests without need to engage in high-speed vehicle pursuits.
• Drone-Related Policy Topics, Proposals, and Concerns: Members and the hearing’s witnesses also considered various policy topics, proposals, and concerns related to how public safety agencies are employing drone technologies.
  • Federal Approvals for DFR Programs: Rep. Dale Strong (R-AL), Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Sidhu, and Mr. Robbins raised concerns that public safety agencies can experience challenges obtaining approvals from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to launch DFR programs. They expressed appreciation that the recently enacted FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which requires the FAA to release a draft beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) rule within the next four months and a final rule within 16 months of the release of the draft. They stated that this rulemaking would help public safety agencies to more easily launch DFR programs. Mr. Robbins also recommended that FAA templatize the approval process for DFR programs to improve DFR program operations and safety. He further called on Congress to enact the Drones for First Responders Act, which would establish a new revenue neutral grant program for first responders to purchase secure drones manufactured either in the U.S. or in allied nations. He added that this program would support drone training and maintenance costs.
  • Federal Grants to Support the Use of Drones by Public Safety Agencies: Members, Mr. Daughtry, and Mr. Fetterman also discussed the importance of federal grants to support public safety agencies seeking to acquire drones. Mr. Fetterman recommended that Congress reinstate the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Program and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) funding to support drone purchases. Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-NY) and Mr. Fetterman also expressed concerns that U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants, including the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program, do not allow for the purchase of drones.
  • Drone Mitigation and Takedown Capabilities: Members, Mr. Daughtry, Mr. Chell, and Mr. Sidhu raised concerns that law enforcement agencies currently lack the ability to mitigate and takedown potentially hostile drones. They noted how drones are often used to commit crimes (such as smuggling contraband into prisons and cross border trafficking), conduct illegal surveillance, engage in industrial espionage, and hinder law enforcement efforts at all levels. Mr. Daughtry mentioned how his Department must currently rely upon the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for mitigation and takedown capabilities and stated that his Department should have these capabilities internally. Members highlighted how Congress had recently included provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 to provide law enforcement agencies with greater drone mitigation and takedown authorities.
  • Drone Interference Prevention: Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Ranking Member Lou Correa (D-CA) and Mr. Fetterman also raised concerns that non-coordinated drones that fly into areas experiencing emergency situations can impede emergency response efforts. Mr. Fetterman warned that this interference can impede the efforts of fire services to contain fires. He remarked that fire traffic area (FTA) standards and remote identification (Remote ID) capabilities can help to prevent non-coordinated drones from interfering with critical life-saving missions and prevent explosive fire growth.
  • Drone Operator Training and Platform Challenges: Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY) and Mr. Sidhu noted how many public safety agencies face challenges training the operators needed to support DFR programs and incorporating the drones into their existing systems. Mr. Fetterman stated that the U.S. should establish a national standard training curriculum on drones for firefighters. He suggested that the U.S. National Fire Academy could host this curriculum under the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). He further stated that that the U.S. should support common operational platforms for drones and identified the Search and Rescue Common Operating Platform (SARCOP) as one such platform. Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Ranking Member Correa further expressed interest in developing policies to educate recreational drone users on the proper use of drones in order to prevent interference problems.
  • Equipping Drones with Weapons: Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) expressed support for equipping drones with non-lethal weapons to support law enforcement responses to potentially dangerous situations (such as hostage situations). Mr. Daughtry noted that the New York City Police Department’s drones cannot currently be used as weapons or be equipped with weapons of any kind.
  • The Drone Research and Innovation for Law Enforcement Act of 2023: Rep. Nehls also mentioned how he had proposed the Drone Research and Innovation for Law Enforcement Act of 2023, which would permit small unmanned aircraft pilot research for public safety. He indicated that this legislation would establish a pilot research study managed by the FAA’s Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). He stated that the goal of this study is to evaluate the potential of non-lethal de-escalation drones as a tool for state and local law enforcement during high-risk events.
  • Concerns Regarding Foreign-Manufactured Drones: Members and the hearing’s witnesses raised significant concerns regarding the current market dominance of foreign drone manufacturers (including Chinese drone manufacturers DJI and Autel Robatics) within the U.S. They noted how the FBI and the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) had released January 2024 guidance indicating that Chinese-made drones present risks to U.S. national security. They elaborated that these Chinese-manufactured drones may provide China with access to sensitive information and the ability to arbitrarily cut off drone supplies and service to certain areas. Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee Chairman August Pfluger (R-TX) mentioned how several states have successfully taken steps to prevent law enforcement agencies in their states from procuring Chinese-manufactured drones. He called on other states to take similar actions and to find ways to not be dependent on Chinese-manufactured drones. Mr. Daughtry, Mr. Fetterman, and Mr. Sidhu stated however that U.S.-manufactured drones do not currently possess the same capabilities and affordability as Chinese-manufactured drones. They contended that there must exist a transition process that will enable U.S. public safety agencies to gradually reduce their reliance on these Chinese-manufactured drones. Mr. Daughtry, Mr. Sidhu, and Mr. Robbins called on called on Congress to provide financial support for U.S. drone manufacturers so that these manufacturers can become more competitive with Chinese drone manufacturers. They argued that this increased competitiveness will be key to enabling public safety agencies to phase out their use of Chinese-manufactured drones.  
  • Concerns Regarding Privacy: Members and Mr. Sidhu stated that public safety agency use of drones can raise legitimate surveillance and privacy concerns and noted that people often do not know the parties behind the drones flying in their vicinities. Mr. Daughtry, Mr. Chell, and Mr. Fetterman testified that their public safety agencies maintain robust self-imposed controls to ensure that drones do not inappropriately collect resident information. Mr. Daughtry testified that the New York City Police Department does not use its drones for warrantless surveillance, routine patrols, traffic enforcement, and immobilizing the vehicles of suspects. Mr. Chell added that the New York City Police Department’s drones do not have facial recognition technology and that there must exist mitigating circumstances for the Department’s drones to monitor public streets. Mr. Sidhu stated that police accountability and transparency should advance alongside drone technology. He noted how DFR 2.0 systems record and upload entire flights (which traditional helicopter-based air support programs do not do). He added that the flight logs of these DFR 2.0 systems are made easily accessible to the public.
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology’s Impact on Drones: Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), Mr. Fetterman, and Mr. Sidhu further expressed interest in how AI technology can support the operation of drones through enabling more coordinated deployments. Mr. Robbins also stated that AI technology could support the scalability of the drone industry, which can provide the drone sector with “almost limitless” potential.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Kaz Daughtry, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, New York City Police Department
2. Mr. John M. Chell, Chief of Patrol, Patrol Services Bureau, New York City Police Department
3. Mr. Kevin Fetterman, Division Chief, Command and Emergency Planning, Orange County Fire Authority, on behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs
4. Mr. Rahul Sidhu, Founder and CEO, Aerodome
5. Mr. Michael Robbins, President and CEO, Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)

Member Opening Statements:

Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY):

• He applauded emergency response agencies for working to improve public safety throughout the U.S. and expressed his commitment to ensuring that firefighters and police officers have access to necessary resources and technologies.
• He mentioned how he has been a supporter of FEMA’s suite of preparedness grants for states and localities to harden their defenses against the threat of terrorism.
  • He expressed hope that the hearing would explore how these state and local police departments are using these grants to acquire drones and other emerging technologies to improve police operations and prepare for new challenges.
• He discussed how an estimated 1,400 safety agencies throughout the U.S. are actively using drones to enhance their operational capabilities.
  • He also noted cities throughout the U.S. have implemented DFR programs to provide police departments with tactical intelligence and situational awareness that can inform ground police operations and emergency response.
• He highlighted how the New York City Police Department has used drones to assist with search and rescue efforts, inspect emergency incidents, and provide intelligence for hostage situations.
  • He also mentioned how the New York City Police Department had recently partnered with the New York City Department of Buildings to inspect local bridges for structural defects following New York City’s recent earthquake.
• He remarked that UAS technology can be used to reform how police departments operate.
  • He expressed interest in exploring how this technology can reduce emergency response times, save taxpayer dollars, and enhance police department operations.
• He stated that drones have the potential to save lives in rural and densely populated urban areas.
  • He mentioned how over 75,000 people had died from opioids in 2022 and noted how drones have improved emergency response times to opioid overdoses through their ability to promptly deliver lifesaving medications.
• He then called it important for police departments to consider any national security concerns as these departments look to expand their use of UAS technology.
• He discussed how the FBI and CISA had released January 2024 guidance indicating that Chinese-made drones present risks to U.S. national security.
  • He highlighted how Chinese-based drone manufacturer DJI has the majority of the market share in the U.S. commercial drone market.
  • He further noted how public safety agencies are increasingly using DJI drones due to the advanced features and affordability of these drones.
• He remarked that the federal government and the intelligence community should continue to share guidance and relevant security information so that law enforcement agencies and first responders are able to take necessary precautions while not stifling innovative tools.
  • He also called on the U.S. House of Representatives to examine any regulatory barriers that public safety agencies experience when looking to use emerging technologies.
• He stated that UAS technology has the potential to save lives through enabling efficient response times, providing medical care, and offering operational support to on-the-ground police officers.
  • He expressed his interest in ensuring that fire departments and law enforcement agencies have the necessary resources to accomplish their objectives.

Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee Chairman August Pfluger (R-TX):

• He remarked that the hearing would examine how first responders are using UAS technology to improve public safety throughout the U.S. and to consider security vulnerabilities and privacy concerns related to this technology.
  • He commented that the use of drones by first responders represents a “paradigm shift” and called the ability of drones to access remote or hazardous areas, gather real-time intelligence, and provide aerial support in emergency situations “invaluable.”
• He discussed how first responders have increasingly turned to drones in recent years to amplify their operations, response times, efficiency, and safety.
  • He noted how law enforcement agencies use drones in a variety of ways, including for special weapons and tactics (SWAT) operations and search and rescue missions, as well as to provide situational awareness and added community safety for major events.
• He also mentioned how law enforcement agencies are modernizing policing through DFR programs and explained that these programs provide marked patrol units with drones to respond to urgent calls (such as foot pursuits or violent crimes in progress).
• He discussed how drones are used in emergency responses to establish situational awareness for various incidents.
  • He highlighted how both urban and rural fire departments use drones to provide real-time information to reveal the extent of a fire’s spread on a burning building.
• He remarked that drones can provide key data to first responders, which enables effective decision making, assists in public safety, and saves lives.
• He noted that while drones are used for emergency response, recreation, research, and commerce, he stated that the proliferation of drone technology has introduced new risks to homeland security and privacy.
  • He mentioned how malicious actors have used drones domestically to commit crimes, conduct illegal surveillance, engage in industrial espionage, and hinder law enforcement efforts at all levels.
• He discussed how malicious drone operators are attempting to target and disrupt critical infrastructure sectors.
  • He noted how the energy and chemical sectors often report suspicious activity coming from drones.
• He also mentioned how criminals (including drug cartels) are regularly using drones for smuggling contraband into prisons, cross border trafficking, and surveillance of U.S. law enforcement.
  • He noted how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have consistently raised concerns that Mexican narco-terrorist gangs are using weaponized drones near the U.S.-Mexico border to conduct nefarious activities.
• He remarked that Congress must take all possible actions to protect against the aforementioned threats and the problems posed by drones manufactured in foreign adversarial countries, such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
  • He noted how Chinese-based drone manufacturer DJI has near total control of the global drone market.
  • He also noted how Chinese-based drone manufacturer Autel Robotics has increased its presence within the U.S.
• He stated that the extensive deployment of Chinese-manufactured drones in U.S. critical sectors is a national security concern and may increase the risk of unauthorized access to sensitive systems and data.
  • He mentioned how multiple U.S. departments and agencies have already warned against or banned the procurement of certain drones originating in the PRC.
• He noted how CISA and the FBI had recently cautioned that Chinese-manufactured drones pose a threat to critical infrastructure and had provided guidance for drone procurement.
  • He indicated that this January 2024 guidance had warned that the use of Chinese-manufactured drones in critical infrastructure operations risks exposing sensitive information to PRC authorities (which would jeopardize U.S. national security, economic security, public health, and public safety).
• He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Commerce had placed DJI on its Entity List and how the U.S. Department of the Treasury had placed DJI on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) list of Chinese technology businesses that have a nexus to the PRC’s military industrial complex.
  • He explained that these lists restrict U.S.-based business investments in DJI due to claims of DJI’s support for human rights abuses against China’s Uyghur Muslim population.
• He discussed how state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S. have increasingly adopted DJI drones without adequately considering the potential cybersecurity risks and broader national security implications posed by these drones.
• He highlighted how Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi have all successfully taken steps to prevent law enforcement agencies in their states from procuring drones that are manufactured in the PRC.
  • He called on other states to take similar actions and to find ways to not be dependent on PRC-manufactured drones.
• He remarked that the U.S. should not rely upon the goodwill of a strategic foreign competitor that has been known to use supply chain control as a weapon of war and that is beholden to the PRC’s military and national security laws for public safety drones.
  • He noted how the PRC’s National Security Law requires that all Chinese organizations and citizens (including DJI and other Chinese drone manufacturers) support, assist, and cooperate with the state’s intelligence work.
• He stated that the U.S. must take additional actions to ensure that certain foreign adversarial countries (including the PRC) are unable to supply the U.S. government, law enforcement partners, and other entities with drones.
• He expressed the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence’s intention to continue examining the potential national security threats posed by drones that have been produced, manufactured, or assembled inside of the PRC.

Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee Ranking Member Lou Correa (D-CA):

• He discussed how drones have a long history of being used in military theaters throughout the world and noted how federal and local law enforcement agencies have now adopted UAS technologies to respond to emergencies.
  • He mentioned how the Chula Vista Police Department in his state of California now routinely responds to 911 calls using drones and noted how drones provide these police officers with important information prior to arriving at a crime scene.
  • He also mentioned how the Fullerton, California Police Department (which is in his Congressional District) uses drones to support its police officers involved in emergency situations.
• He then discussed how the Orange County Fire Authority (which supports his Congressional District) maintains a drone program that has assisted in search and rescue missions during fires.
  • He also noted how this Authority’s drones have infrared capabilities and have supported local law enforcement activities.
• He further discussed how UAS are used at the federal level for planning national special security events (such as the upcoming 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles).
• He then indicated that while drones provide many benefits, he stated that drones also raise several concerns.
  • He indicated that these concerns include surveillance and privacy concerns and commented that many people do not know the parties behind the drones that are flying in their vicinities.
• He remarked that drone technology must be deployed in a manner that protects the privacy, civil rights, and liberties of individuals.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Kaz Daughtry (New York City Police Department):

• He discussed how the New York City Police Department’s Technical Assistance and Response Unit (TARU) provides expertise in audio-visual technology, operates the Department’s drone system, and provides the Department’s police officers with a “crucial advantage” in emergency management.
  • He also stated that the Department is working to mitigate hostile drones over New York City’s critical infrastructure and mass gatherings (such as those in Time Square).
• He remarked that the New York City Police Department’s most prolific technology-based innovation has been its use of drones and testified that the Department has 85 drones.
  • He mentioned how the Department’s use of drones had increased by 419.8 percent in 2023 compared to 2022.
• He stated that there exist limited circumstances in which the New York City Police Department can use its drones and indicated that the Department has self-imposed policies that limit and restrict its drone use.
  • He testified that the Department does not use its drones for warrantless surveillance, routine patrols, traffic enforcement, or immobilizing the vehicles of suspects.
  • He further testified that the Department’s drones cannot be used as weapons or be equipped with weapons of any kind.
• He stated however that the New York City Police Department’s drones can be used to preserve life and recounted how the Department had deployed its drones to examine the structural integrity of the City’s bridges and buildings following a recent earthquake.
  • He indicated that these drone-enabled inspections had enabled the Department to identify and communicate infrastructure flaws with the New York City Department of Buildings in real-time.
• He remarked that drone technology enables the New York City Police Department to work closer with its partners to ensure the community’s safety and security.
• He discussed how hundreds of thousands of people converge in Time Square to celebrate New Year’s Eve each year and mentioned how the New York City Police Department had used its drones to protect against overcrowding at the event.
  • He also recounted how the Department had used its drones to monitor the City’s 2023 Electric Zoo concert and indicated that these drones had enabled the Department to confidently permit the concert to proceed.
• He remarked that the New York City Police Department remains vigilant regarding the possibility that a hostile actor could maliciously use drones at a mass gathering.
• He noted how five police precincts in New York City have been selected for the New York City Police Department’s DFR program based on recent crime trends and explained that each of these precincts will each be outfitted to support two drone platforms affixed to their rooftops.
  • He indicated that three of these precincts are in Brooklyn, one precinct is in the Bronx, and one precinct is in Manhattan.
• He testified that the New York City Police Department plans to deploy these drones in the coming months in response to certain 911 calls.
  • He noted however that the pilots for these drones will be remotely positioned at the Department’s joint-operations center within the Department’s headquarters.
• He discussed how the information provided by the DFR program would be shared with responding police officers.
  • He asserted that the DFR program would enhance the situational awareness of police officers arriving on a crime scene, promote police officer safety, and support the more effective deployment of resources.
• He also discussed how the New York City Police Department had implemented the StarChase pilot program that uses specialized GPS tracking equipment in order to reduce the number of vehicle pursuits.
  • He explained that the StarChase Program involves the attachment of GPS-enabled devices to vehicles that can be accessed remotely.
• He testified that the StarChase Program has helped the New York City Police Department to recover 42 vehicles and make 58 arrests.
  • He commented that this technology has saved valuable manpower hours and had reduced the risks associated with vehicle pursuits.
• He further remarked that federal funding provided to the New York City Police Department and the Department’s collaboration with federal partners have helped to thwart numerous attacks.
  • He indicated that these federal partners have included the FBI and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Mr. John M. Chell (New York City Police Department):

• He described the New York City Police Department’s use of drones as a “game changer.”
  • He highlighted how these drones have enabled the Department to respond to earthquakes, patrol New Year’s Eve celebrations, respond to protests, find missing children, address shark attacks, and assess collapsed buildings.
• He also discussed how the New York City Police Department is incorporating drones into its existing suite of crime fighting tools and stated that this use of drones is helping to reduce crime and keep police officers safe.

Mr. Kevin Fetterman (Orange County Fire Authority, on behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs):

• He stated that UAS technology can be a “game changer” in establishing and maintaining situational awareness in an emergency and noted how drones provide real-time data and visual documentation of affected areas through capturing high-resolution aerial images and video.
  • He called these capabilities “vital” for coordinating incident operations.
• He also noted how drones provide thermal imaging capabilities that allow first responders to track fires progressing through structures.
• He further discussed how drones can take on actionable roles and highlighted how PSD drones can assist with firing operations through holding critical fire breaks.
  • He recounted how PSD drones had been employed in the response to the Dixie Fire in California and commented that these drones had limited the risks posed to the firefighters on the ground.
• He remarked that use of drones in public safety contexts is “drastically” different from the use of drones in commercial contexts.
  • He indicated that drones in public safety contexts are primarily used for communication and coordination purposes.
• He then discussed how California had established FTAs as an interagency airspace management tool following a serious mid-air collision.
• He stated that non-coordinated drones intersecting with FTAs can impact a fire service’s ability to utilize the full spectrum of available firefighting aircrafts.
  • He warned that this interference can impede the efforts of fire services to contain fires.
• He remarked that FTA standards and Remote ID capabilities can help to prevent non-coordinated drones from interfering with critical life-saving missions, as well as prevent explosive fire growth.
• He also stated that the needs of firefighters often demand operations beyond what the FAA’s current visual line of sight rules permit.
  • He noted that while UAS technology needs to be deployed over long distances to track wildfire progression or to see over mountain ridges to assess oncoming fires, he asserted that the FAA’s existing visual line of sight regulations can be cumbersome and ambiguous.
• He remarked that the failure to address these FAA rules undermine the Orange County Fire Authority’s ability to leverage its drones effectively, which can hinder the Authority’s capacity to save lives and to protect property.
• He also stated that rapid coordination and streamlined approvals in zero-grid airspace are crucial and that fire departments require the flexibility to deploy drones swiftly within these zones to ensure public safety.
  • He commented that fostering collaboration between stakeholders would enable the development of agile solutions that balance safety imperatives with operational realities.
• He then remarked that the inclusion of AI within UAS technology can support significant improvements in operational capabilities.
  • He commented that AI can ensure that aircrafts work together in a coordinated and safe manner.
• He discussed how AI UAS avoidance technology can be useful for ensuring airspace deconfliction and stated that AI improves safety for public safety responders.
• He remarked that the use of drones by emergency responders is supporting the proper deployment of resources and noted how drones can be used to accomplish tasks that would otherwise put first responders at high risk.
  • He also highlighted how drones can now physically deliver AEDs and lifesaving medications (such as naloxone).
• He further stated that Congress can help streamline access to UAS technologies for public safety agencies.
  • He thanked Congress for its inclusion of provisions in the recent FAA reauthorization bill to improve access to tethered drones for volunteer fire departments.
• He expressed his interest in working with the Committee on ensuring that first responders can use UAS technology to expand their service areas.

Mr. Rahul Sidhu (Aerodome):

• He mentioned how his company, Aerodrome, specializes in next-generation DFR technology.
  • He noted how UAS technology has been integrated into emergency response for over a decade and highlighted how first responders have taken drones out of their vehicles and have deployed them on scene.
• He discussed how DFR technology involves setting a drone from a pre-positioned launch point (such as a police station) and flying the drone directly to the scene of an emergency.
  • He explained that these drones are remotely piloted from a central location that is often beyond a visual line of sight.
  • He also indicated that launching drones from the scene of an emergency (even if piloted remotely) does not constitute a DFR application.
• He recounted how he had developed the U.S.’s second ever DFR program for the Redondo Beach Police Department in 2020 while serving as a reserve police officer.
  • He testified that the Department’s DFR program had reduced police response times by nearly 70 percent and had reduced the number of low priority calls for the Department’s patrol officers by nearly 25 percent.
• He stated that the Redondo Beach Police Department’s DFR program had decreased high-priority call response times and had increased the apprehension of suspects, which has made the Redondo Beach community safer.
  • He noted how the Redondo Beach Police Department’s DFR program had conducted over 5,000 DFR flights over the previous four years.
• He called the impact of DFR programs “undeniable” and highlighted how dozens of police agencies are currently operating DFR programs.
  • He added that additional police agencies are awaiting waivers from the FAA to operate their own DFR programs.
• He remarked that DFR programs are “vital” components of crime fighting strategies and noted how these programs have significantly reduced retail theft, violent crime, and property crime.
• He also stated that DFR programs have routinely saved lives and recounted how a police department in Texas had recently used his company’s DFR system to find and rescue the unconscious victim of a violent assault and rape.
  • He indicated that this victim would have likely bled out and died had they not been located in time.
• He further discussed how DFR programs are used to de-escalate and reduce the likelihood of tragic outcomes.
  • He noted how police agencies have reported that drones have enabled them to better determine when a suspect is carrying a gun, which can enable police officers to more safely approach the suspects.
• He mentioned how most public safety agencies are implementing the first iteration of DFR technology (known as DFR 1.0 technology).
• He mentioned how Aerodome is the first company to deploy DFR 2.0 technology, which refers to fully remote, automated, multi-drone, and 24/7 operations.
  • He indicated that DFR 2.0 technology uses battery-swapping drone stations and advanced airspace sensors (such as radar).
  • He also indicated that DF 2.0 technology allows for one person to safely launch drones from multiple drone stations without the need for visual observers.
• He stated that DFR 2.0 technology allows for public safety agencies to operate fully functional DFR programs with a fraction of the staff needed with DFR 1.0 technology.
  • He commented that the current police staffing challenges increase the importance of UAS technologies.
• He mentioned how Aerodome has already deployed its technologies in several cities (including Redondo Beach) and highlighted how the Redondo Beach Police Department’s average drone response time to an emergency is just 85 seconds.
• He then remarked that police accountability and transparency should advance alongside UAS technology.
  • He noted how DFR 2.0 systems record and upload entire flights (which traditional helicopter-based air support programs do not do).
  • He added that the flight logs of these DFR 2.0 systems are made easily accessible to the public.
• He stated that DFR 2.0 systems can support helicopter-based programs, which would make air support more effective, efficient, economical, environmentally friendly, and safer for communities.
• He discussed how DFR 2.0 programs can adapt to unique challenges and noted how DFR 2.0 systems can be used to detect wildfires faster in wilderness areas (which can reduce destruction and deaths).
  • He also mentioned how larger drones capable of carrying water and fire retardants can remotely deploy firefighting payloads onto fires before the fires spread.
  • He further mentioned how DFR 2.0 systems can map airspace in real-time, which will ensure that drones do not pose threats to manned aircrafts.
• He concluded that DFR 2.0 technologies have “immense” potential to save lives, reduce crime, and increase safety and called on the Committee to support local safety agencies in implementing DFR 2.0 technologies.

Mr. Michael Robbins (Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International):

• He first noted that his trade association, the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), represents the uncrewed systems, robotics, and autonomy industry.
  • He indicated that AUVSI members create systems that operate in the air, on the ground, and both in and on the water across the civil, commercial, and defense domains.
• He remarked that the use of AUVSI member company technologies in public safety unquestionably constitutes positive use case.
• He stated that drones are saving lives in emergency response and are being relied upon to reduce risks posed to first responders.
  • He commented that drones help public safety agencies to make better decisions through actionable intelligence.
• He discussed how drones are often used to de-escalate situations, reduce emergency response times, provide overwatch, and identify missing persons (both persons that are lost and persons evading capture).
  • He noted that drones can augment police forces with staffing shortages, monitor fires from hotspots, enter buildings in disaster zones where it would be unsafe to send in a human, and deliver lifesaving medical supplies to those in need of urgent care.
  • He commented that the aforementioned list of drone use cases should not be considered exhaustive.
  • He further indicated that while the hearing is focused on aerial drones, he stated that the aforementioned capabilities apply to both ground and maritime drones.
• He then applauded the FAA for its recent progress on enabling more tactical BVLOS waivers and allowances for DFR programs.
• He asserted however that the FAA must move forward on its Part 108 BVLOS rulemaking to allow for drone operations to safely scale and grow.
  • He expressed appreciation for Congress’s recent passage of FAA reauthorization legislation and noted how this legislation requires the FAA to release draft BVLOS rule within the next four months and a final BVLOS rule within 16 months of the release of the draft rule.
• He stated however that the U.S. should not have to wait 20 months to develop a BVLOS rule and commented that AUVSI and its members stand ready to work with the FAA to ensure a timely rule.
• He also remarked that funding remains a point of friction for drone deployment and noted how public safety budgets are decreasing across the U.S. while demands for public safety services are increasing.
  • He advocated that Congress enact the Drones for First Responders Act, which would establish a new revenue neutral grant program for first responders to purchase secure drones manufactured either in the U.S. or in allied nations.
• He also called on Congress to move forward on a “robust competitiveness effort” to support the U.S. drone industrial base with manufacturing tax incentives, loan guarantees, and other programs so that U.S. drone companies can better compete with subsidized foreign companies.
• He remarked that the U.S. must move away from being reliant on Chinese drone companies and intellectual property (IP).
  • He asserted that it is poor public policy for the U.S. to be reliant on a strategic foreign competitor, which is known for using supply chain control as a weapon of war and which is beholden to the PRC’s National Security Law.
• He stated that a “reasonable, common sense” transition is required to ensure that critical lifesaving tools remain available to public safety agencies while the U.S. concurrently moves to diversify drone supply chains outside of China.
  • He warned that an immediate ban on Chinese drones would be “extremely problematic” for public safety.
• He remarked that drone grant programs for public safety agencies (such as the Drones for First Responders Act) and other policies supporting drone market competitiveness will ensure that public safety agencies have the necessary tools and that there exists demand for drones produced outside of the PRC.
  • He called these policies “vital” for reducing risks and building a new industrial base for drones.

Congressional Question Period:

Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY):

• Chairman D’Esposito mentioned how New York City Mayor Eric Adams has stated that deploying drones for public safety purposes only costs $0.17 per launch while helicopters cost $2,200 per flight. He commented that drones therefore provide a more cost-effective solution for addressing public safety. He acknowledged however that both CISA and the FBI have warned that Chinese-manufactured drones pose risks to U.S. national security. He asked Mr. Daughtry to discuss the measures that the New York City Police Department has taken to ensure that the information collected from its drones is kept safe.
  • Mr. Daughtry testified that the New York City Police Department is looking to move away from purchasing DJI drones. He stated that DJI drones pose security concerns and indicated that the Department is looking to phase the use of DJI drones out of its fleet. He also noted how the Department’s drone recordings are transferred from secure digital (SD) cards to the Department’s file storage system.
• Chairman D’Esposito asked Mr. Daughtry to indicate whether any of the information collected via drones from the New York City Police Department is being compromised.
  • Mr. Daughtry expressed full confidence that none of the information collected via drones from the New York City Police Department is being compromised.
• Chairman D’Esposito also noted how Mr. Daughtry’s testimony had mentioned how the New York City Police Department plans to implement DFR programs in five police precincts based on a crime analysis. He asked Mr. Daughtry to discuss how these DFR programs would be a “game changer” in policing.
  • Mr. Daughtry indicated that the New York City Police Department is currently in the testing phase of its DFR program. He discussed how the Department uses ShotSpotter technology and indicated that other municipalities throughout the U.S. also use this technology. He noted how ShotSpotter can identify where gunshots are fired and send the location coordinates of these gunshots to a drone station. He indicated that the drone can then be quickly deployed to the location of the gunshots and that police officers can view the drone’s video in real-time from their work smartphones. He stated that this video access would help police officers to better respond to situations.
• Chairman D’Esposito then asked Mr. Chell to discuss the limitations of drone usage within the law enforcement context. He also asked Mr. Chell to recommend legislation that Congress could pass that would facilitate law enforcement’s adoption of drone technology.
  • Mr. Chell expressed the desire of law enforcement agencies to obtain drone mitigation capabilities. He recounted the recent funeral of New York City Police Department officer Jonathan Diller and noted how this funeral had involved thousands of police officers (as well as elected officials). He mentioned how the New York City Police Department had been unable to remove one drone flying above this funeral. He stated that this drone posed a safety threat and could have been used for malign purposes. He asserted that law enforcement agencies must possess the ability to safely takedown these types of drones.
• Chairman D’Esposito mentioned how Congress had inserted language into its recent FAA reauthorization bill to support law enforcement agencies in taking down drones.

Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee Ranking Member Lou Correa (D-CA):

• Ranking Member Correa noted how emergency responders have indicated that they require access to drones that are affordable, easy-to-operate, customizable, and easy-to-replace. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether Chinese-manufactured drones pose security risks. He also stated that Chinese-manufactured drones tend to be affordable, exhibit strong performance, and can be replaced.
  • Mr. Daughtry testified that the New York City Police Department is working with U.S.-based companies to procure drones. He indicated that these U.S.-based companies include Skydio and Nightingale Security. He stated that DJI drones currently have better performance than U.S.-manufactured drones and expressed hope that U.S.-manufactured drones could improve their performance and capabilities.
• Ranking Member Correa interjected to highlight how foreign-manufactured drones might have capabilities that cannot be offered by U.S.-manufactured drones. He also emphasized that drones are a critical tool for first responders in terms of protecting Americans.
  • Mr. Daughtry expressed agreement with Ranking Member Correa’s comments.
  • Mr. Chell remarked that drones have been a “game changer” for the New York City Police Department in terms of enabling the Department to better protect the lives and property of people within New York City. He mentioned how the Department had used drones to safely take back the Columbia University campus during the recent protests with “minimal to zero” incidents.
• Ranking Member Correa then discussed how many of the cities within his Congressional District face significant budget deficits. He asked Mr. Fetterman to address whether the U.S. could minimize the security risks posed by foreign-manufactured drones and continue to use drone technology to save lives.
  • Mr. Fetterman remarked that the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the Orange County Fire Authority are looking to purchase U.S.-manufactured drones. He indicated however that U.S.-manufactured drones are often not available. He also stated that fire departments actively work to ensure that drones do not fly over critical infrastructure or capture personally identifiable information (PII).
• Ranking Member Correa asked Mr. Fetterman to indicate whether the Orange County Fire Authority is seeking to purchase the best drones at the best prices that to protect lives.
  • Mr. Fetterman answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member Correa interjected to indicate that his question period time is limited. He then asked Mr. Sidhu to address how the U.S. can minimize the security risks posed by foreign-manufactured drones. He also asked Mr. Sidhu to indicate whether the U.S. should continue to purchase foreign-manufactured drones until U.S.-manufactured drones achieve the same quality levels as foreign-manufactured drones.
  • Mr. Sidhu remarked that the U.S.-manufactured drones do not yet have the same capabilities as foreign-manufactured drones. He called it important for U.S. first responders to possess the best available drone technologies. He also stated that the U.S. drone industry has a responsibility to build products that can provide secure drones and that are attractive to first responders.
• Ranking Member Correa indicated that his question period time had expired.

Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee Chairman August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Chairman Pfluger mentioned how U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) had issued a 2017 warning regarding Chinese-manufactured drones. He asked Mr. Robbins to discuss this warning and the risks that Chinese-manufactured drones pose to the U.S.
  • Mr. Robbins remarked that the risk that Chinese-manufactured drones pose to the U.S. is twofold. He noted how public safety agencies are most concerned about their tactical daily tasks and keeping the public and their own officers safe. He expressed concerns however that these public safety agencies are almost completely reliant upon a foreign adversary (i.e. China) for drone technology. He noted how China often uses supply chain control as a weapon of war. He recounted how Autel Robotics had sent forward a software update in December 2023 to their drones that had rendered the drones inoperable in “conflict zones.” He indicated that these “conflict zones” had included the Gaza Strip, Ukraine, the entire nation of Taiwan, and the border region between India and China. He asserted that these regions are not actual conflict zones. He stated that this update had aligned with Chinese military and CCP policy and commented that Autel Robotics would not have pursued this policy on their own. He warned that the U.S.’s reliance on these Chinese-manufactured drones poses a risk that these drones could be remotely disabled to advance Chinese policy priorities. He then remarked that Chinese-manufactured drones pose data security risks and noted how the FBI, CISA, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) have identified these risks. He also highlighted how Congress had recently banned the use of Chinese-manufactured drones for the entire federal government.
• Chairman Pfluger then asked Mr. Sidhu to discuss the actions that have been taken to mitigate the data risks posed by Chinese-manufactured drones.
  • Mr. Sidhu stated that he relies upon experts within the federal government to make risk determinations regarding drones. He also acknowledged the risks associated with foreign adversaries having the ability to control hardware that is being used by American public safety personnel. He noted how drones contain hardware that must remain secure. He also noted how drones contain software and stated that drone companies (including Aerodome) must ensure that this data is secure. He testified that Aerodome takes “multiple steps” to ensure the security of its software systems.
• Chairman Pfluger called it important for police departments to move away from purchasing DJI drones. He then asked Mr. Daughtry and Mr. Chell to discuss why police departments should be using drones.
  • Mr. Chell mentioned how many young people in New York City have died from jumping on top of moving trains to obtain social media followings. He noted how the New York City Police Department now uses drones to prevent young people from jumping on top of moving trains. He also mentioned how New York City had recently experienced its first shark attack in decades and noted how his Department uses drones to monitor beaches for sharks. He further noted how drones can be used to deploy AEDs and floating devices to people caught in rip tides. He stated that drones offer speed, accuracy, and cost advantages in responding to emergency situations. He added that there exist even more public safety use cases for drones.
• Chairman Pfluger indicated that his question period time had expired and requested that Mr. Daughtry respond to his question in writing. He also expressed concerns that drones can pose risks if the operators of the drones are unknown or the contents carried by the drones are unknown. He asked the witnesses to provide comments for the hearing’s record on the attribution of drones and anti-drone defense systems at major sporting events.

Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-NY):

• Rep. Kennedy remarked that drones can be an effective tool for emergency responses and keeping first responders safe. He mentioned how his region of western New York is prone to inclement weather. He asked Mr. Sidhu to discuss the effectiveness of drones in evaluating damage following a severe winter weather event.
  • Mr. Sidhu discussed how drones have routinely been used to find patients in need of care, missing people, and people in need of rescue. He noted how many drones are equipped with thermal cameras, which enable them to better identify humans. He elaborated that a person that is wearing white and laying in the snow cannot be easily spotted by a person. He concluded that drone technology could improve the U.S.’s responses to many natural disasters.
• Rep. Kennedy then mentioned how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) currently lacks a department-wide policy regarding the use of drones by law enforcement agencies. He noted however that DHS has developed best practices for how law enforcement agencies can use drones and protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. He asked Mr. Daughtry to identify actions that the U.S. can take to ensure that law enforcement agencies and emergency responders can safely and securely make use of drones.
  • Mr. Daughtry testified that the New York City Police Department maintains “robust” policies to ensure that their use of drones does not violate the rights of people. He stated that the Department cannot arbitrarily fly its drones throughout New York City and that Chief of Department’s office must approve the Department’s drone flights.
• Rep. Kennedy asked Mr. Daughtry to indicate whether the New York City Police Department needs more comprehensive training and support from the federal government regarding the use of drones.
  • Mr. Daughtry noted how a drone operator must obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate from the FAA to fly a drone. He indicated that the New York City Police Department’s drone operators obtain Remote Pilot Certificates and then participate in an additional two-week training program with the Department’s drone experts.
• Rep. Kennedy asked Mr. Daughtry to identify areas where federal investments would be most impactful in terms of supporting the use of drones by law enforcement agencies.
  • Mr. Daughtry remarked that federal investments could improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to access U.S.-manufactured drones. He also mentioned how the New York City Police Department only possesses drone detection capabilities. He stated that the federal government could help his Department through supporting their ability to intercept and takedown hostile drones.
• Rep. Kennedy asked Mr. Daughtry to confirm that the New York City Police Department requires federal clearance and investments to intercept and takedown hostile drones.
  • Mr. Daughtry answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Kennedy then discussed how there have been reports of drones flying over both the U.S.’s southern and northern borders and indicated that these drones are being used to smuggle illicit substances. He asked Mr. Sidhu to provide recommendations for mitigating these drone smuggling problems.
  • Mr. Sidhu remarked the U.S. must invest more heavily in drone detection and threat mitigation technologies. He stated that the federal government will not possess sufficient resources to intercept and takedown a hostile drone that poses an imminent threat to a city. He asserted that the U.S. must therefore empower local public safety agencies to defend their jurisdictions from drone attacks.

Rep. Dale Strong (R-AL):

• Rep. Strong remarked that drones are a force multiplier for law enforcement agencies and have improved officer and community safety. He mentioned how one police department within his Congressional District had flown nearly 3,000 drone missions in 2023 using 37 certified pilots. He noted how UAS technology has enabled law enforcement agencies to locate and apprehend violent suspects, quickly respond to traffic accidents, missing persons, natural disasters, and civil unrest, gather valuable intelligence, and protect officers and the public. He asked Mr. Daughtry and Mr. Sidhu to recount the most significant challenges that they had faced when establishing DFR programs within their respective departments.
  • Mr. Sidhu remarked that many law enforcement agencies face challenges learning how to use drones. He also stated that law enforcement agencies face challenges incorporating drone systems into their existing policies and choosing which drone systems to use. He noted that while companies are filling these technological gaps, he stated that law enforcement agencies must quickly become experts in drones to implement drone programs. He further commented that law enforcement agencies must obtain community buy-in to launch their drone programs.
  • Mr. Daughtry first mentioned how the New York City Police Department faces challenges finding drones that can meet their needs. He also discussed how the cellular phones at mass gatherings can cause frequency interferences. He noted how these interferences will cause the Department’s drones to temporarily lose connection to satellites and experience restricted mobility.
• Rep. Strong asked the witnesses to identify the top improvement that Congress could make to support police departments in establishing DFR programs and continuity of equipment.
  • Mr. Daughtry expressed the New York City Police Department’s interest in obtaining drone mitigation and takedown capabilities so that the Department can respond to potentially hostile drones. He noted how his Department must currently rely upon the FBI for these capabilities and stated that his Department should have these capabilities internally.
• Rep. Strong mentioned how unauthorized drones are very prevalent at the U.S.’s southern border with Mexico. He indicated that Mexican cartel-operated drones significantly outnumber U.S.-operated drones. He stated that law enforcement agencies should not require federal authorization to takedown hostile drones. He then asked Mr. Sidhu to indicate whether he is aware of any police departments that have received rejections from the FAA when seeking to fly their drones outside of direct line of sight in an official capacity.
  • Mr. Sidhu answered affirmatively. He indicated that multiple public safety agencies have been unsuccessful in obtaining waivers from the FAA. He stated that this need for FAA approval constitutes one of the greatest challenges facing public safety agencies in scaling their DFR programs. He remarked that the U.S. should establish a “reasonable and scalable” process at the FAA that would enable public safety agencies to obtain BVLOS waivers. He stated that these agencies should be able to obtain BVLOS waivers from the FAA through demonstrating that they possess ground sensors (such as radars) that enable them to safely operate.
• Rep. Strong asked the witnesses to address how Congress can make it easier for police departments to obtain BVLOS waivers from the FAA.
  • Mr. Sidhu highlighted how the recently passed FAA reauthorization legislation mandates that the FAA make reforms to the BVLOS waiver process within a set period of time.
• Rep. Strong stated that Part 108 BVLOS rulemaking could safely support the scalability of DFR programs. He noted however that this rulemaking could take months to complete. He asked Mr. Robbins to identify actions that can be taken immediately to ensure that police departments can safely scale and grow their drone operations.
  • Mr. Robbins called on the FAA to templatize the approval process for DFR programs. He stated that many DFR programs are very similar and that there exists technology to integrate drones into airspace. He commented that this templatization could improve DFR program operations and safety.
• Rep. Strong stated that the U.S. must work to enable more law enforcement agencies to intercept and takedown drones.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA):

• Rep. Higgins asked Mr. Robbins to project how drone technology would look within a decade. He expressed interest in the development of drones that have improved stealth, optic, and coordination capabilities. He added that AI could support these capabilities.
  • Mr. Robbins remarked that AI could support the scalability of the drone industry, which can provide the drone sector with “almost limitless” potential. He stated that drones may be developed that could safely move people and objects and that these capabilities could transform the logistics and transportation industries. He further stated that drone innovation has significant military implications.
• Rep. Higgins expressed agreement with Mr. Robbins’s answer. He remarked that the U.S. must deploy drone technology in a manner that is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. He argued that more drones should be more greatly deployed at the U.S.’s southern border with Mexico for monitoring purposes. He stated that people crossing the U.S.’s southern border with Mexico do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He remarked however that U.S. citizens should have a reasonable expectation of privacy as they travel within the U.S. He asked Mr. Chell to indicate whether the New York City Police Department’s use of drones for security purposes would compromise the freedom, Fourth Amendment rights, and privacy of the people in New York City.
  • Mr. Chell remarked that the New York City Police Department’s use of drones would not compromise the freedom, Fourth Amendment rights, and privacy of the people in New York City. He mentioned how the Department maintains self-imposed restrictions on its use of drones to protect the privacy of the people in New York City. He testified that the Department does not permit its drones to monitor the backyards of New York City residents, to use facial recognition technologies, or to engage in daily patrols.
• Rep. Higgins interjected to ask Mr. Chell to indicate whether the New York City Police Department allows for its drones to monitor public streets.
  • Mr. Chell remarked that there must exist mitigating circumstances for the New York City Police Department’s drones to monitor public streets. He indicated that the Department had clearly defined ten such mitigating circumstances.
• Rep. Higgins interjected to remark that surveillance results in changed behavior and stated that policymakers ought to be concerned regarding drone technology’s privacy implications.

Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX):

• Rep. Nehls mentioned how had served in local law enforcement for over 30 years and stated that drones had been beneficial during his law enforcement career. He discussed how law enforcement officers and first responders are often forced to respond to difficult and dangerous situations and stated that drones can provide valuable real-time information to these officers and responders. He remarked that the U.S. must provide its law enforcement agencies with the best available technology, weaponry, and tools to combat violent criminals. He mentioned how he had proposed the Drone Research and Innovation for Law Enforcement Act of 2023, which would permit small unmanned aircraft pilot research for public safety. He indicated that this legislation would establish a pilot research study managed by the FAA’s Center of Excellence for UAS. He stated that the goal of this study would be to evaluate the potential of non-lethal de-escalation drones as a tool for state and local law enforcement during high-risk events. He commented that de-escalation drones provide officers with more distance from dangers and time to address dangers. He also noted how the legislation would direct the FAA Administrator to initiate a rulemaking process that could approve the use of non-lethal de-escalation unmanned aircrafts. He asked Mr. Daughtry to explain how law enforcement agencies would use a drone in a hostage situation or a school shooting where the perpetrators have bunkered into a compound.
  • Mr. Daughtry recounted how the New York City Police Department had recently used a drone to successfully apprehend a suspect during a barricade situation. He noted how the Department had sent in a drone after exhausting other technologies (including a robot and a ball with a camera attached). He indicated that the drone had successfully distracted the suspect, which had enabled the Department to safely take this suspect into custody. He described drones as a “game changer” for law enforcement agencies and stated that drones are saving the lives of law enforcement agencies.
• Rep. Nehls mentioned how drones had been used during his law enforcement career to respond to high-risk warrants. He stated that drones save the lives of law enforcement officers and expressed support for equipping drones with non-lethal weapons. He then asked Mr. Daughtry to discuss the New York City Police Department’s StarChase pilot program.
  • Mr. Daughtry remarked that the New York City Police Department’s StarChase pilot program serves as another tool for fighting crime. He stated that crime had increased following the COVID-19 pandemic and noted how many criminals have refused to stop for the police during traffic stops. He explained that the StarChase pilot program allows for the Department’s police officers to shoot a dart at a vehicle that is evading police detention or that is reported stolen so that the Department can track the vehicle in real-time. He stated that this tracking enables the Department to avoid chasing the vehicle and to safely take the driver of the vehicle into custody once the vehicle comes to a stop.
• Rep. Nehls expressed support for the New York City Police Department’s StarChase pilot program. He commented that police officers do not like to engage in high-speed vehicle chases because these chases can be dangerous. He then expressed support for equipping all police sergeant vehicles with drones and noted how these drones are “relatively cheap.” He called on Congress to support law enforcement’s use of UAS technology.

Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY):

• Chairman D’Esposito remarked that drones are drastically improving the U.S.’s public safety and that the U.S. must address current barriers preventing the use of drones. He mentioned how the recent FAA reauthorization bill includes language to support drone takedown authorities and provisions to support domestic drone manufacturers. He noted how law enforcement agencies seeking to launch DFR programs must acquire a Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the FAA and have staff members that can fly drones. He asked Mr. Robbins and Mr. Sidhu to identify the top three actions that Congress must take to enable law enforcement agencies to use drones to their full capacity.
  • Mr. Robbins first remarked that Congress should work to improve access to drone technology for law enforcement agencies. He mentioned how the Drones for First Responders Act had recently been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. He noted that this legislation would create a revenue neutral program that would allow for first responders to acquire more drones and drone systems. He added that this program would support drone training and maintenance costs. He then remarked that Congress should provide oversight of the FAA and ensure that the FAA is adhering to the BVLOS rulemaking timeline. He also stated that Congress should ensure that the FAA is making continued progress on BVLOS waivers and exemptions. He lastly remarked that Congress should support the U.S.’s broader drone competitiveness initiative so that U.S. drone manufacturers can better compete against subsidized and unsecure competition from China.
• Chairman D’Esposito asked Mr. Robbins to elaborate on his recommendation that Congress provide oversight of the FAA.
  • Mr. Robbins remarked that the FAA is performing admirably given its current resources and authorities. He noted how public safety agencies can struggle to obtain necessary exemptions from the FAA to pursue drone activities. He mentioned that while public safety officials have indicated that their interactions with FAA officials have been positive, he stated that additional Congressional oversight of the FAA will result in the Agency’s improved performance.
• Chairman D’Esposito then mentioned how several members of the Committee (including himself) also serve on the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He remarked that Congress can take lessons learned from both Committees to support law enforcement and fire safety agencies in their uses of drone technology.
  • Mr. Robbins expressed agreement with Chairman D’Esposito’s remark.
• Chairman D’Esposito to asked Mr. Daughtry to describe the relationship between the New York City Police Department and the FAA.
  • Mr. Daughtry recounted how the New York City Police Department had provided a demonstration of its DFR Program to the FAA. He testified that the FAA had provided the Department with positive feedback and that the FAA had indicated that it would like to use the Department’s DFR program as a model program for the rest of the U.S.
• Chairman D’Esposito indicated that his question period time had expired.

Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee Ranking Member Lou Correa (D-CA):

• Ranking Member Correa first thanked Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY) for his work on legislation to empower public safety agencies to address potentially hostile drones. He then mentioned how his state of California is set to host several major international sporting events, including 2026 World Cup games and the 2028 Summer Olympics. He also highlighted how his region of Orange County, California is experiencing significant development, including the expansion of Disneyland and the construction of the OC Vibe project. He stated that these events and developments create significant safety challenges. He asked Mr. Fetterman to discuss what the Orange County Fire Authority needs from the federal government to ensure that it can use drone technology to keep the public safe and to protect the public from hostile drones.
  • Mr. Fetterman recommended that Congress reinstate the UASI Program and SHSGP funding to support drone purchases. He also stated that the U.S. should establish a national standard training curriculum on drones for firefighters. He suggested that the U.S. National Fire Academy could host this curriculum under the USFA. He further discussed how drones provide information and stated that the U.S. should therefore support common operational platforms for drones. He identified SARCOP as one such platform.
• Ranking Member Correa then discussed how foreign drone manufacturers are currently outcompeting U.S. drone manufacturers. He asked Mr. Sidhu to discuss how U.S. drone manufacturers can become more competitive with these foreign drone manufacturers. He also asked Mr. Sidhu to recommend how Congress can better address the needs of local public safety agencies through providing common operational platforms.
  • Mr. Sidhu remarked that there exists an “overlap” between a public safety agency establishing a DFR 2.0 system and a public safety agency protecting their airspace. He stated that this overlap exists because the flying of drones beyond a visual line of sight without a visual observer requires the placement of ground-based sensors that can detect drones and aircrafts within the airspace. He commented that these sensors are necessary for enabling drones to safely fly miles away. He stated that empowering local public safety agencies to establish DFR 2.0 systems will result in the deployment of drone detection and airspace monitoring infrastructure. He then remarked that the U.S. must support domestic drone manufacturers, including enabling these domestic drone manufacturers to catch up financially with foreign drone manufacturers. He noted how foreign adversaries have provided their drone manufacturers with significant amounts of money and commented that U.S. drone manufacturers will not immediately become competitive with foreign drone manufacturers. He stated that financial and federal agency support will be key to supporting the competitiveness of U.S. drone manufacturers.
• Ranking Member Correa also asked Mr. Sidhu to address the privacy concerns stemming from drones.
  • Mr. Sidhu remarked that one of the most important elements of deploying a DFR program is the gathering of community input. He stated that communities deploying these programs must ensure that drones are only used to respond to service calls.
• Ranking Member Correa interjected to remark that policymakers must address the inappropriate use of recreational drones. He expressed interest in working with the witnesses on developing policies to educate recreational drone users on the proper uses of drones. He then indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-NY):

• Rep. Kennedy asked Mr. Fetterman to indicate whether drones are being used to locate and triage patients in multiple casualty accidents prior to the arrival of health care providers.
  • Mr. Fetterman answered affirmatively. He discussed how drones provide thermal imaging capabilities that enable first responders to better search for patients in need of care.
• Rep. Kennedy asked Mr. Fetterman to indicate whether there exist regulations that need to be changed to support fire departments in adopting drone technologies.
  • Mr. Fetterman mentioned how the Orange County Fire Authority has good relationships with its federal law enforcement partners through its fusion centers and its relationships with the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). He stated that these relationships help his Authority to address private drone incursions into FTAs. He also stated that these strong relationships enable his Authority to get its “robust” aircraft fleets back into firefighting missions.
• Rep. Kennedy then noted how FEMA grants, including the AFG program, do not allow for the purchase of drones. He asked Mr. Fetterman to indicate whether the restrictions imposed on these grants harm the Orange County Fire Authority. He also Mr. Fetterman to indicate whether Congress should allow for these grants to cover drone purchases.
  • Mr. Fetterman remarked that additional funding and support for U.S.-manufactured drones would be “fantastic.” He also discussed how the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force (US&R Task Force) works closely with local partners during national disasters.