chancellor -- that trip to focus on economic and security ties between the u.s. and u.k. nancy pelosi is in asia with another group of lawmakers. they arrived in cambodia today to begin a five nation visit that will focus on u.s. relations in the asia region and issues related to security cooperation, human rights and trade. >> this sunday, eric larson on his new book "dead weight." -- "dead wake." >> the question arises as to what ultimately happened to the lusitania. why was the lusitania allowed to enter the sea without escort, without the kind of detailed warning that could have been provided to the captain, but was not?

this has led to some interesting speculation about was the ship set up for attack by churchill or someone in the admiralty. i found no smoking memo. there was nothing from churchill to somebody in the admiral seel -- nothing like that exists. >> sunday night at 8:00. >> next, a senate hearing on commercial drones. when this representatives from the faa amazon.com. -- witnesses from the faa, amazon.com. this hearing is just under two hours.

afterwards, we plan to open up the phone lines to get your feedback on the federal regulation of drones. >> before i offer any opening statement, news is still coming in -- i want to a knowledge the tragedy in europe this morning. my thoughts go out to the friends and families of those affected. we will be monitoring this as the situation develops. i know all of us are very sad to hear about this tragedy. with that, i appreciate all of you being here today. i want to thank you because today's hearing represents the

second of an active spring schedule, including hearings for the faa readministration effort as it expires in september of this year. for years, unmanned aircraft systems, sometimes called drones , have been identified with citing terrorism abroad. i have appreciated the important work of this technology in terms of protecting our country. today's hearing is not about the military use of drones, but the commercial, recreational and public utilization of a new technology that represents much promise. there has been great interest in this technology and its potential on the home front. unmanned aircraft have countless civil and public applications.

they could assist in further precision and agricultural methods. they can conduct routine operations like utility line inspections that are expensive and sometimes dangerous when individuals do those on their own. they can enhance law enforcement in our home and security when used appropriately. they could empower creative filmmakers, enable faster newsgathering bring sports action even closer to viewers. they may save lives in search and rescue operations. there is a great deal of potential for unmanned aircraft in america and reports estimate that drone integration could yield tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs and tens of

billions of dollars of economic impact -- positive economic impact. we want america to be the location of innovation, but at the same time, we have to look at this new technology and ability in balancing other we cannot sacrifice safety, privacy or prudent use of this new technology consistent with existing laws that we have in standards that we expect from people. these principles are not mutually exclusive. this hearing is an opportunity to learn more about how all of this fits together. we hear today, we have heard previously as i have scheduled this hearing from eager operators that are worried we are falling behind competing nations that integration has been slow.

the ffa has granted dozens of exemptions allowing for the commercial use of unmanned systems and the list of those waiting in line is still long. however faa announced an interim policy to speed authorizations today and additionally best practices and opportunities for testing uaf technologies are incomplete. the faa's designation test sites have potential that is yet to be fully realized. as with any new technology incorporation requires thoughtful work and caution , particularly when it involves our national airspace system. the most complex aviation system in the world there is great potential here but it must be managed correctly. the faa's proposed rule published last month is a meaningful step in that direction. access is expanded by the proposed restrictions would not throw open the door unfettered to the use of unmanned systems. potential operators may be

disappointed by limitations imposed by this proposed rule . however it is important that this rule is designed to be the next step and that faa is looking ahead to identify future areas to enable uaf's usage. at any stage of uaf integration a primary consideration has to be safety. we have all seen reports of uaf's being flown recklessly either near commercial aircraft including the airport i regularly use in manchester, new hampshire and in dangerous proximity to people are landing in sensitive areas like we heard, the white house lawn. no doubt is this fledgling industry expands, there will be more growing pains but thoughtful policymaking and industry action can ensure the lowest risk to people and property. in addition to safety rules is important to have an ongoing dialogue about how unmanned aircraft will impact our lives and expectations. in furtherance of that objection

administration is engaging , stakeholders consider best practices to address issues of privacy transparency and accountability. there is no easy cure all, but having concerned parties at the table developing ways to respect these considerations while enabling utilization of the potentially transformative technology is a worthy endeavor. mr. morris from ntia is here to provide information on this multi-stakeholder process. it's no surprise and i think we can all understand that one of the primary concerns that people have about the use of these unmanned systems is privacy. unlimited surveillance by government or private actors is not something that our society is ready or willing or should accept. because you a ask can significantly lower the threshold of --

while there are existing legal frameworks that can respond to some of these concerns, their application to unmanned aircraft pushes the boundaries and requires more analysis. edward to hearing from all of you -- i look forward to hearing from all of you. we have other means, where people are using telephoto lenses to allow observation at great distances and other means of technology to observe people. today, we want to hear about how we can best address the privacy concerns with unmanned systems. this hearing is a chance to explore many of these important questions and i look forward to hearing the testimony today as well as the comments of my colleagues. i want to thank my ranking member senator cantwell and turn , it over to her. maria cantwell: thank you, madam

chair. i would like to start by offering my condolences to the loved ones of passengers and crew from flight 95. our -- flight 9525. our thoughts and our thoughts and prayers are with them in this incredible tragedy. i would like to welcome our witnesses today and thank them for testifying on such an important subject as unmanned aircraft systems and certainly appreciate the depth and breadth of the expertise that is represented on this panel today. i look forward to hearing what each of you have to say about this area and am reminded that it was 2 faa bill discussions ago we had similar discussions about defense and other applications related to the faa and unmanned aerial vehicles. at that time a small company in my state was trying to figure out how to move forward in cooperation with the faa, and

today that company has more than 800 people. this industry has continued to grow, and we are here to talk about the integration of unmanned systems that require a balance between the safety of our skies which we cannot and will not compromise and the many possibilities enabled by unmanned systems such as fighting wildfires, inspecting bridges, railroads, pipelines, aiding farmers the monitoring of borders to more simply delivering something as important as a new seattle seahawks jersey. we have heard from constituents and local businesses about integrated solutions to existing problems while a wants to develop knew markets using unmanned aerial system technology. unfortunately many of us have heard that they have had to move testing overseas and were unable to receive the appropriate permission from us regulators in

a timely fashion. american engineers and manufactures will lead the way if we give them the opportunity, and i hope this panel can take the input and help us move forward on how to do that. the small unmanned system rule proposed by the faa in february is an important step forward but technological advancement will not slow down as we determine how to address the new a set of challenges. for the most part these challenges come in maintaining the safety of airspace, the safety of people and property on the ground. the faa includes a robust analysis of commercial unmanned aerial systems, cost benefits, concerns. there are issues there that remain about noncommercial users in the recreational community. the number of pilots reporting near misses with these unmanned systems around airports at altitudes well above 400 feet speaks to the existing problem which will only grow as technology becomes more

available. it is something i am -- this approach which changed the paradigm of aviation which has relied on self-regulation by pilots. it is something i'm sure will be exploited today. also good news for safety be his unmanned systems have the potential to save lives. inspecting powerlines or assessing damage after a fire could all be aided by these technology solutions. according to the department of labor 4400 workers died on the job in 2013. not all could have been prevented by unmanned systems, but we have a responsibility to continue to improve worker safety, and some tasks could be performed in other ways.

many of the commercial unmanned systems that the faa has already approved our four -- are for uses that promote worker safety. the faa just advanced an interim policy, a blanket certification of section 333, would streamline the process so that 200 85 below 200 feet would be an easier process for people to proceed with technology. i applaud the faa. while we await a final unmanned system role which i am not sure -- rule which i am not sure exactly how long it will take. i am sure there will be questions. i want to make sure we're keeping that timeframe in mind. i do think that american

companies are faced with competitive disadvantages because of the slow pace of regulation. several governments across the world are working hand-in-hand with commercial unmanned system operators to find solutions were -- where businesses can thrive with existing new technology and maintain the safety of airspace while operating. another subject that i like forward to -- look forward to discussing is the issue of privacy, including how this new technology will fit into existing privacy laws and how we can protect private citizens and businesses from this unwanted surveillance. so this is intertwined with larger discussions about data protection and security i hope that we will be able to address these issues today. the the chairwoman and i are working together with the chairman of the full community.

and ranking member nelson. i hope we can continue to move these bills forward. kelly a. ayotte: i want to thank senator cantwell and most of all welcome our panel of witnesses today and thank you for being here and for taking the time to taking the time to talk about this important topic before this committee. first i want to welcome margaret gilligan:. she is the associate administrator for safety at the federal aviation administration. margaret gilligan: i would like to thank the chair and ranking member before beginning my testimony i would like to express my condolences. we are we are standing by to assist in the investigation to assist in

any way we can. we are here today to discuss the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems or aus. to the national airspace system as technology continues to advance the challenge is to develop a regulatory framework. since the reauthorization act we have made progress. we have learned a lot along the way. the faa put together a conference of plan and road drop -- roadmap. we have an aggressive research program that leverages the assets of partners and industry to overcome the largest barriers to you asn integration such as detection and avoid technology.

the six test sites we selected are fully operational and have established the research agendas. the technical center is receiving data from test sites that will help answer key questions about how unmanned aircraft can interface with air-traffic control. the tech center is working closely to identify data it will be most useful. to facilitate commercial integration, we have issued over 60 exemptions under section 333. these operations these operations do not pose a risk to others operating, the general public, or national security and can be safely conducted by ua s. we have learned a lot and are working hard to increase efficiency and decrease processing time. it also issued certificates so

they will be able to conduct flights for commercial purposes. we have issued 176 airworthiness for civil you a s -- uas operations, 34 of which are active today. these approvals facilitate research and development, crew training, and market surveys. last month we proposed a rule that would allow routine use without an airworthiness certificate. the proposed rule would cover many potential small uas operation and offer a flexible framework for the safe use of systems while accommodating future innovation. with this proposal the united states would have one of the most flexible frameworks in the world. as uas operations increase we are reaching out to educate the public on the safe and responsible use of uas. they provided guidance on the do's and don'ts of safe

operation. we have partnered with members of the industry and modeling community to initiate the know before you fly campaign for safe and responsible uas operation . the faa are also working to position law enforcement to deter, detect, investigate, and report unauthorized operations. our 1st action is to educate you auas operators about compliance, when appropriate we will and have use administrative or legal enforcement action. it is a top priority for the faa. we are looking beyond that rulemaking to identify additional types of operations and what technologies we may need to certify. we have consulted with the rulemaking committee for enabling with the highest societal benefits. these we will result in an additional focus areas that will become the plans for integration. we must ensure resources are directed to areas with the highest safety risk.

we will need to expand collaborative data driven processes with the uas industry to improve safety and streamline certification. we are developing a knew -- new advisory circular to inform the industry how to use risk-based decision-making to establish certification criteria which is essential for enabling the potential for larger uas for operation. the faa is safely and steadily integrating uas and we continue to look to the future to make sure the proper framework and standards are in place to facilitate safely integrating. -- safe integration in an increasingly complex airspace. we look forward to continuing to work with partners in government, the aviation community and this committee. this concludes my statement and i look forward to answering your questions. kelly a. ayotte: thank you very much. i would like to introduce mr. john morris junior, the associate administrator for the

office of policy analysis and development at the national telecommunications administration. thank you for being here. [inaudible] john b. morris jr.: on. okay. let's start over. chairman, ranking member members of the subcommittee, thank you for the ability to testify. the use of commercial and private unmanned aircraft systems, or uas. ntia, our focus is not on the aircraft systems but on increasing broadband access and adoption and expanding

opportunities and ensuring the internet remains an engine for continued innovation and economic growth. increasingly internet policy work has focused on enhancing consumer privacy in order to strengthen the trust and consumer adoption of new and evolving technologies. the critical development is through the multi- stakeholder approach. in this model stakeholders work together to reach consensus on best practices and codes of conduct that can be implemented in the marketplace. stakeholders can include private industry, consumer groups, academics, and others with an interest. the hallmark of these processes are open -- are that they are open and consensus-based. we are not a regulator in this

area and do not substitute our judgment for those of the stakeholders. we have used and are using the multi-stakeholder approach and all right range -- in a wide range of areas. the february presidential memorandum calls to convene a multi- stakeholder process. it is to bring people together to craft best practices seeking -- best practices. in march, we saw is public input on this public structure and the substantive issues that stakeholders will discuss. we seek input on questions that could framing the discussions including what they enable commercial services raise the most pressing privacy challenges, what best practices

would mitigate privacy challenges while supporting innovation, what information should commercial ua us operators make public and how best should that information be made public. how can operators ensure their operations comply with best practices? and most importantly are there different policy issues raised by different aircraft sizes and different commercial uses. comment from these and other questions, and we expect to convene the 1st public meeting later this spring. ntia will use the comments to help establish an efficient and effective structure. we encourage individuals and entities with interest in these issues to submit comments and will encourage them to participate. we hope that stakeholders will work collaboratively to address

the challenges posed by commercial and private ua us use. pleased to contribute to ensure the integration takes into account not only public safety and economic competitiveness by the privacy -- but also the privacy and civil liberties issues that these systems may raise. thank you for the opportunity to participate and i look forward to answering any of your questions. kelly a. ayotte: i would like to welcome doctor gerald dillingham . he is the director of civil aviation issues at the government accountability office. gerald l. dillingham: thank you. since the early 1990s, uas had operated on a limited basis. as

the chair and ranking minority member said in their remarks the list of potential uses is rapidly expanding. it is estimated to grow to more than $82 billion by 2025. the fsa has taken steps toward integration, including establishing testing sites. there is more work to be done. my statement today focuses on three areas for moving forward with integration. first, the status of the test sites. second, how other countries are integrating uas or commercial purposes and third article steps for integration. regarding the test sites in

december 2014 we reported problems with the working relationship and communication between faa and the test site. for example, some operators reported they are not receiving adequate guidance on the kind of research to support integration or how it should be reported area and -- be reported. more recently, officials at faa and some test sites told us that the situation improved because they have made a dedicated effort to work together through activities such as biweekly meetings and information sharing about research needs. continued coordination will be important and forcing standard -- important in supporting development. with regard to international activities. our work showed a number of countries allowed operations and have done so for years. australia and canada have had regulations in place for a decade or more.

my written statement contains a table with the regulatory requirements. itches common traits and differences. one key difference is that in these other countries, they generally have a different legal structure which may allow more flexibility in the development of regulations. second, these countries have less general aviation and commercial air traffic, much less complex airspace which means there is a lower risk. however, if uas were to begin flying today under the proposed rules they would operate under restrictions similar to regulations in these four countries with notable exceptions. canada relies more heavily on our risk management approach to allow more operations in the u.s.. going forward, the current

momentum towards to gratian include the following. the faa must develop a detailed implementation plan that would identify activities, resources and schedules which could serve as a means to hold faa accountable. second, they should continue to process the comments it receives and issue a final rule as soon as possible. they estimate this process will likely not be completed until late 2016 3rd or early 2017. third, the faa must continue efforts to make the test sites useful including working to identify incentives. in concert with a uas industry faa should

, consider expanding the campaign on permissible ends -- and safe operations which could begin to ease public concern about privacy and safety . and finally faa will need to , ensure the integration of uas is closely coordinated with the development of the next generation air transportation system. thank you. that completes my oral statement. kelly ayotte: thank you, doctor gerald dillingham. i want to welcome professor john villasenor. professor john villasenor is a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. thank you professor villasenor for being here today. john d. villasenor: thank you very much. members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important topic. i'm a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institute and i

am on the faculty at ucla. the views i am expressing are not necessarily those of the brookings institution, stanford, the university of california. i'm going to devote my remarks to the very important issue of privacy. it is important to start by acknowledging privacy is a legitimate concern. for the first time ever, unmanned aircraft systems are making it easy and inexpensive to obtain overhead imagery. the overwhelming majority of the time, operators and both the public and private sectors will be mindful of the need to respect privacy, but as the number of users and flights continue to grow, sometimes inadvertently or intentionally uas will be used in ways that violates privacy. to what extent are our current legal frameworks up to the task? i believe existing legal frameworks will provide substantially more protection. that does not mean there is no need for new privacy laws but we

must have a full appreciation. -- appreciation for the laws we already have. the applicable framework for privacy depends in large part on who is making the observations. for uas operated by the government the 4th amendment is a key pillar. provided through common law as well as civil and criminal invasion of privacy statutes i . i will start with the 4th amendment. it is suggested that because the 4th amendment was ratified over 200 years ago it will not be effective. the technology that the founders could scarcely have imagined. i disagree. a review of the supreme court 21st century jurisprudence provides cause for optimism that the 4th amendment proves to be protective. i will mention three notable supreme court cases related to technology kemal and i

-- technology, but not specifically to unmanned aircraft systems. but in 2012, the court ruled against the government, a decision involving the installation of a gps tracker on a car. the majority agreement was involved in the physical trespass of facing the tracker. but interestingly, more interestingly there were two concurrences and was the justices expressed great skepticism about the constitutional concerns -- they were very skeptical of the government's behavior and suggested tracking someone for weeks on end with technology without a warrant would raise very serious constitutional concerns. most recently the government the court ruled against the

government and said that when conducting a search, police did not have the right generally to search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant. chief justice roberts explained with respect to mobilephone technology, now allowing an individual does not make the individual any less worthy of the protection. for which the founders fought. the court is on record recognizing that despite the unimaginable changes that have occurred since the constitution was written "the protection for which the founders fought" protects the fourth amendment. i will briefly talk about nongovernment aircraft and privacy. private entities are not bound by the fourth amendment restriction and they have the privilege to gather information. while that privilege and's when it crosses into an invasion of privacy.

there are common law and statutory frameworks that occur. in closing, i would like to emphasize the importance of first amendment rights and first amendment consistency. viewed solely through the lens of prophecy that would certainly be protected. it is easy to see how this could lead to some disturbing consequences. peaceful demonstrators can be told that they are not allowed to film a demonstration on the grounds that it might be on adjacent grass to people that disabuse that disagree with their viewpoint. it is important to recognize the protections that we have. it might not lay in statutory text but instead in constitutional text drafted over 200 years ago. i look forward to your questions. thank you. chair person: i want to welcome

mr. paul eisner. >> thank you for your attention to this very important topic for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify. amazon prime air is a future service that would deliver packages and five below 200 feet and weigh less than 55 pounds. it will take advantage of sophisticated technology as well as a high degree of automation. to ensure automation's including the distances of 10 miles or more will beyond the visual line of sight. amazon prime has been conducting flight testing in multiple places abroad. no outside of the united states have you been required to wait more than two months for testing. this gives us room to expand experiment, and rapidly perfect

designs without the required to continually get new approvals. our outdoor flight testing is going well and we are pleased with the r&d progress that this has enabled. no country in which we have distribution to sony's has adopted rules which would allow package deliveries. we are working with government agencies to develop appropriate rules for small operations. such rules must allow applications to keep track of the cork ability of the technology. safety is amazon's top priority and earlier this month, i discussed you a a safety. i'm delighted to report that these aviation authorities are enthusiastically pursuing regulatory frameworks and operational rules. the approach they are taking is imminently reasonable. uis rules should be simple and performance-based and the basic regulatory framework should be

put in place without delay. american commercial entities want to innovate and perfect technology and to do so we must conduct r&d testing. we need to satisfy and test the designs outdoors, exposed to flight conditions and they will experience in operations. we have very grateful to the faa for granting us permission to conduct testing outdoors in the united states. this approval came last thursday and we are eager to get flying here. the permission the faa granted is more restrictive than are the rules and approvals by which we conduct outdoor testing. it is even more limited in the rules applicable to non-amateur fires in the u.s.. this took far too long and certainly much longer, over half year that took another countries. the good news is that while the faa was considering our applications, we innovated so

rapidly that do you asap has become obsolete. we have moved on to more advanced designs that we are already testing abroad. last friday, we asked the faa for permission to fly one of these advanced u.s. in the u.s. and we hope that this will be granted quickly. although the united states is catching up and allowing current testing, the u.s. remains behind in planning for future commercial operations. the faa is not pursuing those that are the online of sight. this embraces comments on whether it should permit beyond visual line of sight and how enabling technology should be evaluated. this is not to suggest that regulators here can quickly adopt rules beyond visual line

of sight that may take some time. regulators should start proposing migratory frameworks and rules for future commercial operations now. because the u.s. remains behind in planning for future commercial operations, one might assume that congress must provide the faa to act. the agency they have adequate statutory authority. what they need is impetus, less the u.s. fall further behind. any impetus given by, embraced by the faa should result in the agency commencing now to plan and develop rules for u.s. operations that would encompass highly automated flights beyond visual line of sight. in conclusion, i look forward to working with you and your subcommittee and the faa to ensure that important commercial services become available in the u.s. safely and soon and i look for to your questions. ms. ayotte: i would like to

welcome mr. jeff landry worth -- jeff vanderwerff. mr. vanderwerff: thank you for having me. i raise soybean, apples with my farm. it was purchased by my great grandfather, a dutch immigrant. today, my wife and i are proud to be raising a fifth generation on that farm. i am responsible for the day-to-day activities including agriculture. as a farmer who uses precision agriculture, i'm here today to discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of unmanned aircraft systems for my farm system. last summer, i attended a precision agriculture

demonstration. the demonstration concluded with an explanation of the images and that data. i walked away knowing that this was the next dissolution in precision agriculture on my farm. as a farmer who relies on precision agriculture techniques i rely on data to produce accurate information. accurate information is critical to the decisions i make. these affect my yields, the environmental impact, and ultimately the viability of my operation. using an unmanned aircraft has the potential to provide you with the tool and making decisions to maximize the return of my family's business. one take away i had after seeing the demonstration was its ability to provide detailed scouting information on wheat immersions insect infestation. currently i spent about 12 hours a week walking the nearly 3000 acres of land that we farm.

it is effective and not efficient for you stop -- it is not efficient. using and band aircraft will allow me to identify issues before they become catastrophic happens. reducing the environmental impact is another significant benefit. the imagery from unmanned aircraft allows me to spot treat sections of my fields as opposed to sprain an entire field. images would allow me to identify a specific location whether it is a specific treatment. this allows me to eliminate the nude to use is across the entire field. i would lower the cost of treatment. while the state analogy has potential to be another tool in the toolbox, there are certainly some pitfalls that we need to discuss. privacy and security of the data collected is concerning to farmers and ranchers. even if an individual operator

follows the rules, regulations, and best management practices in his or her farming operations, the risk is the concern that regulatory agencies are one of the numerous environmentally organizations might gain access to individual farm data through subpoenas. the biggest fear that farmers faced is that third parties including the united states, could gain access to our data and use against us. questions abound with the community about who owns and controls the data we generate. if a farmer contracts with the company authorized to fly a u.s. s -- aua-esque, is a shared with the contractor and the farmer? -- if a farmer contracts at the company that is authorized to fly a uas, is it shared with the farmer and the contractor?

this is not available to government agencies or others without permission. in conclusion, the front europe's grant to suit the federal aviation administration introduce its notice of proposed rulemaking for small ua . the farm burea is in the process of developing the comments in regard to this rule and it is our hope that farmers and ranchers will be able to secure the rights to this process to use uas as part of the systems. ms. ayotte: thank you. i would like to direct my first question to ms. gilligan. what i wanted to ask you about with this new area of rulemaking and implementation of the small uas rule and subsequent rules, how does the agency plan to fund this effort? i saw in the notice of proposed rulemaking that there is some

contemplation of cost recovery five dollars to register an unmanned aircraft, $150 for knowledge and test of operators and $50 to verify the idea of an applicant. is that going to cover the resources you need going forward in an expanding area? given that we have other resources, including implementing next jan and other things for. ms. gilligan: the faa has absorbed a lot of the cost of beginning the implementation process for bringing uas into the airspace. we do have pending in the fy 2016 appropriations, the president's budget request additional growth and personnel and research and development dollars and facilities and equipment dollars. we may be making requests through the budget process. we hope the congress can support that. ms. ayotte: do you anticipate this will be a self-funded thing or not? ms. gilligan: the notice of proposed rulemaking does not

suggest it funds the entire program, those fees will offset the cost of those elements. in terms of rulemaking, as we do with manned operations right now, we do not charge fees for the services. they provide services to the industry. we would provide the services to the uas as well. ms. ayotte: can i follow up, as i understand the proposed rule it prohibits uas operation above people. we allow other types of aircraft to go over people, including helicopters, plants, etc. what was the thinking behind the prohibition?

is it a perceived dangerousness with unmanned systems themselves or is this something you anticipate looking at and addressing in the next reiteration of rules? ms. gilligan: in the proposal for small uas, we are talking about vehicles not designed against any standards, either faa or industry standards, which is different for manned vehicles. because of that we were looking at how to mitigate risk. one of the limitations and the proposal is to limit the operation over people not involved in the operation. that is an area we have asked for comment. we will be looking at how we can balance that. because we are talking about introducing systems that are not designed or manufactured in any kind of system that we are accustomed to, we think that is a risk that needs to be addressed in this rulemaking. ms. ayotte: mr. misener, with some issues you have raised, given how amazon proposes to use these unmanned systems to help package delivery, where do you

see this issue in the rulemaking going forward? ms. gilligan, if you can help address concerns mr. misener raised. first, i would like to hear from mr. misener. mr. misener: what the faa has done in its nprm is fine. it really needs to go further. we need to be looking further beyond the road from the beyond visual line of sight. it is coming quickly. the fact that we are not even proposing rules or frameworks for rules is lamentable. we ought to move ahead now. at least be thinking about those rules as opposed to dismissing them as the nprm did. ms. ayotte: how do you address the concerns with which he pays the faa is going for to issue

these rules in light of international competitors? ms. gilligan: we are focusing on the area authorizing operations beyond visual line of sight. there are several technology challenges to being able to do that, including the need to address the issue of what we call sense and avoid. we have pilots and manned aircraft, they had a regulatory responsibility to see and avoid other traffic. that is still to be addressed

for unmanned vehicles. there is also assuring there is a standard of design that will assure a level of safety. we have a number of initiatives underway with the uas industry. rtca is working on standards for sense and avoid an command and control, that involves all of the industry. we have another subgroup under our aviation rulemaking committee looking beyond line of sight, visual line of sight operations as well. that will be the next focus area. that will be an area we are looking at. it is a far more complex area and one where we do not have the technology standards established. we expect to get those from rtca over the next year or so. ms. ayotte: i have a follow-up question and i would like to turn it over to ranking member hanwell. >> does this put us on par with europeans? ms. gilligan: there are a number of locations where they are authorizing different operations because they have less complexity, less general operation outdoes lower attitudes. we are faced with challenges our partners do not face. as we are issuing our exemptions from section 333, the operator will be able to immediately operate as long as the operation is below 200 feet. if they want to go about 200 feet they must still go to the air traffic organization and identify the air space where they want to operate so we can assure safe separation of the unmanned system from whatever general aviation or other operations there may be inviting space.

we believe this is increasingly flexibility that we can give as we grant exemptions. mr. cantwell mr. misener, i do not know if you have input on that. mr. dillingham, are we always going to be behind the europeans because they have implemented a gps system? they have much more information about who and what is in the airspace? mr. dillingham: i think we are i would not say we are behind. when you talk about the gps system and next gen, the u.s.

and the europeans are working hand in hand to harmonize and make those kinds of systems interoperable. with regard to the uas, i think that because of those differences between the u.s. and some foreign countries in terms of the legal framework. japan, where they have been flying agricultural things for a while, one of the differences is is the farmer owns the airspace above his land. therefore it is a different perspective. moving forward, the u.s. working with international aviation community and the uas industry we will in fact maintain our position as aeronautical leaders in the world. one of the things i said in my statement, if we were to implement the notice of proposed rulemaking now, we would be on

par in many ways with foreign countries. however, we are probably 16 months to 18 months away from doing that and they will still keep moving forward. it is going to be that kind of back and forth. there are some reasons for it. faa should be congratulated for moving to the point that it is. as we said, there are still some critical things that need to happen. mr. misener: it is true that we are on part when these rules get adopted 18 months or 24 months from now for operation. where we lag behind is planning for the future. automation, beyond visual line of sight is coming. the europeans are getting ready for it. we are not so much.

mr. cantwell i wonder, ms. gilligan, a couple things that we had done, congress and partnership with the faa, within the faa to create centers of excellence on things we do not quite yet understand. whether it is composite lightweight manufacturing materials and approval on products like the 787, to keep the faa up to date they created a center of excellence. the same center of excellence in existence on biofuels. do we need one of these centers

of excellence to help the faa and the technical side get answers in advance so as the market continues to develop those questions are being addressed and the research is being done? ms. gilligan: yes, senator. we have gotten good support from congress and the last appropriations bill. we were given additional appropriations for the purposes of establishing a center of excellence. that process is underway, the applications are under review. we expect to name the center of excellence before the end of this fiscal year and the administrator has challenges us to do it sooner. it is in part because we see not only at the test sites but with the center of excellence we can frame these technology issues and some other challenges and get the best minds in academia working on helping us on those. mr. cantwell: the last phrase is key, the best minds in academia. thank you. ms. ayotte: i would like to call on senator schatz. mr. schatz: ms. gilligan, the faa guidelines for recreational

drones, i would like to go through them and then ask for your comments. my understanding is a drone must weigh less than 55 pounds, below 400 feet, visual line of sight not interfering with manned aircraft operations and not flying near an airport. there appears to be no speed limit for recreational drones and no prohibition on flying over people. so my question for you, although the notice of proposed rulemaking is progress, what are we doing at the 400 foot and down level and who has jurisdiction? ms. gilligan: the notice is directed towards operators in commercial operation, which we do not authorize at all. hobbyists are actually sort of overseen by what we call a community standard. we are working with the american modelers association for them to serve in that function. they actually have a set of operating expectations for their members.

mr. schatz: will they have the force of law? ms. gilligan: they do not, but under the reauthorization it was set for that it should be a community standard. mr. schatz: is preemption at play? if a mayor wants to set aside, a mayor can decide to use a city or county park how they wish in consultation with their parks department and city council. you can say no golfing, dogs here, they have jurisdiction over the land. this goes to professor villasenor's testimony. did we just preempt local decision-makers from making choices with respect to where recreational drones are allowed and where they are not? ms. gilligan: congress has preempted authority to the federal government for a long time. the faa is the sole entity responsible for the airspace. we consider that to be from the ground through as high as aircraft operates. in fact, now that we have commercial space operations as well.

mr. schatz: so there would be no prohibition on flying a 54 pound drone 10 feet above a ballfield as fast as you want? because it is, because our statute and the 2012 reauthorization preempts a local decisionmaker from deciding what is allowable in public space and what is not. is that correct? ms. gilligan: i would have to

ask our lawyers to check the reading of the law. more importantly, there are a number of people using these vehicles for recreational purposes who are not well informed about their responsibilities. that is why we and the modeling community and manufacturers are doing outreach. several manufacturers are providing information in the packaging so people who buy these understand they have a responsibility if they are going to operate in airspace. mr. schatz: professor villasenor, did you want to comment? i will quote the supreme court "if the landowner is to have control of the land, he must control the atmosphere." what sort of elevation a private individual ceases to have full control over their land, it is an open question and it seems to me it is still being adjudicated. mr. villasenor: we are being forced to figure out what we could afford not to figure out

before. no one would really reasonably argue that as a landowner i have the right to stop united airlines from flying over my property at 30,000 feet. many rulings, it is very clear that there is preemption airspace is a public resource. how low is public airspace? clearly it does not include the airspace two inches above the ground in my backyard. mr. schatz: do you think this should be articulated through the lawmaking, rulemaking, by community standards? mr. villasenor: if we try to pick a specific limit, up to 100 feet, you invite people to sit outside to limit in ways that might be problematic. in that sense it is better to have things be general in terms of reasonable expectation of privacy, it is not specific but we know when it is private. the courts have figured it out and that has worked well. mr. schatz: ms. gilligan, our model aircraft's, should we be treated model aircraft and drones synonymously? it seems to me that the policy in the structure did not envision drones as they are

emerging. maybe i am wrong. when i hear model aircraft and do not picture a 54 pound object moving at 100 miles an hour but maybe i am still catching up myself. can you comment? ms. gilligan: what we are seeing, as you highlighted, the people who come in many people who are buying unmanned systems are not what we would historically have considered modelers. modelers were generally aviators who came into it because of a love of aviation and wanted to experiment with physics. we have a different part of the community joining us. we and the modeling community are working hard to make them understand they have aviation responsibilities that go beyond being able to buy a really interesting toy they want to use in their backyard. ms. ayotte: senator moran? mr. moran: ms. gilligan, the faa's proposed rules, there is no requirement for flight training or airworthiness certification of equipment. those standards exist to ensure that vehicles are safe. how are those issues going to be addressed in the future? ms. gilligan: on the issue of airworthiness, we looked at the language in the reauthorization bill, with authorized the secretary to authorize that there was no need for a certificate other criteria were met related to speed and operation. the role provides that

limitation consistent with the statute in such a way that we felt that at the expectation that there would not be a need for airworthiness certification to a particular set of standards. mr. moran: ms. gilligan, the faa's proposed rules, there is no requirement for flight training or airworthiness certification of equipment. those standards exist to ensure that vehicles are safe. how are those issues going to be addressed in the future? ms. gilligan: on the issue of airworthiness, we looked at the language in the reauthorization bill, with authorized the secretary to authorize that there was no need for a certificate other criteria were met related to speed and operation. the role provides that limitation consistent with the statute in such a way that we felt that at the expectation that there would not be a need for airworthiness certification to a particular set of standards. i forget the other one? mr. moran: the operator?

ms. gilligan: there is an operator testing requirement different from the private pilot requirement. they will not have to manipulate the aircraft. to pass the test there will be it will be necessary to receive some education in the standards of operating in the airspace. so we believe that the testing requirement will assure that people are competent for the purposes of operating their system. so we believe that the testing requirement will assure that people are competent for the purposes of operating their system. we have asked for comment. we will be interested to see what we get back from the community to see if we need to adjust the proposals. mr. moran: mr. morris, let me change topics. the system of control of uas over long distances using cellular telephone networks or existing cell towers, that conversation, are we recognizing the considerable technological hurdles that are out there? are the telecommunications companies prepared for this task?

mr. moran: we're at the beginning of the development for the commercial aviation. i am honestly not thoroughly familiar with the use of the cell towers in connection with uas. i think that is something that we need to get back to you on. mr. moran: i would welcome that. let me switch to farm bureau. i'm sure you said this in your testimony. i was not here to hear it. i would be glad to hear about the value of uass in kansas. much of agriculture recognizes there is a great potential here. i want to ask you a question about how necessary are beyond line of sight operations for agricultural purposes? mr. vanderwerff: one of the other panelists spoke about the use by the japanese and asian countries.

they are using these uass in ways beyond where we are now in terms of they are not only using them for scouting, but they are using them for application of nutrients and things of that nature. many of those things are line of sight and beyond line of sight. the safety features are extremely redundant. once the vehicle exceeds the prescribed distance within the software, it automatically returns to the geosynchronous point at which it started. when the battery is running low, it drops to a specified elevation and returns. if you lose control, it comes back to where it started. it is not like these things go buzzing around the countryside. they do return to where they started from, that is based on the geosynchronous information put in when they were launched.

mr. moran: thank you. ms. ayotte: senator markey? mr. markey: thank you. i'm aware of the beneficial uses of drones, including spotting wildfires, examining crops and monitoring traffic. while there are benefits to drone used there are also risks of misuse. these 21st century eyes in the sky should not become spies in the sky. we are going to need rules for the sky as well. i believe we can give flight to the new technology that will give jobs and economic growth to our country. unfortunately, today, when it comes to privacy protection, we are flying blind. potentially spying robots sounds like science fiction but they are a reality now.

technology is getting cheaper and more accessible. this drone has two cameras on it. that can be easily purchased online for only $100. two cameras flying over everybody's house in the u.s. the faa already has given exemptions to nearly 50 commercial operators and announced today it is planning to expedite the process so the drones can fly in the national airspace with no clear privacy rules. today, operators are allowed to collect whatever information they want about you and me and they can sell that information however they choose. this is why earlier this month i introduced the drone aircraft privacy and transparency act. this requires commercial drone operators to disclose what data they have collected, how that

data is used, and whether the data will be sold and when the data will be deleted, if at all. number two, that law enforcement obtain a warrant when using drones except in emergency circumstances. the faa must create a website that lists where and when drones flight. as the committee continues to process the reauthorization i look for to working with my colleagues. ms. gilligan, if the faa does not incorporate any federal privacy protections into the final drone licensing process, i saw a commercial drone flying over my house, what i be able to find out how the company uses the data they collect or if they sell my private information? ms. gilligan: we do make available the information about

which operators we have authorized. we do make available information about the airspace in which they are operating. mr. markey: would i be able to find out the data they have collected? if i see it flying over my house, can i call the faa? can you say provide the data over what you filmed in the backyard of that american? ms. gilligan: the faa does not currently collect that information. mr. markey: will i be able to find out who owns or operates the drone? ms. gilligan: we collect records about what airspace operators operate in, that is public information. mr. markey: i can find out who flew a drone over my backyard. ms. gilligan: it is available and we release it for foia requests. it is available. i apologize, offhand i do not

know if it is one that you can access from your ipad today. mr. markey: if somebody sees this outside of their window they are filming their family members in the backyard. right now, an individual in america could call the faa or go to a website and find out who owned the drone. ms. gilligan: we have the information about who has been authorized to operate in what airspace. whether or not that was authorized operation i cannot tell you right now. if it was authorized, the records on who is authorized to use that airspace are available. mr. markey: are people authorized to film families in the backyard of their homes? ms. gilligan: the purpose of filming is not something we keep track of. mr. markey: that goes to privacy. if families have their children in the backyard and children are being filmed by at drone, what can we do to protect the family from nefarious individuals?

maybe they are trying to take advantage of the absence of rules. ms. gilligan: the administration is taking steps. mr. markey: in the absence of federal rules, drones with cameras are flying over backyards and parks. we have to put strong and enforceable laws on the books that ensure that if information is being gathered about children, it potentially is being sold and there are no rules against any of that. in the absence of us putting this protections on the books in this committee, we are allowing

all of these technologies to take off without the values america would want to have built into this new technology. that is our job on this committee. this is an inanimate object, it has no values good or bad. we are the ones who will have to animate it with the values that we believe it should have as it eventually engages and predatory activity. against the families of our country. thank you, madam chair. ms. ayotte: senator peters? mr. peters: mr. vanderwerff, wonderful to see you here. as a fellow michigander, you are a proud alumni of michigan state university. one of the great agricultural universities in the country. it is important for you to be here. if you look at the applications of drones and the opportunities for economic benefit, it is the agricultural sector where we can see some of the most significant increases in productivity.

that is why i want to talk a little bit about, you mentioned it in your testimony, but perhaps flush it out. i know farming has changed dramatically. i've had the opportunity for a guy who did not grow up on a farm to be on a tractor that looks like a computer with a gps system and all sorts of geographic information. you talk about the ways that the unmanned drones can help productivity. do you quantify that? are there things drones can do that you cannot do given the equipment you have now, what does that mean for your bottom line? mr. vanderwerff: the benefits of these unmanned aerial vehicles on our individual farms and ranches are multi-full. -- multifold. they are not specific to any one type of production.

everything from cattle ranchers in the western u.s. looking to find herds of cattle over large distances very quickly to specialty crop growers like myself, i don't know if you have been in a commercial apple orchard, 10 city blocks and put rose -- rows of trees 12 feet high, it is a labyrinth. you can lose equipment very quickly. unmanned vehicles allow us to get that birdseye view to identify issues. on the green side is where we are most excited about the potential benefits of these vehicles. being able to, for example, fly over a cornfield and look through the lens for the invisible infrared light signatures coming off the crop. we can identify plant stress and weeds. a patch of grass will give off a different signature than a patch of soybeans. rather than having to walk an entire field or applying herbicide, i can identify a

specific area with a uav and make that economic determination of whether it will be beneficial. we look at some of the issues going on with the western united states and the water shortages. i have a number of friends in nebraska, dakotas, and kansas and they are excited about the idea that they no longer have to apply a blanket and entire area of water and in them they flied water over an area with how it is needed, when it is needed and how it is needed. it will continue to make us the most competitive agricultural company on the planet. senator peters: line of sight operations are not going to work for you, is that? mr.

vanderwerff: it is a matter of if you are and the western united states where ground is relatively flat, line of sight is a long way. basically limited to how sharper -- sharp your eye is. in michigan, line of sight may be only a few hundred feet before you have trees or other obstructions. that is where the gps capabilities of these technologies as mr. meissner was alluding to earlier are so relevant. being able to take your ipad and geo-sense the field you want to fly and, swipe your finger to map out the pattern that you want to fly in, and it will fly that had earned and do the mapping. i can upload that data into my computer and have it right there. the idea that these can take off from my home farm and fly half a mile to another farm and do that mapping and return is exciting. the technology is there. if we are going to allow it to exist, i believe we can do it safely and we can do it effectively. but again, the technology

evolves ever faster. sen. peters: thank you. ms. gilligan, the faa has granted 60 exemptions under section 333, which is granted for some of these precision agriculture operations as well as aerial photography. i understand that there are nearly 600 petitions pending. does the faa have a process to streamline this petition process similar to the ones that have already been granted as we hear about unimportant applications for agriculture? ms. gilligan: today, we have issued 10 additional approvals in a process that we are calling a summary grant which means that we can look at an individual petition and if it is somewhere -- similar to one that we have already fully analyzed them put -- and put out for public

comment, we do need to go through that process once again. we believe that will substantially increase our ability to handle these more quickly because we are seeing other buckets in which many of them fall. there are still very unique ones and we will have to go to a public comment and more complete analysis. but to the extent that we can, we are trying to link new applications with decisions that we have already made to streamline them. in addition, we issued what we are calling a certificate of authorization for airspace 200 feet and below. if the applicant can operate and meet their mission from below 200 feet, they will not have to get additional approvals from the air traffic organization. that will also shorten the process. we have a dedicated team and their learning as they goes well -- go as well. they are getting more efficient data as that would be the case. we are dedicated and the administration has challenged us to move these petitions as quickly as we possibly can. sen. peters: that should help our agriculture purposes. thank you very much.

sen. booker: the white house drone -- was that a commercial vehicle? ms. gilligan: no was not. sen. booker: airplane problems that we have had with planes flying close -- was that a commercial vehicle? ms. gilligan: no. not in most cases. senator booker: mr. meissner, have any of the sensational exciting drone things happening because of amazon? mr. misener: no, sir. sen. booker: we need to distinguish between commercial operations and private use. we have a problem with private use and i was happy to see my colleagues bring up private use. but the commercial use -- have you given permission and authority to fly over public spaces?

ms. gilligan: no we have not. senator booker: we are slowing this country where innovation is going on overseas at an extraordinary pace and we are being left behind. mr. vanderwerff, thank you very much. you talk about the revolutionary impact allowing drones to be used could have on agriculture. those revolutions are happening overseas correct? now as we speak, our competitors are using the technology. is that correct? mr. vanderwerff: yes, sir. sen. booker: it is hard to believe the slowness with which this country is moving. if the actual aviation industry was regulated at the back of the time of the flight brothers, other people might have been flying commercial planes before we got the aviation industry started here. mr. meissner, it is frustrating to me and i would love to know last week the faa allowed amazon

to be testing these outdoors in the united states, but it was a really limited fashion that still puts us in america and the -- in the backseat compared to what you are allowed to do in other countries. and frankly, no mishaps, no sensation articles, nothing like that is happening with the experiments that you all are doing to enhance this technology. is that correct? mr. misener: yes, sir. although i will say that, i believe, the faa has turned the corner. i discussed this with miss gilligan before where things are getting better with respect and are getting better is respect of planning for the future. sen. booker: but the record show that you sufficiently sucked up to the faa. [laughter] sen. booker: they will look at your application kindly, sir. can you describe the work that amazon is doing in other countries in relation to what we are doing here?

mr. misener: thank you, senator. thank you for also noticing that. what we are doing in other countries is more flexible. we are allowed to innovate quickly in other countries in a way that we have not yet allowed here. the jury is still out on whether the system is set up onto the grants from last week will work. i think it will just because i feel like the faa staff is now motivated. here i go again. there motivated to be helpful and to get us innovating again here in the country. it is just that we're not been able to do it yet and we are hopeful to do it very soon here. sen. booker: the faa has dedicated professionals. i've no interest in saying nice things about the faa. incredibly committed folks and my comments are no way talking about them. in fact, i would say you have some constraints on how well you are able to move because both the faa and the industry agreed exceptions to the process are too slow and allows now -- only narrow applications for companies were lucky enough to be granted exemptions. i'm asking you what steps can congress take in the faa

reauthorization to strengthen your ability to issue exemptions more broadly and in less time? ms. gilligan: i know that we are looking to take full advantage of whatever authority we have as perhaps work with the committee if we need to broaden those. there is technical assistance already underway between our staff and staff here on the committee to look at these particular issues and see what more can be done. we will certainly continue to support the committee as we review those issues. sen. booker: can the faa quickly and currently issue exceptions for the industry to operate these beyond the line of sight? ms. gilligan: we would have the authority to issue those exemptions if we can make the safety case. the challenge that we face with beyond visual line of sight is that we do not yet have the technology standards to be able to evaluate whether in fact we have safe enough technology to permit that to occur. sen. booker: i just want to say

to the chair that a lot of comments are being muddled and it would be great to have a private drone hearing because there are a lot of issues about anybody and their friends being able to go out into the drone and do things with it. but commercial folks have been acting responsibly within the law are really being held back compared to our open competitors. ms. gilligan: thank you, senator booker and i think he raised good points here in terms of some of the uses of the drones and making sure that we are clear on where the misuse is happening. i would like to call on senator daines. sen. daines: thank you. i appreciate the comments and we are probably raising more questions than answers. i come from a state -- the state of montana -- that place is places great value on privacy. in fact, we might argue that we have different individual privacy expectations, perhaps people in large urban areas, that is why people like to live in states like montana.

i have been talking with members of our state legislature who are interested in addressing these privacy concerns at the state level. for ms. gilligan, i think it probably relates to what is going on in the faa. i certainly commend the faa are -- four taking -- for taking action on the certification and the airworthiness aspect of these commercial unmanned systems and proposed rulemaking of systems. i do have concerns about the privacy aspects. associated with remotely highlighted aircraft, many of which are not being used commercial. that is what senator booker was distinguishing between commercial use and noncommercial use and therefore, not subjected to the proposed rulemaking. my question is -- does the faa think that there's an appropriate rule for local regulation of noncommercial or hobbyist uses, and if so, what might they be?

sen. daines: i'm not sure the faa has a position on local control. what i do know is that in the last reauthorization congress gave us very clear direction to allow model and hobbyist kinds of operations without additional regulatory restraints. we have complied with that. we are working with the model or -- modelers community to allow the use of what they call "unity standards." the american modelers association is taking the lead and providing their members with information about how they can properly operate safely and remain recreational users of this kind of technology. sen. daines: what is your opinion as a professional and knows a lot more about it than i do? you think there would be a role in allowing the states -- do you think it is a good idea to allow the states that have the ability to regulate the noncommercial use? ms. gilligan: we are always concerned about regulations that

affect the airspace system. we do know and congress has been clear about this we need a , national asset in the airspace. those that operate broadly in this airspace need to know that what occurs in one location is safe and consistent with what can occur in other locations. i'm not exactly sure whether and how state or local entity might be able to carve something out to address modelers or to address recreational users. they may well be able to do it but we want to look closely at how they did that. sen. daines: let me ask mr. vanderwerff here of the american farm bureau. certainly, i know a variety of folks preach the value of finding a lost cow. we have more cows than people back home which i'm grateful for. in your testimony, you question who owns or controls the data collected by an unmanned system. the example was a contractor flying a one-man system and -- an unmanned system and being able to share or sell that data with outside parties, including the federal government, is

frankly chilling. what you think is the best means of regulating this data, and more importantly, how can we assure enforcement? mr. vanderwerff: thank you for the question, senator. what we speak about data privacy, i would refer to the overall stance as the american farm bureau in terms of our data privacy. we are concerned about what is being collected, who is potentially viewing it, whether it was the epa or third-party environmental groups, we believe that that data ultimately belongs to the farmer who created it and they should have the right to essentially determine who is able to use that data and for what purposes they would use it for. sen. daines: any thoughts on how we would ensure enforcement? mr. vanderwerff: i would refer that to the full written comments that we will have these proposed rules that will be out

in the next short time. i would have to get back to you on that specifically. sen. daines: mr. morris, has the ntia explored how the ownership would be addressed? mr. morris jr.: we have put up a request for comment and i expect that one of the issues raised will be in ownership question. we are not in a position to affect the legal rule that actually put a fact ownership, -- would affect ownership, but certainly in terms of looking at that best practices that address issues like the farmer, it is concerned about data, that certainly is a topic that will be discussed in our process. sen. daines: thank you. i'm out of time. sen. heller: madam chairwoman, thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here and i appreciate your expertise. i apologize for not being on time.

myself and senator moran were in the v.a. committee. i apologize if my questions overlap a little bit. i like to address something that senator booker was talking about as far as agriculture is concerned, coming from afar -- afar myself. he failed to mention fertilizing also. maybe he did, but all the things that you are talking about -- again, i want to stress our innovation that whether in european countries or asian countries are being used today. is that correct? mr. vanderwerff: that is correct. sen. heller: we had a test site. for that we are grateful. we had a test recently with

the governor of one of these unmanned air systems. it was a wonderful experience to be a part of that test and to see what they're doing in that particular facility. here's the concern and i think it was well said by senator booker and that is that technology cannot be successful if it is hampered. by regulations, overburdened some, time-consuming approval processes, and that is the complaint that i'm hearing today. i guess i would ask ms. gilligan this question. no doubt there's privacy issues that you have to overcome and i give you credit the hard work that it is going to take to overcome that. but these first steps of just testing have become very, very restrictive. i believe it will destroy a lot of companies and a lot of people

from using some of these test sites and devoting the kind of resources that will be necessary. i guess my question to begin with would be quite simple and that is -- if the faa was not required by law to begin work on integrating drones into the national airspace, with the -- with the agency be working on it at all? ms. gilligan: yes, sir. we have applicants who want to live certify their vehicles and those are in the los angeles office. we are building a set of standards that those vehicles need to meet. we have an exemption process that anyone could've applied for to authorize operations in the airspace. we are as mindful as members of the committee that this is a growing and burgeoning industry and we do want to be able to support it, but we also want to make sure that we have identified if there are risks that could be introduced into the system and those are fully mitigated. sen. heller: i guess the concern is, and this is the feedback that i'm getting, being one of the six states and the process

who seems to inhibit testing as opposed to expanding it, technology development here in the united states where other countries have already clearly moved far beyond what we have been able to do. let me give you a couple of examples. the hoops they have to jump through every time they want to change design for the drone, it takes months to get that new design approved. if they do a test and they want to test the same design in a different manner, they have to jump through all these hoops. and it takes months to get the approval in order to do that. they argue is that it doesn't -- their argument is that they don't foster innovation. i'm going to give mr. meissner one more chance to push back on the faa. [laughter] sen. heller: you said in your testimony last week that the approval for amazon was a model that was already outdated.

what is it going to take for the faa and you to do the work that you are trying to achieve? mr. misener: thank you, senator. i think it will take the recognition that these are different kinds of aircraft than the one they are used to dealing with. this is a little device that we would like to tweak things and move quickly and innovate. we call it iteration within amazon and that means making the changes all the time and constantly improving and perfecting. we are almost at the spot with the faa that we can do that domestically. it is just taking a long time to get here. my biggest concern is that we are not planning for that future in which drones will be able to fly beyond the visual line of sight with a high degree of automation. we are not planning like the europeans are. and we should be. sen. heller: my time has run out, but thank you. senator booker: something unprecedented has happened where i'm now an authority of the hearing on drones. very exciting thing.

i do have to say for the record that now that i am in charge that you are a pretty cool guy for someone who went to usc. [laughter] sen. heller: i will take it. sen. booker: i never thought i would agree with the trojan as much as i do as senator heller. i like to get to another round of questioning, but if i may begin, and i just want to finish up with a couple of questions on -- to associate administrator gilligan, if you may. can the faa make a commitment into looking into how we begin safely testing and researching the out of sight ability for uafs to fly. that is my concern

because the people i talked to says it puts a significant barrier to our ability to push the bounds of what is possible with this technology. ms. gilligan: the risk is that the vehicle itself cannot sense and avoid if it is in proximity to other aircraft. right now, with the mandate system, -- the manned system we have a pilot in place of that role and we are looking at how we can replace that role for the unmanned system. the rtca is working with an industry group to design standards. once we have a standards, we can put that forward and determine how we can properly and safely extend those operations. sen. booker: in section 333, what mr. vanderwerff had said about on a large farm, no people and no other aircraft in the area, can you understand that an

exception might be worthy for an agricultural purpose for the risk of in air collision where might be significantly, if not dramatically lower? i can imagine vanderwerff, that other , countries are using other drones in agriculture. mr. vanderwerff: that is my understanding, yes. sen. booker: can you imagine the united states catching up to that? ms. gilligan: we might make the case for an exception, but we need to understand the other operations in the area. the u.s. has a very active general aviation community. we have a very active manned agriculture community who has raised their own's concerns about the use of drones in the airspace they are operating as well. we do need to make sure what the risks are and that we are mitigating them properly. sen. booker: you just feel like the other countries like germany, france, new zealand -- they are all just being far more risky than the united states. they are taking unnecessary risks while the united states is much more cautious. ms. gilligan: i do not know if they are taking on unnecessary risks. i do know they have far less

general aviation in any of their airspace. they have a much less complex as -- aviation system generally. there risks are different from ours. i assume they are addressing those risks appropriately and we are doing the same. sen. booker: for areas of the country where we do not have a lot of crowded airspace like apple orchards of certain states, i know new jersey is not such a state, but there are some places out west. could you see them making a more speedy exception to those geographic areas where there is not complex and, especially at certain heights because i do not know the 150-250 airspace is that crowded and farms in say -- in forms, say, in the midwest? ms. gilligan: we are using the exceptions for out of sight operations, but we need to answer how that aircraft is going to be properly controlled and properly separated in the event that there is other aircraft.

the reality is that we have a lot of what we call "itinerant aircraft." sen. booker: how would you answer that question? ms. gilligan: i do not know how they address that risk. sen. booker: we are not answering those questions, but they are. ms. gilligan: they are doing it differently than in the united states, sir, and i agree with that and we are looking at how we can continue to enhance the integration. sen. booker: i'm just going to continue then. many the people on the panel -- i would like to get more feedback from other panel members who have been studying the drones in use of regulatory structures. i've been very impressed with the technology abroad that i've talked about. i've seen examples of drone uses deliver medication to difficult places to reach.

they have been used to monitor and protect against animal poaching in africa and exciting ways. it has been used to fix poles and lower the risk of people who have to climb up on a live our our poles. right here home, drones are being used to monitor farms as we have been told. this is unbounded potential and we have a history in this country of embracing that potential. it has the ability to extremely accelerate productivity, lesson -- lesson our footprint environmentally and enhance safety in this country and also has the chance to provide services that otherwise would not have impractical or -- not have been impractical or affordable. would anybody else like to comment on the other applications for the technology? mr. vanderwerff: i've a quick comment.

the issue of private use came up before and you cited some very on proper uses -- improper uses. i think it is important to recognize that the overall majority of private unmanned aircraft users are responsible and we all agree about the importance of innovation and many of the innovations 5-10 years from now are going to come from hobbyists today. i think it is important to recognize the need for that community as well while the same time adding zero-tolerance for behaviors that will close or dangerous. sen. booker: my time is expired, but i think mr. heller would like to ask questions. sen. heller: thank you, mr. chairman. let the record show that the pac 12 has dominated the discussion today. [laughter] i like to go back to you, miss gilligan. i believe the questions in the comments that are based from what i've heard in the committee is how to speed up the process. would it make any sense for the faa to work with the six

designated test sites to give them certificates of authorization of broader authority? something called a blanket? ms. gilligan: we are doing and -- looking at doing that at a number of test sites. at the test site in nevada, will be the first test site that has a designated airworthiness representative who can issue certificates to anyone who would want to fly their unmanned system in that particular test site. we think that is another way to encourage manufacturers to -- sen. heller: what does nevada have? ms. gilligan: we have initiated a program that allows test sites to identify an individual -- sen. heller: is it a trainer? ms. gilligan: in this case, not exactly. they are individuals who are experienced in aviation. they go through specific training that the faa is offering and they can be designated by the faa to issue

experimental certificates for unmanned systems. much like the certificate that the faa issued to amazon, this would be a designated individual connected with the individual test site, we are setting it up only for the test site so that there's opportunity for the test site to be able to draw manufacturers who may want to do work in that test site. so we are working to see how to enhance people taking advantage of what the test sites have to offer because we cannot get the data we need to better understand what the risks are if we do not have the will -- and how to address them if we do not have people who are operating at the test sites. sen. heller: let me raise when -- another question. the media currently flies helicopters over populated areas as a way to report the news. it is allowed by the faa if i'm not mistaken.

i think most people agreed that these operations inform the public and it is all done to give them information in a timely fashion. u.s. operations perceived to pose a much less potential threat to people on the ground than helicopters do, perhaps provide even greater benefit in the field of newsgathering than even helicopters currently do. however, the current proposed rules would damage is even a single person is on the ground. with the faa agreed to cover newsworthy events to inform the public? ms. gilligan: the reason we have not authorized uas over populated areas is the vehicles are not designed to any standards, not tested against any standards, not manufactured against any process, as opposed

to manned vehicles. we have extensive standards to ensure an appropriate level of safety. right now we have to figure how we can properly mitigate the risk of the unmanned vehicle which does not meet a defined level of safety, so we have required that it be kept away from people. we have asked for comment on that in the proposed rulemaking, and through an agreement that we have with cnn, too able to -- have been able to authorize their use of an unmanned system not over a populated area but in an area closer than the past so that we can begin to learn more about how we might be able to better mitigate that risk. we agree with you that there is a good use for uas in a newsgathering environment, but at this point design and manufacturing standards are really not known to the faa, so it is hard for us to stand behind those. senator heller: so it is not a problem with the idea. you do not have a problem with the idea. it is whether or not we get to a

point in technology that a unit is worthy enough to fly over other human beings. ms. gilligan: that is very accurate. if there were to be an accident with a uas overpopulated area, -- over a populated area, the questions the committee would be asking -- how is it that we authorize that? we need to assure ourselves that we have done the safety analysis and that we have mitigated those risks before we can authorize that information. senator heller: thank you for your comment. mr. chairman, i am done. senator booker: i have been informed that we have to close the hearing. [laughter] it is unfortunate. i want to thank everybody for coming here. your testimonies have been invaluable, and i'm very grateful for that. it is exciting when you are on a new frontier of possibility and opportunity for this country. it has been incredibly exciting when you have a technology that

can help improve safety and expand economic opportunities with our country, but it has to be done right, has to be done with safety concerns addressed and privacy concerns addressed in this issue. i know we will do more together on this issue, but i want to express my gratitude for you all coming here. i will now say that the hearing record will be open for two weeks. during this time, senators are asked to submit any questions to the record. the respondents are requested to submit answers as soon as possible. with that, the hearing is now closed. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the senate aviation subcommittee met this past week to discuss regulation of commercial drones and how that should he accomplished as you heard from the members of the faa and