>> americans, if you like the fact that maybe in your neighborhood you are seeing prices below $2 a gallon and you like that then you should want to encourage those things that will bring about more domestic production. things like gaining resource from the national petroleum reserve. from offshore alaska where the potential for us is extraordinary as a nation. and within anwar. an opportunity to fill up alaska's pipeline that is sitting at less than half full right now. if you like the low prices then you should be thinking how can

low prices continue. more domestic production and that means coming from alaska. >> i will say in addition to the price, one of our biggest concerns you see, and we think it has gotten to the point where it is willful and every project senator senators talk about and everything is delayed. delayed. we think it is willful and the weapon of choice of this administration to actually kill projects. it is a big problem. >> we have time for one more. >> what sort of assureance has been given that new mapping technology will not place the animal life in harms way in an

war? >> it has been proven. the new and old crude oil is that big. the only person who hurts the wildlife is the human being who is shooting them. i know a little like that. they are domestic kateated now. we have wolves sleeping with the sheep. and you guys believed it. in new york miami philadelphia, and san francisco people say we have to save those poor little animals. it doesn't affect them. it never has. it is all a myth easily sold to the less knowledgeable people. and that affects us. i can go on and on. i got to go. >> but that is the point not keeping up with the technology. meaning we have ways in which rather it is ice roads, ice pads

for drilling -- only in the winter, where we do these and shoot 3d seismic and has literally no impact on the tundra. people need to be more aware of that area of the debate. because significant developments that have no impact. and that is what the state of alaska did in terms of a plan and we want this administration to work with us and help approve that. >> just a follow-up for that. this is significant. there is a very keene sensitivity each of us has to ensure that development of our resources in the north slope area doesn't impact the life style of the people who live there. subsistence defines them. there is no grocery store close by. they need to be able to hunt and fish and harvest the whale.

and so the steps that for instance conoco has gone through in order to get the permits to explore offshore -- you may wonder why it is such a short season. it is not necessarily due to the ice. it is because shell has agreed in concert with the whaling captains that there are specific times of the year they are not only not allowed to expore they -- explore, but they are not allowed to have vessels out there are engines running. unheard of. do you think in north dakota or louisiana when the geese are coming down or the deer are moving through that there is an agreement that you are going to shut everything down because you will disturb the deer?

no. in alaska the conditions and the requirements most people would say are incredible. we go not believe you can operate that way. i just came from a meeting with a woman who was born and raised in barrow and whose family subsist off of the whale. they are the people of the whale. and so when they say they accept the drilling and the potential for drilling offshore it is only with those requirements knowing what has been put in place in terms of protection. so rather it is caring for the whale as they are migrating through or whether it is en ensuring during the caving season there is limitations or

limitations on any exploration when the polar bear is denning. have we been working to try to ensure that every aspect of development that we do is done with the highest environmental standards possible in conjunction with respect for the people that live up their and their subsistence needs. this is going to be an interesting time for the alaskan delegation; educating the rest of the country on what happens in alaska and how we development resource and why we believe strongly and passionately that we are doing so with a care for the land and the critters on it while at the same time we are allowing the human beings to access a resource and to have a quality of life that you all

expect here. we are all hunkering down for the big snow storm here. well you know what? people back home live that. day in and day out. and it is dang hard. they way the highest energy cost of anybody in the country. anybody in the country. the highest transportation cost the highest cost of living but this is their land. this is where they live. this is where they have been for thousands of years. but they want the same thing that i want and senator sullivan wants for their kids. they want to be able to have a good education, send them off to college, they want to know they will not freeze in the dark. i think we are done >> i have a quick question about your amendment on the epa. it would bar agents from the epa from carerying guns.

did you want to explain what thought is about and why it is needed? >> when the epa started up employees who were armed were not in the program. they were armed in the late 1980s pushes by members of congress al gore being one of them. made that decision and were told it would be limited. we have seen particularly in alaska abuse. we had in chicken, alaska summer of 2013 a raid with rifles shotguns body armor, helicopters for a potential clean water act violation in our state. none were found. and from my perspective one of the things i got elected on was looking at the responsibilities of the federal government and starting to limit those

responsibilities. the epa will still be able to do its job. they will still be able to work on criminal warrants. they will just need to get together with local law enforcement, troopers sheriffs or federal marshles who are armed. we think from a strategic perspective starting to limit the federal government in terms of power and authority and also in terms of oversight. if you have to get together with a local trooper to execute a warrant you might think twice. so i think it is something that we are looking at bipartisan support for. there is a lot of people who are concerned about certain agencies having grown in terms of responsibilities who are armed. the department of education has a s.w.a.t. team. do we really need that? we don't think so. we are hoping to move forward on

the amendment and get it passed. >> thanks. >> this sunday on q&a. dr. francin

alaskan delegation later. c-span created by america's cable company 35 years ago and brought to you as a local service by your local cable or satellite provider. ajit varadaraj is the senior

republican on the federal communication commission and he is our guest on the "the communicators." commissioner, welcome. the debate on net neutrality is a moving target with hearings on the hill and the fcc getting ready to do something. what has the debate morphed into? >> guest: thanks for having me on again, peter. the net neutrality has morphed into a political football which i think is obscuring common ground mainly that everyone believes in the free and open internet. and i support the four internet freedoms: accessing lawful content, personal choice,

devices to the network and the freedom of transparency in terms of service plan information. the question is how do we embrace the four freedoms in the context of regulation? i believe the bipartisan agreement that has been in place for almost two decades served us well. it was the clinton fcc in 1998 that decided the internet would be an information service. it was chairman of both political parties martin powell and so forth who recognized that light tough regulation because the best way to incentvise this. as you know the debate has taken a turn starting with the president's announcement in december. we are considering title ii or

common carrier regulations, and that development would be a terrible mistake for the american consumer and impede investment and innovation. and you can look at the difference between america with a slight touch and europe with a style like this to get a sense. and it would disserve broadband in the rural and disservice disserviceareas. that is why you are seeing many say this isn't the best way to connect americans to digital opportunity. whatever is proposed and we vote on my goal is coming back to the belief of the free internet. >> host: howard buskirk is joining the conversation. the executive editor of communications daily. >> commissioner is it a done

deal that the fcc is going to reclassify broadband as a title 2 service? did you see anyway it can not happen at this point? >> guest: the devil is the details. the question isn't just about applying title ii but there is forbearance he is considering as well. there is no question that the president's announcement changed the landscape and is leading some to think this is a foregone conclusion. we are an independent agency and we make our decision based on the law and what the facts are. the law and the facts are still influx and hopefully we will reach a considered decision that is best for the american consumer. >> on some of the big issues the republicans descented and had little affect on the ultimate order, did you

anticipate having much affect on the net neutrality order? >> guest: it depends on the details of the chairman's proposal. i have been outspoken because i believe it will impede investment and innovation and lead us to the path that will not benefit the american consumer. but to the extent the chairman decides to remain the agencies independence and chart a course different than the one the president suggested i think there is flexibility there. >> you talked about president obama and his statements on net neutrality. do you feel the whitehouse went too far in terms of compromising the independence of the agency? >> guest: i believe as a commissioner and former staffer of the agency that the independence of the agency is prized and the reason is we are regulating the most dynamic

sectors of the economy; the tech sector. and it depends on impart that we are an exert agencies and make decisions on the facts and the law before and not on considerations that elected officials might wish to place before us. and i think that is jeopardized to the extent you have an elected official prescribing a specific legal rational to use to the extent the agency rubber stamps that demand from the executive branch and the question will be are we just another agencies like a cabinet member and that is against the industry, agency and consumer regardless of the political affilation of the elected official. >> do you think this was unprecedented move on the president's part? can you think of another example where the whitehouse involved itself to this extent in an fcc

issue >> guest: without question i have looked and couldn't find one. >> host: commissioner, would a light touch lead to litigation? >> guest: it depends on the particulars. but for a fact we know title ii regulation of the type espoused by some will lead to litigation for a number of different reasons. number one from an administrative perspective, the agency has never made this a lead proposal or built up the questions necessary to build the record to support title ii. it includes the questions about forbearance and you have a host of questions like which do we forbear from and the legal status of granting or not granting will be challenged. and there are niches of the net neutrality debate that have gone

unexplored from a legal perspective. one example is the wireless industry los angeles industry/marketplace is com competitive but there is something that explicitly denies them to call them common carrier services. and no matter what the vote is on february 26th briefs will be filled all over the country and it will create uncertainty and won't be good for the advocates of net neutrality and the consumer. >> host: in meeting with companies and interest groups are you getting the sense they are resigned to this light touch approach? >> guest: i think so. there is optimism that the agency will look at this question independently and there

are legislative efforts underway to try to find a legislative solution. when the washington, d.c. circuit struck down the fcc's attempt to regulate internet/network management for the second time i said considering trying to fit his square peg of net neutrality in the round hole of the communication act we should turn to congress for guideanceguidance. now you have leaders on the house and senate side trying to come up with how the solution would work. i think this is one that the agency is going to do well to do breathing room and take a pause from the february vote since there is no emergency that needs to be solved in the industry and let the legislative process play out. >> host: is there a chance of a

pause? >> guest: you would have to ask the chairman. >> host: no signals, yet? >> guest: not that i am aware of. >> do you think they are trying to send out signals for an early vote? >> guest: i am just focused on the details of the proposal. >> if you talk to people who are not telecom experts or regulatory attorneys there is a strong female -- feeling -- we need to protect the open internet and many don't understand title ii and what the fcc plans to do. do you think conservatives have lost the public relations battle on this? are they doing an adequate job of communicating to the public what they want to do exactly and

why they are opposed to say, reclassification? >> guest: i don't view this as a political issue. in fact i would argue the issue has been miscast. i have said net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. i have yet to hear anybody point out what the systemic failure is that requires the fcc to adopt title ii or any other specific net neutrality regulations. let me tell you what i do hear from folks across the country and this covers entrepreneurs in michigan and students in college station, texas and all across the country. they want greater broadband competition. net neutrality is a handy slogan to them. but when you dig under the surface and figure out their concerns they want more choice. and that is why i have consist

wantconsist advocate to change that. don't make companies have to obtain the old copper networks at the expense of the new fiber networks. small companies that serve small towns across the company are better able to compete if you do that. remove the legacy regulations holding rural broadband deployment back. there are broadband policies we could fecesphose focus on tobri greater bring great -- to bring greater competition. >> one more question. you were in the general council's office before the commissioner. do you see the title ii having

legal problems? do you see it surviving appellate review? >> guest: it is difficult to discuss with reasons i cannot discuss and not knowing the particulars of the washington, d.c. circuit that will discuss it. but saying title ii and forbearance, the litigation risk is substantial. they would have to find the broadband marketplace is so uncompetitive that this is required. on the other hand in terms of forbearance, the february has to apply the high standard set by the phoenix order and determine it is competitive enough from the title ii regulations. i don't know how a particular judge might deal with the attempt to thread the needle but

it is going to be fraught. that is why i don't want to go down the path of greater litigation. forbearance takes a year or longer to resolve and you have briefing and oral arguments. we are not talking about a decision that is over on february 26th. we are talking about a process that will extend probably beyond the obama administration. >> reporter: commissioner, you mentioned the president and the broadband and he has been talking about municipal broadband. what is your position on cities developing their own broadband? >> guest: great question. i have serious concerns about the fcc legal authority to preemp government-run broadband project restriction. if you look at the case law on this, you can see nixon versus missouri municipal league. it has the fcc acting in the

absence of a statement from congress saying it intended for the fcc to have that authority. it seems difficult for me to see how the fcc has that authority pull putting the policy question a side. let's say the fcc did have the authority. it seems to me the question should be resolved at the state level. a municipal broadband project runs out of funs then the state could be left responsible for bailing out that project. certainly the fcc isn't going to step in. so if the voters of the state want to pass a law restricting government-run broadband that is their pu -- issue as well. >> host: how do you read what the president has been saying and his announcement?

>> guest: it doesn't change the law. the law is the law. as i read it the 2004 decision by the supreme court in nixon makes it clear it has to be identified where the provision is about congress allowing exempt exemption. >> do you expect had president to do more on broadband? >> guest: you have the president describing what he wants the agency to do and that is treading on thin ice. i hope the judge looks at it and makes the appropriate judgment. >> i wanted to go into auctions and that is a big issue at the fcc with a major auction planned in the next year or two or three. the word that the fcc is looking at the sales of tv spectrum to

wireless carriers for broadband. at the consumer electronic show you caused for a pause in work on that auction. there was a lot of question about what the commissioners meant when they talked about a pause. what did you mean exactly? can you elaborate on that more? what did you mean when you said there should be a pause? >> guest: i meant i think the time is right for the fcc to take stock of where things where and make sure we get the incentive auction right as opposed to trying to get it done right now. there are a couple reasons for that. we are in the midst of the aws-3 action in which wireless carriers put on the table $44 billion in bids for mid-brand spectrum. that is a great thing. but it means the very parties we want to make the incentive auction a success, in terms of

bidding on the wireless spectrum available, will have to raise the capital. what i heard for them to be able to do that at a sufficient level they cannot turn around on dime and raise it from the capital market. so to give them time to right the balance sheets and come to the auction ready to bid freely a pause would be helpful. and in addition i think it is important to consider the decisions made in terms of structuring the auctions. unlike most or all of the previous auctions the process has been run in a manner of 3-2 votes. i think we should draw from this auction like elability and allowing anyone to bid and keeping the rules simple and making sure that everything is totally transparent so that all bidders can understand how exactly the auction is going to

be structured. that process is going to take a while to sort out and i think a pause would help us >> the auction is supposed to start in 2016. maybe a year from now. do you see any way there is an going to be an intentive auction in 2016? >> i am not sure what the specific date is going to be. my goal is pretty simple. i want a successful incentive auction that respects 2012 act, treats stakeholders with priority and raises money for deficit reduction and satisfies critical national priorities. in order to do that we need to step away from the complex structure and take a fresh look at the questions >> that is going to take longer -- it would be difficult to see in the auctions starting in early or mid-2016 right?

>> guest: there are a lot of moving parts no doubt about it. dynamic reserve pricing has been very complex, the common deadline was recently extended in part of recognition of that. there is litigation in the dc circuit that has to be resolved between the broadcasters. a lot of moving parts have to be resolved to make the auction a success and that is why i think a pause is important. >> host: what is your beef with netflix netflix? >> guest: i am a subscriber and enjoy it but putting on my other hat, netflix took action to undermine the standards of open streaming video particularly saying netflix encrypted traffic in a way that would frustrate the operation of the open cache

software so i wanted to give them a chance to respond. i sent them a letter detailing the allegation and asking for their response. and initially our discussions with netflix were productive. i met with them and i read the letter they submitted, and during the meeting they promised to submit information demonstrating they were not encrypting the technology in a way that would give them an advantage over the rivals and wasn't intended to undermine open video standards. so we wait and wait and the information never came. we asked them again to agree by the promise to submit the information and they said no our response is our response. and the reason i highlight this issue isn't because i believe additional regulation in this area is necessary but when a particular company comes to the fcc and demands public utility regulations on all of the members of the broadband industry in the name of openness

but at the same time is trying to secure competitive advantage over their rivals by undermining open video standards i think that company need to be called to account and that is the heart of the dispute with netflix. >> host: with netflix, hulu, amazon, the way we receive and watch tv is morphing greatly and quicking. how is that going to affect how the fcc regulates or doesn't regulate this industry? >> guest: that is a fascinating question. having grown up in the era of three broadcast channels and no cable or satellite it is stunning as a consumer to see how things have progressed especially of late. this is one of the most dynamic parts of the network now. you have netflixs and other companies doing innovative things. hbo and dish have over the top

offerings and youtube is producing their own half time show for the super bowl and major companies are producing first runs on facebook. in light of the innovation and diversity of programming we see it seems the burden is on those who want to impose the legacy video regulations on the innovative players. that hurdle should be somewhat higher than normally but to that extent the commission teed up on a number of different questions and approaches it with an open mind. my view is let the american consumer benefit from what i call the golden age. >> host: would it be helpful to rewrite the tell communication

act? >> guest: i think it would be. you have companies competing to provide the same service and it would give the fcc to flexibility to recognize when statutory regulations have outlived their uselessness. the fcc is trying to decide if we have to apply a regulation that doesn't reflect the nature of the modern marketplace and it is harming the consumer. we have to propose legislations that stop them from adopting a new business plan or new service and that is not something the agency wants to too do. but we need the ability to modernize regulations at some point. >> i want to ask you about life at the fcc. we have seen what some say is a large number of 3-3 party-line votes on a lot of different issues. what is going on? why can't you guys get along?

>> there is no doubt the trends in terms of party-line votes at the commission is troubling. having severed as a commissioner and staffer under fife chairman it is unprecedented i can tell you. i think that part of the problem is that there is not a spirit of collaboration and agreement at the agency as there has been. there has been one estimate there have been more 3-2 party line votes in the past year than in the decades combined. that is not good for the agency or the american public. it is difficult to pinpoint the cause. but i can tell you there are cases in which a republican commissioner will make a suggestion to a proposal and be told no, that is a red line we are not crossing. but when a democratic commissioner makes the same suggestion it is passed no

questions. that is not the way it should be. i think the proposals should be considered on the merits. in december, we adopted a proposal on the incentive auction. one of the 11 proposals i made that were rejected was to extend the comment deadline to give parties additional time to digest some of the very complex rules we were proposing. i was told no. that was a red line. we would risk delaying the auction. in the quite of the consumer electronic show this january i found out the agency did what i asked. it doesn't speak well of the agency when we shut out certain commissioners from decision making. along similar lines, the chairman's use of delegated authority to by pass accountability of all of the commissioners is an unfortunate thing. the five commissioners who have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate

should be on the record voteing for the proposal. to the extent we are denied, it isn't to the other commissioners the republicans on the floor want to speak as well. a concensus product is a better product and going to stand up in court more and stand up to the test of time. that is the spirit i am going to continue to carry into the future regardless of affiliation. >> it sound like you are saying a lot of problems come from the chairman's office. do see you where the republicans could have made the process smoother? some are saying the republicans are too quick to vote no on

things. you laugh or smile about that. but i feel like i have to ask you that question. >> guest: i smile in part pause of the historic complaint about the minority commissioners were they didn't vote fast enough or at all. but if you look over the past and a half years i have been running the commission i made it a mission to vote early. and that is because i don't think issues should be bottled up for years on end as has been the case. secondally, you can pick any issue you want over the past year, and what you will find more often than not i put a constructive proposal on the table that would allow us to all claim victory and have a role in shaping the final project and make it better and more litigation-proof if you will but it was ultimately rejected for what i considered to be

arbitrary political reasons. the e-rate program, i was public for a long time about the proposal i had on the table, which was one i think would have had bipartisan support. i was told that proposal wasn't going to be considered. i said working with the preferred framework here are suggestions i have. a lot were declared red lines even though the chairman accommodated some of the democratic request that were identical to mine. i think, i am not sure how to break the impass but i can tell you i am never going to stop putting createivecreative innovative and constructive proposals on the table. the good ideas don't have a party affilation and as long as i have the spirit of serving that is the spirit i will embrace the job. >> host: february 5th the fcc receives the chairman's mark on

the net neutrality and february 26th is the scheduled vote. ajit varadaraj, howard buskirk, thank you. >> c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. a small drone crashed into a tree on the side of the whitehouse. this comes as the faa tries to develop regulation for drones. president obama announced sunday he will ask alaska to declare part of the wildlife refugee a wilderness area. after that a conversation on media coverage on race in america. president obama's nominee to be

the next attorney general will be on capital hill on wednesday taking questions from the senate judiciary committee. she is the united states attorney for the eastern district of attorney and her current tenure started in 2010 and she held it from 1999-2001. she graduated from harvard law school and worked as an attorney in a private practice. the house panel looking at drones regulation and safety will hear testimony from nasa, faa and a professor on science from mit. and they got a demonstration from the company 3-d robotics. welcome to the hearing today. in front of you are pacts containing the written testimony, bioography and

testimony for today's witnesses. i will recognize myself for an opening statement and recognize the ranking member as well. today's hearing will examine research and development of unmanned aircraft systems also known as uaf. it will provide an overview of how the research development and flight test enable the integration of uaf into the national air space system. i will use the term drone since that is how most people refer to them. but the term unmanned aircraft system is a more complete and accurate term. uas are comprex and made up of the the air craft and the ground air. drones come in a variety of shapes and sizes and can carry out missions. in the past year the public is familiar with military drones but less discuss is commercial

drones that can change our lives and carry out a lot of tasks. the tail group, an aero space and defense industry and market intelligence firmss predicts 11 million will be spent on testing and the total is projected to be $91 billion. in 2013 the association for unmanned vehicle systems estimated that over 100,000 united states jobs could result from the integration. the continued delays in integrateing the drones in the air system could cost $27 million in day from investment in research and development.

in june of 2014 the department of transportation released an article that criticized the faa for being slow to integrate the drones. the audit shows it was unlikely to be completed by the deadline. nasa is working to ensure the safety of the drones in the air space. some of the research is looking to make sure drones have the technology to avoid mid air collision and the ability to be controlled from a central locations. farmers can use drones to modify crops and emergency officials could look for survivors and energy companies could assess pipeline for damage or leaks. testing at high school and

universities might lead to breakthroughs and inspire students to enter s.t.e.m. fields. the public is not yet allowed to use drones to do these things. many other countries have developed regulatory framework to support the drones use. some united states-base companies have moved testing and research and high paying jobs offshore. our goal today is to better understand the research underway to overcome these barriers. we are particularly interested in learning how government funded research informs or should inform the integration of the uas into the air space system. that concludes by opening statement. but i want to mention before recognizing the ranking member that we going to have a

demonstration in a minute that to my knowledge will be the first such demonstration in this committee room and we had to get permission to fly the drone in the committee room as well. appreciate the widespread interest in the particular subject. hardly a week goes by where the subject of drones isn't covered in a national publication or leads the news. also, with that i have a letter i would like to put into the record without objection from the national association of realtors supporting what we are doing today and supporting the integration as well. with that i will recognize the ranking member the gentlewoman from washington for her comments. >> thank you very much. i welcome the distinguished panel and look forward to your testimony. ranking member johnson is detained in another committee

and will join us and other members are currently in other committees. the lack of other members on this side doesn't indicate a lack of interest in the issue certainly. in the mean time i want to start by thanking chairman smith for calling the hearing. because of my work in the home state oregon -- which is close to washington -- but i want to make it clear because in my home state i am particularly interested in hearing how we can provide universities with what they need for uas testing. and regulatory certainty to support this growing industry. we, oregon, that is why i needed to make this clear, we are a participate in the testing range complex led by the university of alaska fair bank and have three

test sites in oregon. the potential benefits to agriculture, environmental research natural resource management -- and i want to add the chairman acknowledged some of the emergency disaster relief and it is multipleied in oregon and other testing areas as well y. look forward to hearing how we in congress and across the federal government can help safelyly -- safely support this project that has so much potential. i yield back my time. >> i will introduce the witnesses. dr. wagoner is the research director of nasa's integrated research offices that seek to

integrate next generation technology. in this capacity dr. wagoner overseas the uas integration in the air pace system. he started working for nasa in 1982 as a researcher. our second witness is mr. jim williams who is manager of afaa's integration office. he is responsible for coordinating the efforts to integrate the uas into the air space system through rulemaking standardization and research and demme. he was the director of the faa's engineering service and the director of the air traffic control directorate. he received a bachelor in aero space engineering. our third witness is dr. john larber. he was a co-chair on the

committee on autonomy for civil aviation. he is a private consultant now. he was the air bus senior product of vice safety and served on the national transportation safety board. he received a ph.d from ohio state university. today's fourth witness is dr. wyn who is president of the association of unmanned vehicles international. he served as the president of the eelectric dry association and ceo of the mobility corporation and held a leadership role at the transportation society of america and received a bachelor from scantron and masters from john hopkins. and collin gwen is testifying

fifth who is the ceo of the largest drone company. he is the founder of companies that have been features on fox and touch crunch. before working at robotics he found a company that specialized in aerial photographer. he received a bachelor from the university of texas in austin and went to miami business. the researcher for aero nautics at mit is our last guest. he is the mit director for international transportation. he is a fellow of the institute of aero nautics and astronautics and received several awards.

including the 1986 award for best paper in thermophysics. we thank the witnesses for being here today. and dr. wagoner, we will begin with you. >> chairman smith, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on nasa's airnautics research program and the uas' autonomy. nasa divines the division and approach for supporting the near-term integration of uas into the the international air space system. this research builds the foundation for a more transforming changes that the systems will bring in the near

and far term. we are witnesses the dawn of a new era in aviation innovation with flight vehicles and operations that were not picture pictureable today and opening the market like the way jet engines did 60 years ago. nasa is performing research and transferring knowledge to the stakeholders and helping them define requirements and standard for save routine access. there is regulations with the addition of the atomics in the system. this requires them to be evaluated, verifyify and validate they are operating as designed. the majority of the near term

research is focused in three areas sense and avoid research is helping determine certification requirements for all vehicles operating in the nas. we are addressing the design of ground control stations in display to maximize affect effectiveness and safety. we built relationships with the faa, homeland security and industry and academics as well. in these partnerships, nasa is playing a key role supporting the levels all the way up to experts. for mid-term applications nasa is researching to facilitate safe operation of uas at

altitudes not control like low altitudes of small unmanned air craft. initial investigations into the space have drawn interest among a broad range of traditional and non-traditional air space companies and shows promise of opening up new market and models models. in order to safely use the lower altitude nasa is developing a uas traffic management system. you can think of it like a surface manage. where vehicles operate with roads, lanes signs, and traffic lights. the growing uas industry and the varied user base is the autonomy that will come to aviation. it will require experimenting to ensure the safety of the

systems. nasa's long term research will deliver technology that demonstrates high pay off and applications that advance the safety efficiency and flexibility of the nas and increase competitive of the united states civil aviation industly. nasa's aeronautics research director is a national resource that enables a growing aviation system. nasa is partnering with others to achieve routine access into our air space system. it is built on long and productive relationships and close and continuous collaboration for the specific needs of the challenge. as the challenges evolve nasa

aeronautics will continue to advance research and develop en technologies that will allow for the safety benefits of these technologies. this concludes by prepared statement and i will be pleased to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you, dr. wagoner. mr. williams. >> chairman smith, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss unmanned air craft systems referred to as uas. research and development is absolutely critical to the safe efficient and timely integration of new technology like uas. inner agency partnerships with the department of defense, department of commerce,

department of homeland security and nasa have allowed us to leverage our collective assets to the research and development and unmanned air craft. the faa is developing standards for radios to detect and avoid systems. they are working closely together to develop a technical standard for detect and avoid systems that will allow uas to remain clear of other aircraft. ...

evaluating the joint test results for potential aapplicable as civil airports. we look forward to continuing this valuable partnerships and work together with industry and other government agencies to

advance research and development. the faa technical center is the premiere air transportation system laboratory. it has a special laboratory conducting simulations. the uas lab has a variety of test assets including the ability to link faa air traffic control systems with hi-fi dealt unmanned aircraft simulators provided by industry partners through cooperative research and development agreements. the technical center plays an important role in data collection that were announced in 201. a significant portion of the test site data analysis is being performed at the technical center. a research engineers are visiting each test site to evaluate how data is captured and maintained. this team will ensure the integrity of the data

transferred to faa and determine if additional -- we continue to work with test sites to obtain the most valuable information possible to help the faa integrate. we are tremendously grateful for the support and funding congress provided to establish a uaf center of excellence. our goal is to create a cost-sharing relationship between academy, industry and government that will focus on -- the centre court of excellence went perform research through analysis development and prototyping activities. to that end the faa solicited propoetals from accredited institutions with higher education with their partners and affiliates. we are in the process of review proposals. together with congress we remain committed to the safe, efficient, and timely integration of uaf technology weapon look forward to

continuing to work with our partners in government and industry to continue making steady progress towards the goal. mr. chairman this conclude mist testimony for today and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the work of the national research council's committee on aton my research for civil aviation which i had the pleasure of co-chairing with john paul clark from georgia institute of technology. our final report was done at the request of nasa research commission directorat. we were specifically charged with developing a national agenda for research and development that would support the introduction of what we call increasingly autonomous elements into our civil aviation system.

first and foremost is safety. our air transportation system operates at unprecedented levels of safety and it is clear that the introduction of increasingly autonomous capabilities into that system will be acceptable only if they preserve or further enhance the high level of safety and reliability. secondly, we had to recognize that the diversity of aircraft ground systems and personnel that comprise our civil aviation system because so-called legacy aircraft and systems will continue to operate for the foreseeable future. it's clear that civil air space must safely and efficiently accommodate everything from piper cubs designed in the 1930s to increasingly

autonomous unmanned rotary and fixed-wing vehicles whose design and applications are continually evolving. today's aviation system sets the baseline for the system of tomorrow, and in this context, autonomy is a characteristic or feature of future aviation automation systems that enable operations over extended periods of time without direct human supervision or intervention. this adds some profound implications for urgent research in development in machine, vision perception and cognition to provide the functional equivalent of a see and avoid capable which is a cornerstone for collision avoidance in our national aviation system. this is but one example of what we mean enwhen we talk of autonomous systems systems that it will perform more' more funks presently provide by human pilots controllers and other

skilled aviation personnel. our report identifies eight technical barriers, including such issues as cyber physical security and we have also identified four barriers associated with regulation and certification, which include issues such as air space access. and finally we note in our report barriers related to public policy, law and regulation and very importantly, social concerns about privacy and safety of autonomous systems. our recommended research agenda contests of eight broad taskses which we consider the first four to be the most urgent and most difficult. these include fundamental issues about how to characterize the behavior of systems that change dynamically over time, modeling and simulation will be a fundamental importance to the development and deployment of these systems and finally we

discuss a wide range of research issues involving validation verification and certification. the remaining four research areas include issues having to do with the safe use of open-source hardware and software and re-examination and redefinition of the role of humans in the operation of these systems. we note in our report that this research program is best carried out by multiple government academic, and industrial entities entities and will require effective coordination at all levels. civil aviation is on the thrown or profound changes because of rapid evolution of increasingly autonomous systems. as often happens with rapidly evolving technology, early adapters sometimes get caught up in the excitement of the moment greatly exaggerating the promise of things to come, and greatly underestimating costs in terms

of money time, and in some cases, unintended consequences or complications. while there's little doubt that over the long run the potential benefits of increasingly autonomous systems in civil aviation will indeed be great, there should be equally little doubt that getting there will -- while maintaining the safety and efficiency of u.s. civil aviation, will be no easy matter. we believe that the barriers and the research program that we have identified is a vital next step and that concludes my testimony. i'll be happy to respond to questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wynee. >> members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address the importance of uas research and development. i'm speaking on behalf of the unmanned vehicle systems international. the world les largest nonprofit association to expand the

unmanned systems and robotic systems. currently we have more than 7500 members, including over 600 corporate members. as you know, uas increased human potential allowing to us execute dangerous or difficult tasks safely and efficiently, whether it is assisting first responders with search and rescue missions advancing scientific research, or helping farmers more efficiently spray their crops, uas are capable of saving time money, and most importantly lives. however, the benefits of this technology do not stop there. it has incredible potential to create jobs and stimulate the u.s. economy as well. in 2013 auvsi released an economic impact study which found within the first ten years following uas integration, the industry will create more than 100,000 new jobs and have an economic impact of more than $82 billion. the benefits i just outlined can

be recognized immediately once we put the necessary rules in place to enable commercial operations. we understand that a notice of proposed rulemaking for small uas from the federal aviation administration is now expected any day. it cannot come soon enough. establishing rules will also eliminate the current approach of regulating by exemption. whereby the faa issues exemptions on a case-by-case bases for some commercial uas operations under section 333 of the faa modernization and reform act 20612. while we're here today to discuss the critical role of uas research and development, the fact is we don't need a lot of additional research to permit low altitude line of saying operations -- line of sight operations. a variety of applications can be safely authorized right away and we'll work with the faa to get this done as ex-bed distancely as possible -- expeditiously as

possible. we need further access to air sprays and address challenges that exist to flying beyond line of sight, areas requiring more research clue sense and avoid command and control and autonomous operations. the advancement of uas technology needs to be a collaborative effort between industry and government. while the industry is investing millions in research and the federal government has various research projects underway, we can all do this better and a more coordinated fashion. the challenges we face call for national leadership initiative and all relevant r & d at the top of the country's priority list. importantly, the benefits of the research extend well beyond uas and will make the entire national air space system safer for all aircraft manned and unmanned.

the industry and its government partners need a hole list stick research plan that coordinates all research. while the faa designated test sites went operational in 2014, too many questions about the collection, sharing, and analysis of tess -- test data remain unanswered. second, the federal government needs more resources to coordinate uas research. the faa was given 14.9 million this year, which is up from previous years. however, given the scope of the research needed to advance uas integration, we feel this figure is insufficient. third on the government must have transparent intellectual prosecutor protections provide transparent protections. companies on the cutting edge won't participate in faa or other governmental research activities if their intellectual property is not safeguarded. the faa has taken significant

steps but much work remains to be done. auvsi members are ready to collaborate with the appropriate government agencies to accelerated the needes r & d efforts to allow safe integration of ow as interest the national air space system. thank you again for this opportunity. i look forward to questions. >> let me say to can member wes have had a series of votes just called. we're going to try to finish our witness testimony before we go vote and then we'll resume the hearing immediately after the last vote. so we'll go now to mr. wyynne who has he most fun l -- mr. guinn, the most fun job of everybody. >> thank you for having me. it's an honor to speak to you about something i'm passion not about, and i think what i'd like to do is talk to you guys about

the stalemate we are in today between -- no one is going to disagree to the benefits uas can provide to the economic the efficiencies in business, the job creation, the revenue that can come into our country, and then at the same time nobody is going to argue with the fact we must be extremely thoughtful considerate, and careful in integrating systems into the national air space because obviously the faa has a second to none safety record and there's no question that we must maintain that. so i guess for me today i'd like to just talk a little bit about what -- where can we start, what can we do now that allows to us bridge that gap between the chicken and the egg. so we have the faa test sites which are great, but at the same time it's a little bit of testing in a bubble and to ask research and development companies to rapidly it rate their technology and have to

every couple months figure out a time when can get into a test site travel with the entire engineering team. did they decently leave the spectrum analyzer at the lab and now someone has to fly home to get that. doesn't allow for very rapid innovation, which is obviously not going to let us keep up with the other countries in this world that are absolutely reaping the rewards and the benefits of this technology. so additionally we must have -- we must -- testing in test sites is not necessarily going to give us the necessary data and the log flight hours to figure out what the hurdles hurdles and roadblocks are to safely gig integrating the systems and what can be done in the meantime, and as you see here this is something i will talk about today, very small systems, this is the -- which weighs just over a pound, and it's actually

fairly advanced uav and drone. so what i wanted to talk about is -- i think we can start somewhere, and instead of having to regulate and integrate 20, 30 and 40-pound system order 50-pound systems into our national air space all at one time what i would at least bring to discussion is a possibility of taking very small lightweight systems as many other countries in the world have done. there's somewhat of a precedence around two kilogram systems because they carry the least amount of kinetic energy the least risk-based approach, the least chance of causing any harm and so -- all right. we all saw a drone fly.

fantastic, incredible. >> i was hoping you would fly over the whole room. >> you said no haircuts. >> you could have done it. we can arrange that. >> so the point i want to make today is that if we start somewhere, as many other countries have, with the smallest, lightest weight systems, we're basically using a proportional and risk-based system for regulation so that by integrating today or as soon as for commercial use, small subtwo kilogram systems we can now -- what are the issues when you're actually using these things in the national air space not just these faa test sites, and i think that's something that could potentially bridge our gap while we're figuring out, how do we integrate the next heavier class. we learned a lot from these little tiny ones, and while we are learning a lot from the little tiny ones we're capturing

the vast majority of the economic benefit of commercial uavs. they can do powerline inspections, they can have geofences set up. return to home location and land themselves. they log every parameter of the flight in real time. these small systems can be saving wildfire firefighter lives, saving the lives people flying helicopters over powerlines simply to take picture0s the powerline. they can be use for a murderad of situations they can save human lives. that's all i want to say today. maybe we can start somewhere integrate the lightweight system, use that for data collections and also satisfy some of that economic benefit that all those other countries are experiencing right now. >> thank you mr. guinn. good sessions. dr. handsman. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. as you can see it's sort of hard to follow the demo, but uavs are actually one of the most

exciting areas in aero space and air not ticks today. the -- air nat ticks today. the same technology using to miniaturize cell phones, coupled with flight controlling a go rhythms, et cetera enable incredible power -- young see nestable of the vehicle, high performance in very small packages. today, in my office back at m.i.t. in the basement, have two teams of students building new uav concepts. so it's a really exciting area. the thing to remember about uav integration is that there's a huge spectrum of uav sizes ranging from a true grams up to hundreds of thousands of pounds and it's important to note that one size won't fit all. we have to have different concepts of operation for integrating different types of uavs.

we have the small uavs operating in small altitude within line of sight with the operator. we have been doing that for years years and just need to get that enabled. but there are multiple other categories. high altitude uavs the typical uavs the military will want to operate. we also sort over know how to do that and developed rules which operating above where manned airplanes are. the more challenging areas are small uavs being operated beyond the light and sight of the operator. so you don't have the visual feedback. you are going to rely more on algorithms. you're going to rely more on the technology. the toughest area is actually uavs whose mission require they operate in the same air space that manned airplanes need to operate. frankly, we don't have the -- what we call concepts of

operations for either the small uas, beyond line of sight, or the larger uas operating in that air space. there's been so much focus on the small uas we haven't done the research to enable the concepts of operation. and unique concepts of operations in order to guide the research to develop the standards to work out the rules, to figure out the human factors. for example if we have uavs operating as ifr aircraft in the system today how does the air traffic controller think about the uav? how do they communicate with them? do they call the operator up on a land line? is there some relay? what happens when there's a loss of communication. how do they think about it? it's actually a tough thing for the faa because there are a lot of policy issues. for example, who do you give priority to? do you give priority to the manned airplane or the uav airplane? we say give tote the happened

airplane but what if the uav airplane is doing life-critical mission and the mapped air plane is on a sight hsiehing tour. who should have priority? there's a lot of questions here. most of my comments or my prepared remarks but i'd say i think the takeaway is we really need to develop -- we're really behind the eight ball. we haven't been working the harder problems of the fully integrated uas. i would note that i am encouraged by, for example the work that nasa has started on utm concept,on line of sight so they're starting to attack those problems. thank you for the opportunity. >> dr., thank you for the comments. the committee is going stand in recess until after the votes, and when we return we'll go immediately to our questions. sorry for the inconvenience. hoe we're back within 30 minutes if you want to take a break until then.

>> we now reconvene. let me direct my first question to you al which is this what is a realistic deadline for integrating the drones into the national air space system? i mention my opening statement that appears the deadline has slipped, but what can drone users and even the american people, the wider audience -- what is a realistic deadline for that integration? dr. wagner and then mr. williams. >> chairman, i would answer that right now we do have a level of integration. so as -- for public aircraft they're flying every day. we're -- nasa does research but year also user ands have

unmanned aircraft. civil applications, we're working very closely with the faa and rtca-228 to verify and validate the key technology barriers sense and avoid, radio communications, displays for the ground control stations to allow the faa to determine million standards. >> mr. william, when might we expect the faa to propose some rules? >> well, the faa is working closely with our administration partners in the rulemaking process, and we're doing everything we can to get that small unmanned aircraft rule out. but our main focus is to get it right. the rulemaking process is deliberative -- >> i understand. when do you think you might get that out? >> at this point can't give you a firm deadline. we're still working on the -- you have -- >> do you have a goal in mind? you have a lot of people across

the united states waiting, and do you have any kind of a working deadline or working goal? >> our goals are to get it out as quickly as we can as long as we get it out right. >> is it likely to be this year or next year? >> i can't speculate. my own personal hope is that we get it out as soon as possible. but it's got to go through the regulatory process that has been put in place by congress. we're working our way through that. >> okay, i'm going to press you one more time. you're slipping off the question. how long does the regulatory process normally take in a situation like this? >> you have to understand. this is a very complex -- >> never mine. i can tell i'm not going to get the answer i was hoping for. we'll take your word for expediting the process as much as we can.

dr. lauben what technologies need to be prioritized before the nas integration? >> i refer to what we believe is probably the highest and a couple of the other witnesses also mentioned, the need for technology that provides the equivalent of see and avoid the sense and avoid technology that needs to be in place for full integration of a wide range of these vehicles into the aviation system. that would be the highest. >> okay, thank you. mr. wynn and mr. gin what is the private sector contributing to the integration process? we have the government on one side -- maybe not on one side but as part of the process. we have the private sector as part of the process as well. what are the contributions of the private sector to the integration? >> my belief, mr. chairman is that the industry is going bring

the lion's share of the technology solutions, as it should. companies like 3d robotics will at the end of the day they're constructing the devices they're developing the software and not just directly in the industry that microprocessor speeds are getting faster et cetera, et cetera. so this was really the spirit of my testimony was, industry should really be doing the lion's share of this and proving the concepts to the satisfaction of the regulators in this r & d process. >> mr. guinn? >> so, not to give a specific example, of course these companies are integrating and innovating these advanced technologies, such as sense and avoid, and gee question fencing and return to home -- geofencing and return to home technology, but pd row pottics dying, i fly my drone today you can log into drone share.com and watch my entire flight, automatically.

if i choose our members around the world choose to make their profile public every single time you fly, that log file is uploaded out magically from your smart device so the cloud to drone they're.com, and we're able to now collect tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of data -- what their fringe cases when you're integrating these. >> you mentioned the drone we saw in the room was a fairly sophisticated device. what does it to say? what's its range and use? >> that's more of a hobby grade drone. it's called the b-bop. it's incredibly advanced in that it has a full high definition camera that displays an your smart device. you can either fly with a smart device or long-range controller its has barometric altimeters flow sensors to look at the ground and maintain positioning,

accelerometers gyroscopes and a full commute computer that is a flight control system and it's $499. >> what's the range? >> the range depending on if you're using a smart phone, you're restricted to kind of wi-fi range but if you use the controller you can get up to a kilometer of range. >> okay, thank you. dr. handsman, you mentioned what your students are working on in the classroom. i just wondered if we can expect any kind of breakthroughs and some of -- you might give some examples what they're working on as well but you've obviously seen it from hand-on approach. >> just a couple could quick examples. one vehicle our student protest to typed is a small uav that can do a one hour surveillance system which is land out of an anti -- a two inflame by two and a half by seven inch package short out at 300gs a concept

that nobody in the air force thought would work. students actually demonstrated it. it's now a developmental program where the vehicles they develop are being launched out of f-16s right now at edwards. >> i hope that's not classified information. >> no. that's intriguing. thank you all for your answer, and now i'll recognize the gentlewoman from oregon. >> thank you to our witnesses. as you heard in the opening remarks i gave oregon has three test sites through the pan pacific uas test range, but by the university of alaska fair banks. we talked about the benefits of the technology. one of the concerns i've heard from constituents in oregon, who are working in the developing industry, is that there's still some problems with advancing the testing of their product,

especially threw for small companies without a solid revenue screen, and mr. wynne this test range is set up to provide a space where development can tapes may by prohibitively expensive for small companies and there may be other low jess tick cal barriers. mr. guinn can you expand on how the faa could work with the test ranges to address these concerns and then i want to allow time for other questions. >> sure, really quickly, right now there's not really a set understanding how you even schedule a time to go to the range. there's no way to log into a system and say when is the next available day? it's not a matter of them being too busy because quite frankly there's not a whole lot of places or companies using the test ranges. it's more a matter of what is the process and there's a lot of bureaucracy surrounding getting even the approval to go to a test range and test fly for a few days youch don't know if

it's 30 days or two months. >> i'll ask mr. william about that. first, mr. wynn, thank you for your work. i want to echo the comments made by the chairman, and some of my colleagues about the concerns about the rulemaking, and somebody made a comment about the proposed notice of proposed rulemaking is expected. so we're encouraged to hear that news. i sent a letter to secretary foxx, joined by several colleagues, concern about the timeline. of course we want this to be done right and don't want to jeopardize safety but we're concerned about not only work force development and those challenges of recruiting people into this industry if we don't have the certainty but also for the new companies attracting private investment. mr. wynne have you noticed particular challenge because of the lack of certainty in attracting venture capital to the industry? >> absolutely, ma'am. thank you for the question. there's -- if i'm investing

money in a project like this, i want to know what the go to market strategy is, what the return on investment is. if i don't know when i can fly and when i can pursue some of the commercial opportunities that are out there, it's a big barrier. so, there is, i think, already the fact that there's money flowing in, there's tremendous product being developed, says that there's -- this is a great investment opportunity and a great business opportunity and a job creator, which is something we need to be paying attention to. and so while we want to get this right and we want to do it once for the various levels and run a certain trajectory here we think that there are opportunities immediately that require very little regulation and some of our -- some of the countries broad have -- >> i know mr. guinn talk about

that. mr. williams, we heard talk about the way to move forward, not a one size fits all because of the various sizes and capables and ranges, but i wanted to ask you first about the testing sites. some companies have suggested maybe performing initial tests at a range where the safety can be demonstrated and then performing additional tests closer to home. could you talk about some potential changes that could allow some more flexibility, specially for the small developers and then i also want you to respond to the concern about the small companies having access and being able to test. >> so, first, the small companies have access to our experimental awareness approval process, which goes back to the manned aircraft process. the same regulation applied. we're in the process of updating that to make it a little more user friendly for unmanned air

kraft operators to get through the process. on at the test site front, we have set up a program to enable all of the test sites, should they choose to do so, to have the authority to issue experimental air worthiness certificates on behalf of the faa, thereby streamlining the process of getting a new aircraft into the testing feys. so we think that's a significant benefit that the test sites can offer to the industry. and we're constantly looking at ways to streamline our processes and work to enable these new companies to test their aircraft in a safe and by the rules way. >> thank you. i see my time is expired so i'll submit the section 333 question for the record. >> thank you. the gentleman from oklahoma mr. lucas, is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i direct my question to dr. wagner and mr. wynn and mr. guinn and mr. hansman.

in recent years agriculture has been a bright spot in the nation roz economy. can you speak bet potential applications in agricultural set examination what benefits those might provide for producers and consumers, whoever? >> i can start. i have a little bit of experience. what we saw some high school students do this year who had the challenge of developing an unmanned aircraft to surveil i think it was about 100 square mile farm large farm of corn for european corn boards. these kids incredible kids from all over the country, came up with a number of different solutions, but they showed that there were viable solutions that were affordable usable for the farmer for precision agriculture, where they could precisely locate where there were issues either with fertilizer or pesticide where

they needed to be applied and could do that. so we saw that as an opportunity that shows that there's a market out there for that work, and that was -- that's part of what is behind our more mid-term work on this uas traffic management. so allowing a farmer or a commercial operation to go into a farm and do that kind of surveillance operation at low altitude, very safely and in a way that would be very cost effective. >> so, ag applications are already ongoing in other parts of the world in japan, for example, where you have very small rice paddies we're seeing applications there. it's considered one of the number one applications. there's significant interest in the part of agricultural attempts to use---- -- agricultural departments and they're frustrated by the rule that is difficult to get exemptions to experiment.

it's one of the big opportunity spaces. >> if i can, maybe provide a specific example of a way that even one of these very small lightweight systems can provide real benefit to the farmer. so we had one of the top private vineyards in napa valley contact us and say, we have been hearing about the drones. what can we do with them? everybody talks not supper high-tech ability to do image and i look for water damage and pesticide, but even if you just take it to the really simple level. most of the farmers have not ever seen a very high resolution look down image of their vineyards, so we went out, took a system, flew around took a lot of pictures looking down in the back of the truck, at the farm, stitched those together in a photo mosaic, which allowed him to see a very high resolution image of the crop

and for the generation that they've had that vineyard, he looked down and said wow look over here in the corner of the vineyard here, where see how this is actually a little darker green than this area? you can't see that when you're walking the rows of the vineyard. when you're up close you don't see the minute differences in the green. this must be the fact there's a slight elevation change there, which is sucking more water down to that area. that means we need to harvest these grapes to or three weeks earlier than the rest of the vineyard. he then walked us out took grapes from that area, from the arrest of the vineyard ex-squish them in a bag and you can clearly taste the difference between the two setes. he said before today we never knew that existed and that happened in two hours. >> congressman, thank you for the question. the numbers uvsi put together in 2013 the 82 billion in the first ten years after we get access to the national spares system, we think as high as 80% of that could be agriculture.

>> dr. williams i come from a state where chamber of commerce likes to use the phrase significant weather events occur on a commonplace and common way. my home state is making a lot of investment in weather-related research and i understand one thing that is a challenge is this requirement to obtain a certification of authorization coa, or section 33 exemption, which can be kind of challenging and cumbersome what is the faa doing to expedite the approval process for this kind of thing? >> we're actually working in both areas to approve the processing of the approvals most of the -- understand, the sex 333 approvals are for the aircraft. the process is for the air space. in order to operate unmanned aircraft you can't comply with the see and avoid rule so we have to give you either a with a very or authorization to do that. that's the process.

that process is. we're in the bros of building new software ask that's going to be a marriage step forward. we have achieved tremendous amount of progress with our public partners in accelerating their approvals. we have reduced the amount of overhead for many of the frequent users like nasa. they have a much easier way forward. on the 333 side, we're also working hard to streamline that process. we put together a team in the process of developing a streamlined and more efficient process to move those forward quicker. you have to understand the exemption process was never intended as an approval mechanism. it was intended to deal with exemptions. special cases. so we're trying to have to make that up as we go so to speak to figure out a way to accelerate it while still -- it's a regulatory process so there are rules that have to be met as we go through it. so we're trying find the right

balance. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. lucas. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for his questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing, something we're ail very interested in and it's critical that we gate handle on this. we don't want to -- on the one hand we want innovation to move forward and all the opportunities that are brought out for business purposes and others other purposes from uas but we know there's a lot of issues also that need to be dealt with and so i want teed ask mr. williams and anyone else can jump in after mr. williams if they have anything to add. i want to talk about the concern about the number of uas near misses being reported. my district includes midway airport so it's especially

important to me also the university airport in my distribution. to given the rapid increase of use for hobby and commercial purposes what's being done to better understand the risk of uas collision and what is being done to track near misses? >> so, we're in the process of building a tracking system modeled on the way we track the laser incidents that have been going on. we are also working hard on an education campaign to try to -- we believe most of the people that are flying these aircraft near airports don't understand the area they're flying in and the rules about where they can and can't fly. so we have an -- in partnership with the small uav coalition, the unmanned aircraft vehicles international uvsi and academy of model air not ticks we have --ary knottics, we have a campaign called know before you

fly, and we're working for any means to educate the public where they fly. primarily the faa isboard in compliance with our rules and we believe the best way to achieve that compliance is through education. so we're working hard to make that happen. you had another question about the research? >> what's what's being done to better understand the risk of collisions. >> right. so we actually have started this year a research initiative to look into what the potential is for -- really to sales the risk of an unmanned aircraft to maintained aircraft and the project is just getting off the ground this year and we're accelerate it that thanks to the additional congress provided us. we should be able to accelerate that and move it forward more rapidly than we had been able to. >> anything else that any witnesses think should be done? not being done?

>> i just want to emphasize that we thank the faa for their help with this campaign to educate. i think in many instances, it really is an education challenge today. obviously commercial operations are not -- are not allowed at this stage until we gate rule but the education campaign is really about keeping the uas under 400 feet, five miles from an airport within line of sight, stammer away from crowds. it's basic common sense and we think that in many instances it's just a question of education. we have had tremendous response from the aviation community on this. we have new partners in mbaa, eaa, many organizations are stepping in and helping us get the word out. >> thank you. one other thing i want to move on to mistime runs out about test sites. the faa established six test sites to enable uas research and these sites are operating under

an agreement that may restrict the f faa's role in directing research. so i want to ask mr. williams, what steps is the faa making to ensure the test sites are being used to address the fight's top research priorities and are there any barriers that need to be addressed? >> back in the fall we released to the test sites a list of over 100 research areas that we believed we could benefit from having them look into. i think there's back lot of misunderstanding about what they can and can't do in our behest. our only rule is through the procurement resume wes have to -- if we're going to direct one of our contractors and the other transaction agreement wes have with them amount to a contract between them and us if we're going direct work, we have to pay for it. so -- but we can also agree to work together with in-kind resources through the agreements. so the -- but the bottom line

is to all of this, all we have to do is document in those agreements and we can work together on any research project that is of interest to those test sites, and i believe that we have communicated that to them and i believe we have -- they understand the situation pretty well at this point. >> thank you. i have other questions i'll submit for the record. i yield back. >> on behalf of the in member of the committee, barbara comstock from virginia, i'd like to put a letter from michaelonmilner the objection, and without objection, entered the gentleman from california is recognized for questioning. >> thank you very much. let me see if i'm getting all this straight now. the faa actually will approve mr. guinns drones their design and their capables and approve them to actually go in the air before you are permitted to fly them?

that? mr. guinn? mr. williams? who can answer that. >> sir the two processes run in parallel. when the approval to fly the aircraft without an air worthiness certificate that's done through the section 333 exemption process -- >> explain -- that approval is based on design of the aircraft and its capabilities. >> yes, and the operations. they come in and say, okay, we want to operate it in this particular area, and our traffic organization assesses whether or not it's safe for them to operate. so, they're looking for conflicts with manned aircraft. >> this is both faa in both cases, one is the safety of the equipment itself and then the safety of the actual instance that you -- they want to use it, the specific situation and are we having any trouble, mr. guinn, with the actual approval of the system itself meaning your craft that you can

bring before -- them for approval is that -- am i understanding you think that should be streamlined? >> yes sir. so, when one of our customers wants to use say system for looking at photo mosaics of a farm so they can see where the water is going and when to pick the grapes they need to take that service. and get a section 333 exemption where is where the faa determines is this -- >> once you have gotten that -- >> first you have to get that. so far all the companies -- >> after that you don't have to get it again. right? >> for the section 333. so so far, 14 have been granted. >> out of how many? >> is that correct, 14? >> out of how many requests. >> out of everyone in the country that wants to fly their drones. >> is that right. 14? >> right. but the process is being improved and they're going to be coming out a little more frequently. >> so it's difficult, first, to get it. 14 out of however many thousand. and then once you have a section 333, you have to get the

certificate of authorization to fly in a specific area. >> what we have here is technology and capabilities are far surpassed the ability of making decisions about standards and rulemaking, general rulemaking and that's what we have to catch up with. this isn't the first time this happened in history, i'm sure and i hope -- can anyone here tell me which is more dangerous, a small privately owned airplane flying from here to there or a drone flying from here to there? >> anybody. >> we have had several friends that have been in helicopter crashes, actually specifically going out the side of the door taking picture of powerlines. so i can't speak to the factual evidence here but in my estimation, having a two or three pound drone flying over national grid powerline taking photos. they were to fail in any way, shame or form, doesn't have to

worry about auto rotating down to the ground when they're already flying outside the chart. it just bounces off the powerline, falls to ground and you take identity one of our the truck and keep inspecting. that would be much more safe and allow is to save lives today. >> we have actually done analysis on this and depends on the size of the drone. so for a small drone the risk to people on the ground and to people in the air is much lower. >> ever been anybody hurt from a crashing drone on the ground? >> hmm. there's been, ouch you hit me in the head with that drone. >> all right. let me ask about the -- how the faa is planning to do this this testing areas test sites that have been established, and trying to determine whether or not these pieces of equipment should be approved. could somebody tell me what they do with those test sites? >> well, the primary intention for the test sites is to provide an opportunity for manufacturers to do their developmental tests

and evaluation in support of moving forward toward approval. >> that's what the -- we had spent $11 million on that providing that to you last year and now that budget has been increased. is that correctth? >> no, sir there hasn't been any appropriation to the faa to directly support those test sites. we funded it out of our existing appropriations. >> is it possible that when we have these companies that are seeking profit, which is a good thing, and they have technology which is a good technology do you think that in order to facilitate and to move the process along that maybe it would be good to have the companies reimburse the come for the specific tests -- the government for the specific tests or be able to certify certain people to conduct those tests other than government employees? >> i believe that is the actual intent of the test sites.

the costs for running the test sites is currently being borne by the states who sponsored them and they're getting compensation from the individual -- the companies who come to them for testing. or the government -- in a couple cases government testing there. the faa doesn't fund the test site operating costs of the they're independently funded. >> we only have 14 of these things approved so i can't imagine we have much revenue so far but i would hope that -- >> there's a small number of companies covering those costs which is why it's prohibitively expensive to go to those sites to test versus going to canada or mexico our neighbors. >> all right. at the vuemer much mr. chairman. >> by the way, just to note my family, which is -- catching a plane back to california -- happen to be coming in at the time the drone was flying around, and i guess they might -- my son got an interesting opinion of what his father does for a living. >> kind of shows you how the vehicles actually stimulate the

interest of the next generation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman, and to the ranking member for having the hearing today and thank you all for your testimony. unmanned aircraft systems have significantly impacts us, particularly in the field of agriculture, changing the way farmer does business and increasing yields and decrease use of p.d.'d all a very good thing. come from state of connecticut where we have been long-time leaders in aviation and aero space we're very excited about the tups, but we also live in an incredibly congested air space and some of us including mr. lip pin ski and i children on the transportation and infrastructure commitee where we are having hearing on the same issue. i'd like to turn to that and get you to help us understand how on the're bed side what are the risks we should be looking at, what should be the research priority to avoid those issues which different than the

agricultural setting. the way you deal with la guardia to logan issues and particularly as we follow up on the exciting possibleity of improving the infrastructure, the grid looking at lines, very important opportunities but they do pose risks difficultly in the congestes air space. so anyone who wants to jump in and help us guide through research capables, what are the risks we face and on the r & d side what should we be preore tieing to address the risks outside of regulation, actually understanding. >> so, -- go ahead. so from a risk standpoint, if you look at the risks of uav operations, we don't have the risk to the passengers onboard so the two recollection -- two risk areas are ground impact hazard, people being hurt by drones coming out of the sky 0 mid-air collision risk. the ground impact hazard you can do the analysis and it really scales significantly by vehicle

mass. so we -- studies have been done and you can look at the risk versus reliability required to compare those with manned airplanes. from the airborne and collision risk it scales with size. for very very small uavs we design airplane so they can take bird strikes so an interesting research question is whey what this thrashhold mass for a uav for which the existing regular larryer to guidance on bird strike criteria. above that side you need some method to separate the airplanes. the easy thing is to do segregation. and that's where we're working now. the hard is to come up with concepts of operation that would allow you to operate in the same air space and be coordinated and that's where we have to work is the concepts. >> i would completely agree with that, and i think that's why many other countries have said, if it's less than two kg, it's going to be similar to a bird strike which planes are already

designed to handle and that worst-case scenario if that happened. the other thing we need to do, like i said before is by going to faa test sites with a team of ph.ds, flying a perfectly assembled drone, we're not figuring out what the fringe cases are. we're not figuring out that the real risks are when you integrate thousands of these systems and the concept of integrating thousands and thousands of systems that are far beyond what would be considered a bird strike is extremely scary. so to me, starting with those lightweight systems so we can collect all that data and start figuring out, okay, here are the fringe cases. here their failure to points here's the risks. now oh do we mitigate those for the next set of heavier aircraft. >> i might add that one of to the four high priority most difficult research projects we identified in our study had to do with these very issues. the question of verification

validation and certification and how you go about setting appropriate standards of risk that apply to these light, small, uas systems in a world that was basically created to deal with manned aircraft systems of much larger mass. it's a very different world and demands very high priority in our view. >> and a harder problem of inner operatability particularly with the larger aircraft. that's something that nasa has taken on and we're doing that research. so the sense and avoid work but also as you -- the sense and avoid systems work how you display that information to the pilot so they can make informed decisions and we're doing research in both areas in support of the faa's standards coach. >> thank you. that's all very helpful and those who have thoughts on how this might integrate with the next gen system and if there are

issues around uas we should be thinking about as we're addressing next gen as part of the faa authorization i'd love to follow up. >> we need leverage out our investment in the common architectures. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. the gentleman from california mr. knight. >> i have a quick question. the uas systems have helped quite a bit. now that these aren't something knew. they've been around for 50 or 60 years itch can remember the program which helped us get into the forth and fifth generation fighters we have today. and also, i appreciate what they do to help pilots have a safer flying. the gcast system we're working on right now in the united states air force and navy.

... i can say and you probably want to answer this is how do we go about that and what is the rulemaking going to be when they talk abo