Unnamed: 0
int64 0
4.52k
| report
stringlengths 7
512
|
|---|---|
2,100 | the Congress. Instead of employing special use permits to grant right-of-way authorizations, one improvement the Forest Service could make is to grant authorizations using an instrument, such as an easement, that is more commonly found in the market. Special use permits convey rights that are similar to those of easements but not equal to them. Special use permits are revocable. In other words, during the term of a permit, if the agency decides that a right-of-way is no longer consistent with management’s |
2,101 | goals for an area of a forest, the agency can revoke the permit and require the operator to remove his investment in the land and leave. Because of this situation, banks do not recognize a permit as granting a value in the land equivalent to that granted by an easement, which is not revocable but can be terminated if the operator breaches the terms and conditions of the easement. The constraint on special use permits affects the users of rights-of-way when they are trying to obtain financing for a project. |
2,102 | With a permit, the permittee is also at risk if the Forest Service decides to trade or exchange the land that the right-of-way crosses. In such instances, the permittee must renegotiate a right-of-way with the new landowner. If the Forest Service is going to revise its fee system to reflect fair market value, then the agency also needs a comparable instrument that conveys rights similar to those commonly found in the marketplace. This comparability could best be achieved by issuing easements instead of perm |
2,103 | its. Permits have been viewed by agency officials as giving the Forest Service more flexibility because it can terminate them if the use is no longer consistent with management’s objectives in a forest. In practice, agency officials indicated that rarely has this flexibility been used to revoke a permit. Another improvement available to the agency in administering rights-of-way is to revise its billing system to eliminate the annual billing of permit fees. Instead, the agency could bill only once for the 20 |
2,104 | - or 30-year term of an authorization, or perhaps reduce billing to every 5 or 10 years. The agency has the authority to make this change for power lines and communications lines, but it would need to seek authority to do so for oil and gas pipelines. In addition, the agency can consolidate billing for operators that have multiple permits within the same forest or region. One-time billing and consolidated billing would reduce costs to both the agency and the permittee. For example, the Forest Service estima |
2,105 | tes that it costs the agency an average of about $40 to mail a bill and collect payment for a permit. Over the life of a 30-year permit, the agency’s costs would be $1,200. With 5,600 rights-of-way permits for oil and gas pipelines, power lines, and communications lines, the potential savings for the program could be substantial—roughly $6.7 million ($1,200 x 5,600 permits) over a 30-year term. (The potential savings of $6.7 million has a net present value of about $3.9 million.) If the agency moved to a on |
2,106 | e-time payment, it would substantially reduce the costs of processing bills in the future. These costs can be further reduced by consolidating billing for multiple permits issued to the same operator within a forest or region. While the agency has made progress in consolidating some bills into “master permits,” industry officials indicated that there remain more opportunities for consolidation. Both one-time billing and consolidated billing are commonly found in the marketplace, and both are supported by in |
2,107 | dustry representatives. Furthermore, moving to a one-time billing process has significant cost-savings implications if and when the Forest Service attempts to increase its fees to reflect fair market value. Specifically, if the Forest Service decides to move to site-specific appraisals to establish fees, as described in the third option, the agency would have to do thousands of appraisals to determine the fees for the current permits. As we noted, under current conditions, this additional workload could be |
2,108 | both costly and time-consuming. However, if the agency moved to a one-time billing process and based its fees on site-specific appraisals, then the agency would need to perform an appraisal on each permit only once over a 20- to 30-year authorization period. While the agency would spend more of its resources on appraisals, agency officials indicated that the cost savings of moving to one-time billing would more than cover the additional appraisal costs. Furthermore, the agency can largely negate these costs |
2,109 | by requiring the users to pay for any needed appraisals. The industry representatives that we spoke to had no problem with paying for the necessary appraisals as long as the agency also moved to easements and one-time billing. Another improvement to the agency’s administration of rights-of-way is to reduce the time the agency takes to reach a decision on whether to approve a new right-of-way. Industry representatives indicated that it frequently takes months and occasionally years for the Forest Service to |
2,110 | reach a decision on whether to approve an application for a new right-of-way permit. Generally, delays in approving applications are the result of a lack of agency staff to perform environmental studies and inconsistent requirements among Forest Service units. Forest Service headquarters officials acknowledged that applications for permits are not processed in a timely manner, and they are now trying to identify opportunities for streamlining the agency’s practices to help address this issue. It is their v |
2,111 | iew that the industry should assume a greater share of the costs of both processing applications for new rights-of-way and administering existing rights-of-way. Industry representatives we spoke with indicated a willingness to pay for application and administration costs. Both agency and industry representatives have been working together to implement and resolve this issue. The Forest Service needs to update its current fees to fair market value for rights-of-way used by operators of oil and gas pipelines, |
2,112 | power lines, and communications lines. In most cases, nonfederal landowners charge higher fees for similar rights-of-way. In attempting to arrive at fees based on fair market value, the agency has several options. Each of these options has a number of advantages and disadvantages. The initial costs of developing a new fee system could be substantial because of the need to perform appraisals and collect the market data needed to establish fair market value. These costs could be mitigated, and in some cases |
2,113 | negated, with some administrative improvements to the program. Given the tight budgets and resource constraints that all federal land management agencies are experiencing, one option appears to be the most advantageous—obtaining site-specific appraisals that are paid for by the users of rights-of-way. However, to implement this option, a number of other changes would have to be made to the program to make it more market-like and more efficient to administer. To meet the requirements of FLPMA, MLA, and OMB C |
2,114 | ircular A-25, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to develop a fee system that ensures that fair market value is obtained from companies that have rights-of-way to operate oil and gas pipelines, power lines, and communications lines across Forest Service lands. While there are a number of options available to accomplish this goal, the option of establishing fees based on local market data or site-specific appraisals paid for by the users of rights-of-way app |
2,115 | ears to be the most attractive because it collects fair market value for each right-of-way and also reduces the agency’s administrative costs. We also recommend that the Secretary improve the administration of the program by (1) authorizing rights-of-way with a more market-like instrument—specifically, easements; (2) billing once during the term of an authorization or, at a minimum, reducing the frequency of the billing cycle; and (3) consolidating the billing of multiple permits issued to the same operator |
2,116 | in a forest or region. To the extent that the agency needs additional authority to charge one-time fees, we recommend that the Secretary seek that authority from the Congress. In addition, we also recommend that the Forest Service continue its efforts to streamline its practices for processing applications for right-of-way authorizations. We provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service and the Western Utility Group—an industry group representing a large number of users of rights-of-way—for their r |
2,117 | eview and comment. We met with officials from the Forest Service—including the Acting Director of the Division of Lands—and with officials from the Western Utility Group, including its Chairman. Both the agency and the Western Utility Group agreed with the factual content, conclusions, and recommendations in the report. While the Forest Service officials agreed with the report’s recommendations, they noted that the recommendations should also include having the Forest Service (1) look for ways to operate mo |
2,118 | re efficiently and (2) manage the rights-of-way program in a more business-like manner. We are not including these points because we believe they are already inherent in our recommendations. The Forest Service officials also stated that the industry should assume a greater share of the costs of both processing applications for new rights-of-way and administering existing rights-of-way. We have revised the report to reflect this comment. Officials from the Western Utility Group provided us with some clarific |
2,119 | ations on technical issues, which have been included in the report as appropriate. They also noted that while they currently pay nonfederal landowners higher fees for rights-of-way, it is their view that they get more from these landowners than they do from the Forest Service because nonfederal landowners (1) generally use easements, instead of permits, to authorize rights-of-way and (2) are more timely than the Forest Service in responding to requests for rights-of-way. We conducted our review from April 1 |
2,120 | 995 through March 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We performed our work at Forest Service headquarters and field offices. We also contacted nonfederal landowners and representatives of companies that operate oil and gas pipelines, power lines, and communications lines on federal lands. Appendix II contains further details on our objectives, scope, and methodology. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further dis |
2,121 | tribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others on request. Should you have questions about this report or need more information, please call me at (202) 512-3841. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. We were asked by the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight |
2,122 | of Government Management and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, to determine (1) whether the fees currently charged to users of Forest Service rights-of-way that operate oil and gas pipelines, power lines, and communications lines reflect fair market value, (2) how the Forest Service’s fees compare with fees charged by nonfederal landowners, and (3) what, if any, changes are needed to the Forest Service’s fee system to ensure that fees reflect fair market value. Our review i |
2,123 | ncluded rights-of-way managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Our work addressed the major commercial users of rights-of-way: oil and gas pipelines, power lines, and communications lines. To determine how the Forest Service establishes fees for rights-of-way, we reviewed the laws and implementing regulations governing rights-of-way. Because the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) worked together to develop the joint 1986 fee schedule for rights-of-way, we reviewed |
2,124 | the methods these agencies used to develop the schedule. However, we did not verify the accuracy of the data or the computations used by the agencies in developing this fee schedule. To determine whether the current federal fees reflect fair market value, we reviewed applicable laws and regulations, along with the Department of Agriculture’s requirements for obtaining fair market value on lands it administers. We interviewed representatives of nonfederal entities (states, counties, private companies, and pr |
2,125 | ivate landowners) to obtain information on commonly accepted techniques for determining fair market value. We also interviewed officials at Forest Service headquarters and field locations. We reviewed rights-of-way in six national forests: the Angeles National Forest and the San Bernardino National Forest in California, the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado, the Lolo National Forest in Montana, the Washington/Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, and the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest i |
2,126 | n Washington. We selected these sites to obtain broad geographical representation and to encompass a high volume of commercial rights-of-way. To determine how federal fees compare with fees charged on nonfederal land, we compared the fee determination methods used by the Forest Service and BLM to those used by states, counties, private companies, and private landowners. For example, we interviewed state and county officials responsible for rights-of-way agreements in California, Colorado, Montana, Virginia, |
2,127 | and Washington. We also interviewed commercial land managers who manage private lands in Montana and Virginia. Furthermore, we reviewed the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) settlement records for rights-of-way in Montana and Washington states. In addition, state and county officials, private land managers, and BPA administrators told us what they charged and/or were charged for various types of rights-of-way agreements. Using net present value techniques, we compared these fees with those charged by |
2,128 | the federal government. In order to compute the net present value of future payments to the Forest Service, we deflated future payments by 4.2 percent per year. We obtained this number by subtracting expected inflation from the 30-year government bond rate. As of March 21, 1996, the 30-year government bond rate was 6.65 percent, and the WEFA Group’s forecast for inflation was 2.45 percent. (The WEFA Group is a commonly cited, private economic forecasting organization that produces estimates of the long-ter |
2,129 | m economic outlook, including expected inflation.) To obtain views on potential changes to the Forest Service’s fee schedule, we met with officials of the Western Utility Group. This organization represents over 25 major companies that operate oil and gas pipelines, power lines, and communications lines. These companies represent about 75 percent of the energy and communications business in 11 western states. About 74 percent of all the land in the Forest Service is within these 11 western states. (For a li |
2,130 | st of member organizations of the Western Utility Group, see app. I.) In addition, we interviewed private landowners and Forest Service personnel in each of the states we visited. Finally, we interviewed several BLM field staff to obtain their viewpoints on the fee schedule. Joseph D. Kile The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, wh |
2,131 | en necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimon |
2,132 | y. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. |
2,133 | UASs can be categorized by both size and mission, as shown in figure 1. For the purposes of this report, in terms of size, we use the broad categories of “small” and “large” UASs. Small UASs typically weigh less than 55 pounds and can be used for a variety of commercial purposes including photography and package delivery. According to an industry association, small UASs are expected to comprise the majority of UASs that will operate in the national airspace system. Large UASs, depending on their size and pu |
2,134 | rpose, generally fly at higher altitudes and are used for the purposes of surveillance, data gathering, and communications relay. UAS operations are also categorized by how they are being used— their mission—within line of sight of the operator or beyond the line of sight of the operator. For UAS operations within the operator’s line of sight—for example a real estate agent taking photographs of a house—the operator relies only on their vision to avoid colliding with other objects. On the other hand, UAS op |
2,135 | erations occurring beyond the line of sight of the operator—for example conducting rail or pipeline inspections—requires that FAA segregate the airspace or that the UAS needs instruments to sense other aircraft and obstacles and avoid those obstacles, as well as, other technologies that will keep the aircraft safely operating during its mission. The FAA plays two major roles in integrating UASs into the national airspace—a regulator and a service provider. As the regulator, the FAA seeks to ensure the safet |
2,136 | y of persons and property in the air and on the ground in part by requiring that UAS operators and manufactures follow specific operation and manufacturing standards. As the service provider, the FAA is responsible for providing safe and efficient air-traffic control services in the national airspace system and the other portions of global airspace. In addition to FAA, many federal and private sector entities have roles in the effort to integrate UAS into the national airspace system. See table 1 for UAS st |
2,137 | akeholders and their responsibilities. FAA also partners with a range of industry, federal research entities, universities, and international organizations for research and development on UAS issues. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements typically require an agency, organization, or company to perform specific research and provide FAA with data in exchange for funding. FAA uses these types of agreements to support research and development in cr |
2,138 | itical technologies needed for UAS integration including “detect and avoid” and “command and control” as well as for the dedicated radio- frequency spectrum and “human factors.” Some other partnerships use Other Transaction Agreements to establish the research and development relationship.these take many forms and are subject to requirements that may differ from the federal laws and regulations that apply to contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements, and therefore might not include a requirement to share |
2,139 | research results with FAA. Currently, most UAS operations must remain within visual line of sight of the UAS operator. FAA’s long-term goal is to pursue research and development that will advance technology in these critical areas, such as detect and avoid, and supporting beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. These types of operations, according to an industry group, have the most potential for commercial purposes. In response to the 2012 Act, FAA has been planning for UAS integration into the national a |
2,140 | irspace and has been taking steps toward increasing UAS operations. The 2012 Act outlined 17 date specific requirements and set deadlines for FAA to achieve safe UAS integration by September 2015. These requirements included developing two planning documents - UAS Comprehensive Plan and the UAS Roadmap. FAA has completed these two requirements in addition to naming six test sites where research and development will occur. However, we found in December 2014 that several other requirements, some key ones, inc |
2,141 | luding the publication of a final rule on small UAS operations, had not been completed (see app. II). As part of its role in supporting UAS integration, FAA authorizes all UAS operations (access to the airspace as well as the aircraft itself) in the national airspace system—military; public (academic institutions and, federal, state, and local governments including law enforcement organizations); and civil (non-government including commercial). Depending on the type of user, public or civil, the process for |
2,142 | accessing the airspace may be different (see table 2). Currently, since a final rulemaking is not yet completed, FAA only approves UASs access to the national airspace on a case-by-case basis. FAA provides this approval through three different means: Public or Civil Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA): A COA is an authorization, generally for up to 2 years, issued by the FAA to an operator for a specific UAS activity. Public entities, including FAA- designated test sites (described in more detail |
2,143 | later), and civil entities may apply for a COA to obtain authorized access to the airspace. FAA has a goal to review and approve all COAs within 60 days of being received. Section 333 exemptions: Since September 2014, commercial entities have applied to FAA for exemptions under section 333 of the 2012 Act, Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This exemption requires the Secretary of Transportation to determine if certain UASs may operate safely in the national airspace system prior to the c |
2,144 | ompletion of UAS rulemakings. Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Experimental Category and the Restricted Category (Experimental Certificate): Civil entities, including commercial interests, may apply for experimental certificates, which may be used for research and development, commercial operations, training, or demonstrations by manufacturers. While FAA has proceeded in planning for integration, foreign countries are also experiencing an increase in UAS use and planning for integration, and some h |
2,145 | ave begun to allow commercial entities to fly UASs under limited circumstances. Some countries have already established regulations for flying UASs or formal processes for exemptions, while others have taken steps to completely ban all UAS operations. While some countries have worked independently to integrate UAS operations, some international groups, such as the ICAO, are working to harmonize UAS regulations and standards across borders. FAA has taken a number of steps to move toward further safe integrat |
2,146 | ion of UAS in the national airspace in response to key requirements of the 2012 Act. FAA has developed the following planning documents: In November 2013, FAA issued the UAS Comprehensive Plan identifying six high-level strategic goals for integrating UAS into the national airspace, including routine public operation and routine civil operations. The Comprehensive Plan provides a phased-in approach for achieving these goals, which will initially focus on public UAS operations, but ultimately will provide a |
2,147 | framework for civil UAS operations. According to the plan, each partner agency will work to achieve these national goals and may develop agency-specific plans that are aligned to the national goals and objectives. The DOD’s Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap and FAA’s UAS Integration Roadmap, described below, are examples of such plans. In November 2013, FAA also issued the UAS Integration Roadmap, which identified a broad three phase approach to UAS integration— accommodation, integration, and evolution—w |
2,148 | ith associated priorities for each phase. These priorities provide insight into FAA’s near-, mid-, and far-term goals for UAS integration, as shown in figure 2. FAA intends to use this approach to facilitate further incremental steps toward its goal of seamlessly integrating UAS flight into the national airspace. Under this approach, FAA’s initial focus during the accommodation phase will be on safely allowing for the expanded operation of UASs by selectively accommodating some use and demonstrating progres |
2,149 | s by increasing operations throughout the phase. In the integration phase, FAA plans to develop new operational rules, standards, and guidance, shifting its emphasis toward moving beyond case-by-case approval for UAS use, once technology can support safe operations. Finally, in the evolution phase, FAA plans to focus on revising its regulations, policy, and standards based on the changing needs of the airspace. This phased approach has been supported by stakeholders across both academia and industry. The 20 |
2,150 | 12 Act requires the Roadmap to be updated annually, but as of May 2015 FAA has only issued one version of the Roadmap. FAA intends to update the Roadmap by September 2015 and send it to the Office of Management and Budget for additional review before it is publicly released. While these planning documents provide a broad framework for integration, FAA is still in process of developing an implementation plan for integrating UASs. FAA’s Comprehensive Plan and Roadmap provide broad plans for integration, but a |
2,151 | re not detailed implementation plans that predict with any certainty when full integration will occur and what resources will be needed. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General issued a report in June 2014 that recommended FAA develop an implementation plan. Two reports—one from the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee and a second internal FAA report—have discussed the importance of an implementation plan and information to include as part of such a plan. The UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee has |
2,152 | emphasized that FAA needs an implementation plan that would identify the means, necessary resources, and schedule to safely and expeditiously integrate civil UAS into the national airspace. The proposed implementation plan contains several hundred tasks and other activities needed to complete the UAS integration process, including: identifying gaps in current UAS technologies, regulations, standards, policies, or procedures; developing new technologies, regulations, standards, policies, and procedures that |
2,153 | would support safe UAS operations; and identifying necessary activities to advance routine UAS operations in the national airspace, including the development of guidance materials, training, and procedures for certification of aircraft. An internal FAA report from August 2014 prepared by MITRE Corporation (MITRE) was intended to assist FAA’s development of the key components of an implementation plan.among other actions FAA’s implementation plan should: identify the tasks necessary, responsibilities, resou |
2,154 | rces, and expected time frames for incremental expansion of UAS operations; clarify the priorities for aligning internal resources in support of near- term and long-term integration efforts and provide consistent communication with external stakeholders on the expected progress, cost, and extent of UAS integration during these time periods; align resources supporting UAS integration including allocation of FAA personnel and funds used for contracts and to acquire systems and services in support of integrati |
2,155 | on; and establish the operational, performance, and safety data needed and also the associated infrastructure for collecting, storing, disseminating, and analyzing data, actions that could be a component of an implementation plan. According to FAA, it continues to work with MITRE developing the foundation for a detailed implementation plan. FAA expects MITRE to complete this by September 2015 and FAA to enact the plan by December 2015. According to FAA, the agency used the Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s re |
2,156 | port when writing the Roadmap and is applying the report prepared by MITRE to help develop the detailed implementation plan. In February 2015, FAA made progress toward the 2012 Act’s requirement to issue a final rule for the operations of small UASs—those weighing less than 55 pounds—by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that could, once finalized, allow greater access to the national airspace.To mitigate risk, the proposed rule would limit small UASs to daylight-only operations, confined areas |
2,157 | of operation, and visual-line-of-sight operations. This proposed rule also addressed other issues pertinent to UAS operations including aircraft registration, operations in the national airspace, and operator certification. See table 3 for a summary of the rule’s major provisions. FAA’s release of this proposed rule for small UAS operations started the process of addressing remaining requirements of the 2012 Act. FAA’s proposed rule also sought comments on a potential micro-UAS classification (4.4 pounds or |
2,158 | less) that would apply to very small UAS being used for authorized purposes. This classification would be based on the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s recommendations, as well as approaches adopted in other countries, that a separate set of regulations for micro-UASs be created. FAA is considering provisions for micro-UASs classification such as limiting operation airspeed to 30 knots, limiting flight to within visual line of sight, and having aircraft made out of materials that break on impact. The pr |
2,159 | oposed rule would not apply to model aircraft—unmanned aircraft that are flown for hobby or recreational purposes, capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, and flown within visual line of site of the person who is operating the aircraft—as specified in the 2012 Act. Whether or not a UAS is considered a model aircraft or a small UAS depends upon its operation. For example, if the operator is flying an unmanned aircraft for recreational purposes the unmanned aircraft is considered a model aircraft. If t |
2,160 | he exact same type of unmanned aircraft is being operated for an authorized purpose such as a search and rescue mission, it is considered a small UAS. The 2012 Act specifically prohibits FAA from promulgating rules regarding model aircraft that meet specific criteria, including model aircraft flown strictly for hobby or recreational use and operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft. However, the proposed rule would incorporate the 2012 Act provisions that preserv |
2,161 | e FAA’s authority to pursue enforcement against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system. According to FAA, it may take 16 months to process the comments it receives on the NPRM and develop and issue the final rule for small UAS operations. If FAA takes 16 months, the final rule would be issued in late 2016 or early 2017, about two years beyond the requirement in the 2012 Act. However, during the course of our work, FAA told us that the time needed to respond |
2,162 | to a large number of comments could further extend the time to issue a final rule. When the comment period closed on April 24, 2015 FAA had received over 4,500 comments. FAA officials told us that it has taken a number of steps to develop a framework to efficiently process the comments it expects to receive. Specifically, they said that FAA has a team of employees assigned to lead the effort with contractor support to track and categorize the comments as soon as they are received. FAA has also met the requi |
2,163 | rement from the 2012 Act to create UAS test sites for research and development. Specifically, in December 2013 FAA selected six UAS test site locations, which all became operational between April 2014 and August 2014. According to FAA, these sites were chosen based on a number of factors including geography, climate, airspace use, and a proposed research portfolio that was part of the application. Under FAA policy, all UAS operations at a test site must be authorized by FAA through either the use of a COA o |
2,164 | r an experimental certificate. In addition, FAA does not provide funding to support the test sites. Thus, these sites rely upon revenue generated from entities, such as those in the UAS industry that are using the sites for UAS flights. The 2012 Act authorized the test sites to operate until February 14, 2017. FAA stated it is too early to assess the test sites’ results and effectiveness and thus whether the test sites should be extended. According to FAA officials, FAA does not object to extending the test |
2,165 | sites but may need additional resources if that happens. Although it still relies on case-by-case approvals, FAA has increased UAS operations during the accommodation phase of UAS integration. As we have previously noted, UAS operators can only gain access to the national airspace by obtaining a COA, an experimental certificate, or a section 333 exemption. From 2010 to 2014, the total number of COAs approved for public operations has increased each year, with FAA issuing 403 COAs thus far this year, as sho |
2,166 | wn in table 4. Similarly, from 2011 to 2014, the total number of experimental certificates has increased each year, with FAA issuing 6 thus far this year. In September 2014, FAA granted the first section 333 exemptions; at that time 6 total exemptions were granted for commercial UAS operations to movie and TV production companies. As of June 9, 2015, FAA had granted 548 section 333 exemptions to companies for a variety of additional commercial operations supporting the real estate, utility, and agriculture |
2,167 | industries, among others. See figure 3 for examples of commercial uses, including some approved under section 333 exemptions. FAA has taken steps to make access easier for those operating UASs under a section 333 exemption. On March 23, 2015, FAA established an interim policy to speed up authorizations for certain commercial unmanned aircraft operators that request Section 333 exemptions. According to FAA, the new policy helps bridge the gap between the past “case-by-case” approval process, which evaluated |
2,168 | every commercial UAS operation individually, and future operations after they publish a final version of the proposed small UAS rule. Under the new policy, the FAA will grant a COA for flights at or below 200 feet to any commercial UAS operator with a Section 333 exemption for aircraft that weigh less than 55 pounds, operate during the daytime, operate within visual line of sight of the pilots, and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports. According to FAA, the “blanket” 200-foot COA allows fl |
2,169 | ights anywhere in the country except restricted airspace and other areas, such as major cities, where the FAA prohibits commercial UAS operations.expects the new policy will allow companies and individuals who want to use UAS within these limitations to start flying much more quickly than before. A company wanting to operate above 200 feet, or outside the other rules set up by FAA, must obtain a separate COA. FAA took additional steps in May 2015 to work with industry to safely expand UAS operations. FAA an |
2,170 | nounced its Pathfinder Program that will partner FAA with companies to perform research in support of UAS integration. These companies will focus on using UAS for specific applications, such as news gathering and surveying crops. In addition, two will focus on applications for beyond the visual line of sight of the operator. One industry stakeholder stated the next step would be to develop additional mechanisms to allow UAS operations beyond the visual line of sight of the operator once technology supports |
2,171 | greater use. While accommodating UAS access, FAA and industry have taken steps to educate UAS operators on how to safely operate. UAS industry stakeholders and FAA have begun an educational campaign that provides prospective users with information and guidance on flying safely and responsibly. Specifically, they launched an informational website for UAS operators to ease public concerns about privacy and support safer UAS operations in the national airspace.announced plans to develop the “B4UFLY” smartphone |
2,172 | application designed to help UAS users, both model aircraft and recreational UAS operators, know where it is safe and legal to fly. The application is designed to let an operator know if it is safe and legal to fly in a specific location. FAA has worked with federal and industry stakeholders to coordinate federal activities in support of conducting research and development and creating UAS standards to facilitate UAS integration. As with other large government-wide initiatives, achieving results for the na |
2,173 | tion increasingly requires that federal agencies and others work together. FAA has worked with the UAS Executive Committee to facilitate federal UAS activities and RTCA Special Committee 228, ASTM International Committee F38, and the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop safety, reliability, and performance standards for UAS. Each collaborative group has defined different long-term goals in support of UAS integration and has made progress toward the achieving these goals. The Executive Committee’s lo |
2,174 | ng-term goals involve working to solve the broad range of technical, procedural, and policy issues affecting UAS integration into the national airspace. In support of this objective, the Executive Committee agencies, other public agencies, and industry have also developed processes and procedures to safely demonstrate small UAS operations in remote areas of the Arctic, including beyond-line-of-site operations. The UAS demonstration occurred in domestic and international airspace on and off the coast of Alas |
2,175 | ka. RTCA Special Committee 228 has set out its own goals across two phases. Currently working toward completion of the first phase, RTCA is developing minimum operational performance standards for detect and avoid and command and control technologies for UASs. RTCA has made progress toward this goal with help from the Executive Committee. Specifically, the Executive Committee’s Science and Research Panel developed a definition of “well clear” to help inform RTCA Special Committee 228’s work. The UAS Aviatio |
2,176 | n Rulemaking Committee has a goal to develop a report for FAA on its efforts to provide direction for UAS operational criteria, among other tasks, by April 18, 2016. ASTM International F38’s long-term goal involves developing and publishing voluntary consensus standards for small and large UASs as FAA requests them. ASTM International Committee F38 has developed standards and recommendations to support FAA’s small UAS rulemaking that cover elements such as systems design, construction, and testing. FAA has |
2,177 | applied other interagency collaborative methods in support of UAS integration including memorandums of understanding or agreement (MOU) and conferences. FAA entered into MOUs with DOD and NASA to expedite the COA process and ensure the availability of DOD’s data. According to FAA officials, the MOUs eased collaboration with DOD and NASA because the MOUs established roles and responsibilities for each agency as well as procedures for DOD to obtain COAs. In addition, FAA convenes meetings with test site offic |
2,178 | ials and attends conferences where UAS issues are discussed. For example, FAA regularly holds conference calls and convenes technical interchange meetings with test site officials to address test site issues. According to FAA, the technical interchange meetings are opportunities for FAA to provide updates to the test sites and discuss common areas of research interest. The manager of the FAA’s UAS Integration Office has presented information about its UAS efforts during industry conferences, such as the Ass |
2,179 | ociation for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International’s annual meeting. These conferences allow FAA to provide guidance and updates directly to the industry and public. Since being named in December 2013, the six designated test sites have become operational, applying for and receiving authorization from FAA to conduct test flights. Specifically, from April through August 2014, each of the six test sites became operational and signed an Other Transaction Agreement with FAA, establishing their research and dev |
2,180 | elopment relationship. All flights at a test site must be authorized under the authority of a COA or an experimental certificate approved by FAA. Since becoming operational, five of the six test sites received 48 COAs and one experimental certificate in support of UAS operations resulting in over 195 UAS flights across the five test sites. These flights provide the operations and safety data to FAA as required by the COA. While there are only a few contracts with industry thus far, according to test site op |
2,181 | erators, these will be important if the test sites are to generate sufficient revenue to remain in operation. Table 5 provides an overview of test-site activity since the sites became operational. According to all test sites, FAA approval for access to the airspace can be a lengthy process taking 90 days or even longer. FAA and the test sites have found ways to allow quicker access to the test site airspace and relieve some administrative burden from FAA. In February 2015, FAA awarded the Northern Plains Te |
2,182 | st Site in North Dakota four broad area COAs that were aircraft specific. According to a test site official, these COAs allowed designated aircraft to fly over nearly the entire state of North Dakota and will make it easier to accommodate industry for research. Furthermore, these COAs were a positive step in allowing quicker access to the airspace at test sites. Reducing FAA’s role in the process creates more certainty regarding how long it will take an operator to access airspace at the test sites. Specifi |
2,183 | cally, the test site representative indicated FAA’s role was reduced because there was a process that allowed aircraft to be added to these existing COAs that was simpler than applying for individual COAs. In May 2015, FAA approved a “blanket” COA allowing the test sites to conduct UAS operations at or below 200 feet anywhere in the national airspace, similar to the authority provided to Section 333 exemptions. In particular, these COAs will be for small UAS operations, during the day, within line of sight |
2,184 | of the operator, and the operations cannot occur in restricted airspace and areas close to airports. According to FAA, this will help improve UAS access allowing more operations in support of research that can further the UAS integration process. Previously, all UASs needed their own COA when operating at a test site but this action by FAA will allow any small UASs to operate at the test sites within the COA’s requirements. The use of designated airworthiness representatives by the test sites to review and |
2,185 | approve experimental certificates may be quicker for industry and relieve some of FAA’s workload. Industry benefits from not having to lease its aircraft to the test site, as all test sites are operated by public entities (academic institutions or federal, state, or local governments) and thus all aircraft must be public aircraft, unless they are operating under a special certificate. In addition, any industry group working with the test site would not have to go through FAA to receive the experimental cert |
2,186 | ificate. The Nevada test site has affiliated itself with a designated airworthiness representative, who has approved an aircraft to operate under an experimental certificate for the Nevada test site. According to FAA, the use of a designated airworthiness representative allows it to better leverage its resources. FAA officials and some test site officials told us that progress has been made in part because of FAA’s and test sites’ efforts to work together. Test site officials meet every 2 weeks with FAA off |
2,187 | icials to discuss current issues, challenges, and progress. According to meeting minutes, these meetings have been used to discuss many issues from training for designated airworthiness representatives to processing of COAs. In addition, the six test sites have developed operational and safety processes that have been reviewed by FAA. Thus, while FAA has no funding directed to the test sites to specifically support research and development activities, FAA dedicates time and resources to supporting the test |
2,188 | sites, and FAA staff we spoke to believe test sites are a benefit to the integration process and worth this investment. Despite the progress made since they began operating, according to test site operators, they faced a number of challenges in the first year of operations: Guidance on research: According to FAA, because the test sites receive no federal funding, FAA can neither direct specific research to be conducted nor direct the test sites to share specific research data, other than the operations and |
2,189 | safety data required by the COA. The Other Transaction Agreement for each test site defines the purpose of the test sites as a place to conduct research and testing under FAA safety oversight to support UAS integration into the national airspace. The Other Transaction Agreement indicates the test sites will provide FAA with UAS research and operational data to support the development of procedures, standards, and regulations. However, FAA officials told us that the Antideficiency Act may prevent the agency |
2,190 | from directing specific test site activities without providing compensation. In October 2014, FAA provided a list of potential research areas to the test sites to guide the research that each test site may conduct. According to FAA, this document was not to be construed as a directive but more as guidance for possible research areas. However, three test sites told us this document was too broad to be considered guidance for the research test sites should conduct. Companies Conducting Beyond- Visual-Line-of- |
2,191 | Sight Testing Overseas Insitu, Inc., a Boeing subsidiary, conducted beyond-visual-line-of-sight testing in Denmark in May, 2015 with a ScanEagle UAS. The flights took place in cooperation with the Danish Transport Authority as part of an agreement signed by Boeing and the airport to develop a UAS Test Center in Denmark, which is used for training, testing, and development. The activity included members of the public and private sector, including the UAS Denmark Consortium, a group of companies, government o |
2,192 | rganizations, and other entities supporting UAS industry development. The testing demonstrated capabilities for a variety of industries, including agriculture and aerial surveying, emergency and natural-disaster response, and defense and Arctic surveillance. aircraft, meaning that civil operators still have to lease the aircraft to the test site for operations. But, as one test site representative stated a broad area COA, allowing civil operations at the test site would be even more beneficial. Another test |
2,193 | site representative indicated that they will continue to work with FAA to make access easier allowing flights at higher altitude with different aircraft. Maintaining operations: While all the test sites had some level of initial funding, from either private industry or state legislatures, to become operational, they must attract UAS industry to the test sites to generate enough revenue to maintain operations. However, test site operators reported that test sites have additional requirements as opposed to o |
2,194 | perating outside the test sites, including leasing the aircraft to the test site to operate under the public COA. While test sites have signed 22 contracts, there is a chance that some test sites will not survive due to the financial burden. Some companies have made a decision to go to other countries to conduct UAS testing because they believe it takes less time to be approved for test flights. For example, Amazon has reported it has testing under way in multiple countries outside the United States, includ |
2,195 | ing a site in Canada. In an effort to attract some industry operators, the Pan Pacific Test Site has a location in Iceland where, according to the Director, review and approval for test flights can happen much faster, in as few as 10 days, relative to over 90 days a COA may take in this country. In addition, the UAS industry is conducting tests in this country outside the test sites. For example, CNN worked with Georgia Institute of Technology. FAA has used cooperative research and development agreements, f |
2,196 | ederally funded research and development centers, and grants to conduct other UAS research and development. These agreements for research are similar to the Other Transaction Agreement that directs the purpose and goals of the relationship between FAA and the research entities. However, unlike the Other Transaction Agreement in place for the test sites, according to FAA, many of these agreements have language specifically addressing the sharing of research and data. The following are examples of other resou |
2,197 | rces FAA has devoted to UAS integration research and development: Cooperative research and development agreement: New Mexico State University has had a flight test center operating for several years under a cooperative research and development agreement with FAA. The center serves a similar purpose to the designated test sites but has been operating since 2007. The flight test center has conducted research in many areas including nighttime flying and more recently research into long-endurance UAS flights op |
2,198 | erating between 10,000 and 17,000 feet. According to an official, the New Mexico State University’s flight test center has challenges with getting access to the airspace for customers because the process to receive a COA can be lengthy. In addition, this official told us the flight test center would like authority to approve COAs to operate at the test center because the FAA is backlogged and therefore approvals are delayed. Finally, according to the flight test center operators, FAA can get data from the r |
2,199 | esearch being conducted at the test site but does not direct them what to provide. While the flight test center has operated under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement since 2007, in May 2015 the Flight Test Center switched to an Other Transaction Agreement to continue UAS testing. Federally funded research and development center: MITRE manages federal funded research and development centers for multiple federal agencies including FAA and DOD. MITRE has ongoing work supporting FAA’s UAS integrat |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.