Testimony Date: 09/19/2023
Congress Session Name: 118th Congress (First
Session)
Witness: Sean T. Pribyl
Witness Credentials: Partner, Holland & Knight
LLP, and Member, Committee on Coast Guard Maritime Domain Awareness,
Transportation Research Board, National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine
Chamber: House
Committee: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Use and Regulation of Autonomous and Experimental Maritime
Technologies
Testimony of
Sean T. Pribyl, Esq.
Partner, Holland & Knight
LLP
and
Member, Committee on Coast Guard Maritime Domain
Awareness
Transportation Research Board
National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Before the
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
September 19, 2023
Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Carbajal, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
testify about the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) consensus study
report on “Leveraging Unmanned Systems for Coast Guard Missions: A Strategic
Imperative” (2020)1 (the “Report” or Study”) and issues of regulation
of autonomous and experimental maritime technologies germane to that
Report.
I served on the study committee that developed the
TRB report, although I was also invited by this Subcommittee to offer my
comments on notable developments in the Coast Guard’s use and regulation
of autonomous and experimental maritime technologies since that Report’s
publication in 2020. By way of additional background, I am a business
attorney and Partner at the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP in
Washington, DC where I practice within our Transportation and
Infrastructure Group and International Trade Practice and support our
Autonomous Transportation Team. The focus of my practice is on maritime
regulatory matters, international trade, coastwise trade (the Jones
Act), autonomous transportation, civil litigation, and maritime
environmental compliance. I have a background with more than 25 years of
combined experience as an international maritime and trade attorney,
international Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Club lawyer in Norway, U.S.
Coast Guard officer and attorney (JAG), U.S. Department of Justice
Special U.S. Attorney, and merchant mariner deck officer with the
American Maritime Officers union following graduation from the U.S.
Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point). I am also a widely published
author in treatises and publications on matters related to maritime law
and autonomy, as well as a regular speaker at international legal and
industry conferences and seminars. Outside my law practice I am, inter alia, a Member of the National Academies of Sciences Marine Board and serve
as Chair of the Autonomous Ships and Smart Marine Technology Committee
in the U.S. Maritime Law Association (“MLA”), where I am a Proctor in
Admiralty. My testimony today is on behalf of the TRB and in my personal
capacity and thus any views and opinions expressed are my own and do not
necessarily represent the views or positions of Holland & Knight LLP.
Study Scope and Process
Congress requested the TRB report in Section 812 of the Frank LoBiondo
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (the “Act”) which called on the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National
Academies) to “prepare an assessment of available unmanned, autonomous,
or remotely controlled maritime domain awareness technologies for use by
the U.S. Coast Guard.” The Act called for a study of the U.S. Coast
Guard’s existing and prospective use of unmanned systems (UxS)2
to fulfill its many critical and often unique missions. The Act implied
an interest in a range of technology-based concepts, from aerial,
surface, and underwater vehicles that have no human occupants or
controllers to vehicles that may have a crew but have some level of
remote, automated, or autonomous control, as well as systems that are
not vehicles such as intelligent decision aids. The legislative request
further called for a review of the then-current and emerging
capabilities of these systems; their affordability, reliability, and
versatility; and any realignments in Coast Guard policies, procedures,
and protocols that may be necessary to exploit them more fully and
effectively.
To conduct the study, which was undertaken under the auspices of the TRB
and its Marine Board, the National Academies appointed a committee of 10
experts in the fields of automation and control; systems research,
acquisitions, and integration; Coast Guard operations and mission
support; naval engineering and architecture, cybersecurity, field
applications of unmanned systems; and relevant legal, regulatory, and
policy issues. Overall, the study committee recognized that the Coast
Guard has many important, complex, varied, and demanding missions,
although its fleet and operational forces are being increasingly taxed.
However, unmanned systems are being used today—and increasingly since
the Report’s publication in 2020—with high utility across the public and
private sectors. Therefore, recognizing that the technologies that
enable and underpin these systems are advancing rapidly, the study
committee was struck by the magnitude and breadth of opportunity that
lies ahead for the Coast Guard to pursue UxS in its multiple operational
domains and across its many missions. To reach that potential, the study
committee determined that a major realignment of the Coast Guard’s UxS
approach was warranted and concluded that to remain responsive and fully
relevant to its many missions, it was imperative that the Coast Guard
take a more strategic and accelerated approach to exploit the
capabilities of existing and future unmanned systems. Moreover, legal
and policy considerations remain critical to the Coast Guard’s missions
as a user of emerging technologies and notably, as a regulator of
unmanned systems aboard commercial vessels.
Informed by the input from experts and collective knowledge of its
members, the study committee made five critical recommendations to the
Coast Guard, provided here in kind, along with relevant updates given
the passage of time since the publication of the Report.
1. Issue a High-Level UxS Strategy
The study committee recommended that the Commandant issue a high-level
UxS strategy that would articulate a compelling rationale for UxSs, set
forth agency-critical goals that these systems should further, and
outline the Coast Guard’s approach for achieving them. The strategy
would articulate a vision for the use of these systems across mission
areas, setting strategic goals and objectives for achieving that vision,
and establishing appropriate organizational structures and lines of
authority to introduce and integrate UxSs across the force structure.
Since the Report’s publication, in March 2023 the Coast Guard
promulgated its Unmanned Systems Strategic Plan3 which
appears to have addressed this recommendation.
2. Designate a Senior UxS Champion
In light of the institutional responsiveness required to support the
strategic commitment to UxSs and given the attendant scope and scale of
the requisite responses that will be required, the study committee
recommended that the Commandant designate a top Coast Guard official, at
the Flag Officer or Senior Executive Service levels, to advocate for and
advance the Service’s UxS strategy. This top official would be
responsible for identifying, promoting, pushing for, coordinating, and
facilitating the changes that will be needed across the organization to
further the Commandant’s strategic goals and objectives for UxSs.
To date, and to my knowledge, the Coast Guard has not designated that
level of senior official for that purpose, however, they have appointed
CAPT Thom Remmers, P.E. as Unmanned Systems Lead, which should be viewed
as a positive step that meets the intent of this recommendation. This is
all the more relevant given the promulgation of the Unmanned Systems
Strategic Plan by Deputy Commandant for Operations, VADM Peter W.
Gautier while CAPT Remmers served in that role as Unmanned Systems
Lead.
3. Stand Up a UxS Program Office
Given the many changes in Coast Guard priorities, practices, and
procedures that will be required to more fully exploit UxSs—from systems
acquisition to personnel hiring and training—the study committee
recognized that no single directorate or subunit could be expected to
initiate and implement them all. However, the committee concluded that a
dedicated program office, in concert with a high-level UxS advocate,
could play a vital leadership and coordinating role in sustaining and
expanding the use of UxSs across Coast Guard operational forces. The
study committee therefore recommended that the Commandant establish a
UxS program office that will work in concert with the top official
charged with advancing the Service’s UxS strategy to plan out,
coordinate, assess, and promote UxS activities across the Service and to
leverage relevant activities and capabilities from outside the Service.
The committee advised that an early initiative of the program office
should be to develop a “roadmap” that translates the high-level UxS
strategic goals and objectives into an actionable plan to accomplish
them, which should specify tasks needing priority attention, time frames
for completion, and performance metrics and milestones.
To my knowledge, the Coast Guard has not established a UxS program
office. The Coast Guard has, however, formulated a multi-program office
autonomous policy committee referred to as the “AutoPoCo” which meets at
certain intervals to discuss the prevailing issues and attempt to offer
a unified view. The AutoPoCo, however, is not an avenue to which the
public has direct access, and thus commercial entities are still
expected to approach a multitude of offices to understand the parameters
of lawful operations, ranging from Sector, District, and Headquarters
offices.
4. Expand and Normalize UxS Experimentation
Experimentation with UxS capabilities on a limited basis, in partnership
with other military services and DHS agencies, is vital to expanding and
transitioning UxSs across the Coast Guard and to meet its diverse and
demanding missions in the face of resource constraints. Budgetary limits
are a crucial factor in the Coast Guard’s need to be a “fast follower”
that leverages and adapts technologies developed by others. Therefore,
the Coast Guard must be attuned to, and experiment with, technology
developments elsewhere in the military and government and in the
commercial sector.
To build on and reinforce its naturally innovative culture, the study
committee recommended the Coast Guard expand and normalize efforts to
ensure ample and systematic operations-related experimentation with
low-cost UxSs. The committee concluded that encouraging experimentation
with low-cost UxS technologies will not only help to identify beneficial
uses, but also nurture a technology-curious and -proficient workforce
across the ranks.
Since the Report’s publication, the Coast Guard appears to have taken
some steps in this regard. Indeed, U.S. Navy has continued to
aggressively experiment with unmanned vessels and has aims for a future
fleet that incorporates unmanned surface vessels (USV)(Mariner; Ranger; Sea Hunter; and Seahawk) and systems, and the Coast Guard has participated in joint exercises
like the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) with such USVs which are
purportedly able to comply with the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS). The Coast Guard has also
used Saildrone uncrewed vessels or vehicles in support of research and
development, although it is less clear if these are vessels that are
required to comply with the COLREGS, and if so, whether those
capabilities are met. This is an important distinction discussed later
as the COLREGS apply to all vessels, and thus are critical to the Coast
Guard as both a user and regulator of unmanned vessels.
5. Get a Fix on UxS Funding Needs
The committee made its recommendations intent on expanding and
accelerating the Coast Guard’s investigation and implementation of UxSs
for new concepts of operation. The committee recognized, however, that
for the Coast Guard to act on these recommendations would require ample
and sustained funding, and a commitment to continually increasing
funding over time. To incorporate UxSs into the fleet and force
structure, the Coast Guard will need to invest in R&D, acquisitions,
field experimentation, strategic planning, systems integration,
evaluation, cybersecurity, legal analyses, personnel recruitment and
training, and many other field and mission support functions and
requirements. While the committee was not able to estimate and advise on
how much additional funding would be required for these investments, it
recommended the development of a detailed assessment of investment
needs.
Legal and Policy Considerations with Respect to UxS Use and
Regulation
While the Report assessed all domains for UxS—air, surface, and
subsurface/underwater—the advent of emerging unmanned vessel (UMV)
technology has raised the most pressing legal and operational questions,
in particular as the U.S. Coast Guard is both a user and regulator of
UMVs. Indeed, while the Coast Guard possesses extensive statutory
authorities to execute its regulatory mission and can be expected to
rely and build on these authorities, continued technological
capabilities are offering new UMV use opportunities that are outpacing
existing legal frameworks.
In support, the Report provided analysis of prevailing legal authorities
and policy issues to serve as guidance and a primer upon which the Coast
Guard can rely to fully assess UMV capabilities and develop next steps
for its legal framework, to include a survey of relevant precedent,
guidance, and resources to support legal and policy assessments and
decision making. The Report notes that the Coast Guard’s legal and
policy program offices will need to determine whether existing laws,
regulations, and policies allow for the safe and effective use of UMVs
across the full range of envisaged operations. If they do not, the Coast
Guard will need to identify the additional authorities and processes
that can fill the gaps, and if appropriate, work to bring them about. In
the near term, this effort may require the drafting of legal and policy
memoranda. The Report cited the Coast Guard’s August 11, 2020 “Request
for Information on Integration of Automated and Autonomous Commercial
Vessels and Vessel Technologies into the Maritime Transportation
System,”4 although I am unaware of any further developments
that resulted from the RFI.
Essentially, UMV technology has outpaced the relevant regulations
because existing legal regimes generally contemplated manned ship
operations, or at least with a “human in the loop,” when they were
initially developed, such as the COLREGS, Inland Navigation Rules, and
United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This legal
conundrum is compounded by the dearth of current precedent related to
UMV operations on which operators could otherwise rely for guidance.
Consequently, stakeholders and scholars continue to assess the use of
UMV operations under the existing regulations, laws, treaties, and
conventions, and they have yet to reach universal consensus, although
collegial dialogue is ongoing.
“Vessel” Determination and Status
Indeed, one of the most prevalent operational considerations is whether
an envisaged platform or watercraft will be deemed a “vessel” because
such determination involves questions of fact, law, and policy.
Therefore, a threshold matter is determining a respective UMV platform’s
“legal status” because there are numerous types of platforms that vary
in size and capabilities with different designations. Furthermore,
whether a given UMV is deemed a “vessel” also depends on a review of the
context of the purpose, classification, design, and operating
characteristics of a respective UMV.
Of the relevant international conventions, the most formative ones
appear to be the COLREGS that apply “to all vessels upon the high seas
and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels,”
including warships. Notably, while the COLREGS do not specifically
preclude operation of UMVs, a Coast Guard UMV would be expected to the
general maritime law requiring the exercise of good seamanship in all
respects. In other words, the COLREGS need to be translated into
programming code when integrated into a UMV. Such programming could
conceivably achieve compliance with certain COLREGS, perhaps through a
method which factors in both the strict conformity with the obligatory
decision making and historical dependency on human common sense in
executing rules in all circumstances. In fact, the study committee was
aware of several technological developers who take the position that
compliance with the COLREGS is indeed achievable through programming
that allows a UMV to understand and act on a codified set of
navigational requirements.
In order to determine legal rights and obligations when operating a
particular UMV, a threshold issue will be how to characterize the UMV
given the language in key domestic statutes, regulations, and
international laws, which primarily govern operations by “vessels” or
“ships.” Efforts toward compliance with governing legal authorities has
invariably raised issues of fact, policy, and law, including the
critical question of “is it a vessel?” Thus, to best assess risk and
make well-informed decisions, the Coast Guard could develop legal and
policy opinions contemplating the legal parameters for each prospective
UMV, including how the Coast Guard will ensure legal compliance and
whether provisions may be available for exemptions and equivalencies
under mandatory instruments, taking into account the applicability and
processes related to making, amending, and interpreting treaties. Such
determinations remain a case-by-case threshold “legal status”
determination of the respective platform to address the “is it a
vessel?” conundrum that considers the size and type of platform, how the
platform is utilized, and where the platform is utilized. Of critical
importance to such an analysis is an assessment of whether a UMV can
navigate in a demonstrably safe and prudent manner and whether technical
noncompliance is deemed a reasonable legal risk.
The issue of “what is a vessel” is not a novel matter for the Coast
Guard. In fact, in its Legal Determination on Vessel Status of
Paddleboard (Oct. 3, 2003), the Coast Guard Boating Safety Division
(CG-5422) promulgated a determination on whether the Coast Guard
considers a “paddleboard” to be a vessel. In that determination, the
Coast Guard established a five-pronged test for determining whether any
given watercraft is capable of being classified as a “vessel,” provided
here in relevant part:
-
Whether the watercraft is “practically capable” of carrying persons
or property,
-
Whether the useful operating range of the device is limited by the
physical endurance of its operator,
-
Whether the device presents a substantial hazard to navigation or
safety not already present,
-
Whether the normal objectives sought to be accomplished by the
regulation of a device as a “vessel” are present, and
-
Whether the operator and/or cargo would no longer be safe in the
water if the device became disabled.
As the Coast Guard acknowledged in that determination, the criteria
outlined above will not be applicable to every watercraft for which
there is a question of status, and there is no set formula for making
vessel determinations—each determination must be made on an individual
basis. Adding to the complexity of this legal status determination,
industry and military services alike have been developing a range of
terminology used in describing UMVs, often depending on the degree of
autonomy the vehicle has, whether it is used in combat, and whether it
is below, on, or above the surface of the water. To illustrate, the
literature supporting this report has revealed there is no universally
accepted name for an UMV, and the general position in the governmental,
scientific, legal, and technical communities has yet-to-be aligned. To
this end, a key legal consideration will be whether the Coast Guard
procures and operates a platform characterized or classified as a
vessel, vehicle, or system, taking into account the level of autonomy
(or advanced automation) at which the UxS intends to operate since this
will be relevant to how a respective platform fits into the prevailing
legal framework. Observations on the “legal challenge involved” are
illustrated in the Report, Annex E, Figure E-4:
Besides international law and conventions, the Coast Guard may rely
on domestic statute, regulation, and policy in formulating
determinations as to the legal status of a respective asset or
platform. For example, under U.S. statute, the word “vessel”
includes every description of watercraft or other artificial
contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on water. (1 U.S.C. § 3). This definition does not
distinguish between manned and unmanned watercraft. The Supreme
Court has further established “reasonable observer test” in that a
watercraft does not fall within the 1 U.S.C. § 3 definition of a
"vessel" unless a "reasonable observer," looking to the structure or
watercraft’s physical characteristics and activities, would consider
it designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over
water.5
However, the study committee recognized the disparities that may
develop in a respective assessment of whether a watercraft is a
“vessel”—and thus subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction and
authority—or not, and by example cited to a pilot program for marine
domain awareness that was being undertaken with Saildrone unmanned
surface vehicles (USVs) in footnote 126
of the Report. The Report referred to a Saildrone vehicle
that:
“…weighs 750 kg and has a narrow 7 meters long hull, 5 meters tall
wing, and a keel with a 2.5 meters draft. The system combines
wind-powered propulsion technology that enables mission durations of
up to 12 months (sailing on average 100 km per day) and
solar-powered meteorological… It operates either under the constant
supervision of a human pilot via satellite or can navigate
autonomously from prescribed beginning and end points within a
user-defined safety corridor.”
By way of comparison, the study committee understood that the Coast
Guard had generally accepted the classification of a Saildrone as a
“vehicle” (and thus outside the COLREGS and other vessel
requirements) while previously determining a paddleboard to be a
“vessel” subject to the COLREGS and certain regulatory requirements.
Also, the cited article in the Report indicated that the Saildrone
can “navigate autonomously,” although the study committee did not
receive any clarification as to how such navigation capability
assessments were conducted.
To my knowledge, the Coast Guard has not promulgated any formal
public guidance on their process for making a “vessel”
determination. However, relevant to the study committee’s
recommendation to expand and normalize UxS experimentation, it is
notable that on February 16, 2022 the Coast Guard promulgated CG-CVC
Policy Letter 22-01 (Guidelines for Human-Supervised Testing of
Remote Controlled and Autonomous Systems on Vessels).7
CG-CVC Policy Letter 22-01 provides useful guidelines for testing,
under human supervision, of remote controlled and autonomous systems
on vessels, although that Policy Letter does not allow for reduction
of vessel manning prescribed by law or regulations, including
manning that is less than the minimums in 46 U.S.C. § 8301 and 46
CFR part 15, and pursuant to the COLREGS, at all times must maintain
a proper look-out by sight and hearing.
Notably, since the Report was issued, the Coast Guard, Navy, and
Marine Corps in March 2022 published the Commander’s Handbook on the
Law of Naval Operations (COMDTPUB P5800.7A)(the “Handbook”),8
approved by Rear Admiral Melissa Bert, USCG (Judge Advocate General
and Chief Counsel), which determined that “unmanned systems
constituting vessels will be governed by the COLREGS,” and that
unmanned systems may be under the commanded “by remote or other
means.” Thus, that Handbook seemed to affirm that an unmanned
“vessel” will be subject to the COLREGS, hence the critical
importance of the aforementioned “vessel or vehicle” distinction.
The Handbook also determined that unmanned vessels and aircraft
owned or operated by a State only on government, noncommercial
service are entitled to sovereign immunity and may be used by States
to exercise belligerent rights at sea.
International Efforts
Such legal questions on whether shipping regulations can keep pace
with developing technology served as the basis for the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)
Regulatory Scoping Exercise (RSE) and legal surveys promulgated by
the Comité Maritime International (CMI) to several national maritime
law associations, through which the IMO and the CMI sought
assessments on the applicability of MASS to certain conventions and
domestic laws, and more generally. Since the Report’s publication in
2020, the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the IMO, at its 103rd
session in May 2021, completed the RSE to analyze relevant ship
safety treaties, in order to assess how MASS could be regulated,9
and agreed to develop a goal-based MASS instrument in the form of a
voluntary “MASS Code,” due to take effect in 2025, to address the
various gaps and themes identified by the RSE. The CMI national
maritime law association for the United States, the US MLA, has
since established a standing committee on Autonomous Ships and Smart
Marine Technology.
Testing and Comity
In its Report, the study committee also recognized that the Coast
Guard could utilize testing opportunities to clarify to what extent
UMVs are subject to and comply with the COLREGS, how legal risk and
allocation of responsibilities for gaining relevant use permissions
is being obtained, what privileges and immunities are afforded the
UMV and operator (e.g., “public vessel”), and which party is
responsible for the handling of the data collected. To this end, the
Report suggested that the U.S. Navy could be a useful indicator of
these issues given their continued growth in the testing of UMVs,
and since the Navy has also granted exemptions from regulatory and
certification requirements for a discrete number of unmanned surface
vehicles under 33 U.S.C. § 1605 “with respect to the number,
position, range, or arc of visibility of lights, with respect to
shapes, or with respect to the disposition and characteristics of
sound-signaling appliances.”
The Report had also recognized that “legal questions and challenges
linked to autonomous shipping, as well as the solutions needed to
resolve them, will differ depending on what choices are made in
relation to manning, crew location, and autonomy level.”10 Generally, the Coast Guard has considered the statutes that govern
the manning requirements for vessels to require a human onboard and
that the Coast Guard cannot independently waive statutory manning
requirements or the COLREGS absent Congressional authorization. This
was addressed in more detail in the more recent National Academies’
study on “New Coast Guard Authorities”11, recently briefed to this Subcommittee and on which I served as a
committee member, in which it was recognized that Congress
authorized an “at-sea recovery operations pilot program” that
expressly permits the Secretary (e.g., Coast Guard) “to allow
remotely controlled or autonomous vessel operations to
proceed…including navigation and manning laws and regulations” and
“modify or waive applicable regulations … to allow remote and
autonomous vessel at-sea operations.” 12
Subject to certain considerations, this otherwise seems to answer
the question in the affirmative of whether Congress can indeed waive
the manning requirements and the navigation laws (i.e., COLREGS),
and that waiver authority presents an important precedent for the
Coast Guard as a user and regulator of UxS.
Unmanned Underwater Vehicles and Aircraft Systems
Lastly, and as addressed in the Report, subsurface operations
generally fall outside the purview of the COLREGS, and thus the
study committee found few perceived legal impediments to such
operations. However, the Coast Guard could still conduct an
operational assessment for such types of subsurface and tethered
remotely operated vehicle operations to review the varying levels of
risk. And, as the U.S. Navy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) are currently utilizing prototype unmanned
underwater vessels/vehicles (UUVs), maintaining a collaborative
approach and close communications with these entities could benefit
the Coast Guard as a way to leverage lessons learned and best
practices in development of the means to meet legal compliance.
Similarly, in the case of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), the use
of UAS generally falls under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
authorities and in parity with Department of Defense instructions.
In all cases, however, the issue of budget and acquisition authority
remains of vital consideration as the Coast Guard lags other
services in the ability to rapidly acquire and deploy unmanned
systems.
Coast Guard Acquisition Authorities and Models
The study committee assessed the challenges the Coast Guard faces
when selecting the most timely and cost-effective acquisition
authority and model. Although some acquisition authorities and
models will be better suited to UxSs than others, the rapid pace of
UxS advancements could require even more streamlined and nimble
options to quickly respond to available opportunities and
partnerships. The committee suggested that perhaps the most
efficient way to acquire and accelerate the transition of UxS
platforms and payloads to desired operations would be to identify
and prioritize tested and proven technologies, and then adapt those
systems for specific requirements. For example, mature technologies
that are relatively inexpensive to operate, outfitted with
operator-friendly control systems, and readily configured for
multiple missions and payloads could be the primary focus of early
transitions.
Several acquisition authorities are available to the Coast Guard,
and selection of the most appropriate procurement mechanism for UxS
is dependent on the scale and scope of the asset to be
acquired:
- Federal Acquisition Regulation
- Level 3—Non-Major Acquisition Program
-
Coast Guard Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)
Program
- Memoranda of Understanding
-
DHS Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs)
-
Other Transaction Authority (OTA) (Research OTAs and Prototype
OTAs)
- Silicon Valley Innovation Program
-
DHS S&T Small Business Innovation Research Program
- Unsolicited Proposals
- Defense Innovation Unit (DIU)
As referenced in the Report, programmatic and technical
specifications need to be addressed as part of the procurement
decision making. Successful identification of acquisition programs
requires a coordinated effort between the sponsor, resource,
acquisition, and other stakeholders within the Coast Guard.
In conclusion, I want to thank you—Chairman Webster, Ranking Member
Carbajal, and this Subcommittee—for the opportunity to
testify.
*****
ENDNOTES
1 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020.
Leveraging Unmanned Systems for Coast Guard Missions. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25987.
2 The Report used the term “unmanned” systems, although since 2020,
nomenclature has moved to adopt the term “uncrewed” or “optionally
crewed.” Notably the Coast Guard still uses the description “Manning
Requirements” in 46 CFR Part 15, and thus there is not uniform
acceptance of gender neutral “crew” in lieu of “manning.”
3 US Coast Guard Unmanned Systems Strategic Plan (2023), available
at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/2023%20Unmanned%20Systems%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf.
4 Docket No. USCG-2019-0698 (85 Fed. Reg. 48548, Aug. 11, 2020): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-11/pdf/2020-17496.pdf.
5 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013).
6 Saildrone. “Eyes and Ears at Sea: US Coast Guard to Test Saildrone
Autonomous MDA Capabilities.”
https://www.saildrone.com/news/uscg-test-maritime-domain-awareness-solution.
(“Congress has tasked the United States Coast Guard (USCG) with
examining the feasibility, costs, and benefits of improving maritime
domain awareness in the remote Pacific Ocean using a low-cost
unmanned surface system.”)
7 https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/Policy%20Letters/2022/CVC%20PL%2022-01%20Testing%20of%20remote%20and%20autonomous%20systems.pdf.
8 https://usnwc.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=66281931.
9 IMO MSC Circular.1/1638, Outcome of the Regulatory Scoping
Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
(MASS).
10 Annex E, fn. 3, citing Henrik Ringbom. 2019. Regulating Autonomous
Ships—Concepts, Challenges and Precedents, Ocean Development &
International Law. DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1582593.
11 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023.
The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges
and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27059.
12
James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2023, Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXV, §11504, Dec. 23, 2022, 136
Stat. 4131; see At-Sea Recovery Operations Pilot Program §
11504(d)(1)-(2).
*****
An archived webcast of the hearing can be found on the
House Transportation and Infrastructure’s Website.