Which as my colleagues have said, right now its difficult for industry to have access to air space for the purposes of research and development. We believe the test sites offer them the perfect opportunity to meet those Research Needs here in the u. S. And thats why were working with the test sites to expand the ability for them to attract that kind of research. Again, if faa Research Needs can be met at the test sites, we will certainly look to Fund Projects at those test sites as well. So when you say youre working with the test sites to expand that opportunity can you tell me a little bit more about that . Again, were trying to keep them well informed about what they are able to do under the agreements that they have with the faa we now have individuals actually from the test center who will be traveling to each of the test sites to work with them more closely on what it is that we might be looking for to be able to get Research Data through the test sites. And then the designees we believe, once the test sites take advantage of the ability to have a designee on site, we believe that will open the doors for industry to take advantage of the test sites. Can you tell us a little bit about how you are engaging with u. S. Companies that might want to do research and development here in the u. S. Versus overseas and, excuse me, what im after is about some of these reports media reports that companies are frustrated. Are you interacting with these companies . Or how are we trying to keep them to keep the jobs here is what im getting at . Yes, sir. The staff in our uas office are interacting with industry constantly. Theres a large conference, for example, this weekend in new mexico, a yearly conference. Were well represented there and were reaching out not only in public sessions but in private meetings with manufacturers to try to understand what are their needs and whether and where they can meet those needs. The recent newspaper report that you saw weve been working with that applicant. Theyre working with both an exemption under part 333 as well as what were recommending is that they seek certification for their vehicle under our special certification rules for the purposes of research, and we think that we can actually enable them to accomplish what they need to accomplish here in the u. S. Through the test sites and through their own certification. Well, obviously a lot of areas of interest here that we as Committee Want to keep our fingers on but while keeping safety paramount the Economic Opportunities in an economy that can desperately use it is also at the top of our list. Thank you. Mr. Defazio . Thank you mr. Chairman. Ms. Gilligan, theres this innanty of the antideficiency act where you cant give direction to someone utilizing a test site because youre being theyre providing an uncompensated service. Have your lawyers really looked at that to see whether or not there is a way around that or are we going to need to legislate to fix that . Our lawyers have looked at it, sir, at this point, and thats the advice that theyve given us. I certainly will ask them to look more closely to see if theres some alternative. At this point we are again supporting the test sites by trying to make them attractive to industry who really is the right. And ive also heard from some who use the test sites that theres quite a bureaucratic process to come in and if you want to run one flight you have to file all these papers then you want to modify something and run another, you cant just do it you cant say were going to change eight parameters and do another flight. Were working with the test sites and asked them to come in with a proposal for what we call a broad coauthorization. Theyre working on that proposal so that we can start to address some of these concerns. Right. I mean, you got the test site we get all those parameters in place and then someone comes there and says come back in another 30 days if you want to run a little modified i mean they should be able to do it on a test site, be able to do multiple operations with different parameters. It would be useful for your people to observe it would be useful obviously for their development, would greatly facilitate things. I hope that we can do that very quickly. Why arent there more test sites . We limited it to six. Why couldnt we have more . We just limited it to six. Is there any reason to have more test sites. I doesnt cost anything, right . It does cost us in terms of personnel monitoring. Yes, we have people that work very closely with the test sites. There is a resource i dont consider them very well geographically dispersed. For a small startup to have to travel a thousand miles to a test site, thats another thing we ought to look at. Are we seriously pursuing a riskbased approach which just makes so much sense to me living in the west and knowing that there are vast areas with agriculture where you could be praying safely and there are no potential conflicts or virtually none none. Yes, sir, were using a riskbased approach as we look at the 333 requests for exemption to make sure we understand the level of risk and what limitations need to be added to it. Were doing the same in, i think one of the panelists referred to it. We do have applicants who want to actually certify the systems. Were using the same riskbased approach there, were looking at our rules and with the applicant what are the risks that need to be addressed by Design Standards and what standards can we pick from those standard thats exist now. Geographic makes a lot of sense as a starting point for riskbased approach in refers to proximity tertiary airports critical air space whole different problem. I hope youre seriously working on that. Theres one other question to you and that is the staff provides something that they say in the case of the Film Industry that after they got the section 333, they have to get a separate operating authorization which has not yet been granted. So yes. They need approval to operate in the air space and we need to be able to put out a notice to airmen where the operations are occurring. I believe all but one of them have now gotten that approval for at least one particular location. Okay. But we agree that under the exemptions process, we might be able to make that more efficient as well. Were looking closely at how we could do that. Okay. This is a to the panel generally or maybe that end. I mean, transponders. How small can a useful transponder be these days . Some of the smaller transponders that can be used now in uavs, be right now about the size of a cell phone or maybe smaller. A what cell phone . Yeah, cell phone sized. Those are some of the smaller system there are still some costs associated but i think that it could be Helpful Technology when youre at a higher altitude where there could be other traffic in the area. Right. Withdraw. We said over a certain altitude youd have a transponder. In certain kinds of critical air space, you have to have a transponder. Right now those things are invisible to our crude radar systems. Thats right. Okay. And then this lost link. Thats been a problem with the military. You know you think youve got that nailed in terms of having if you have the geo spatial restrictions and thats all somehow programmed in and these things can find a safe harbor point remotely and they know theyve lost the link so theyre going to go to that point. Typically how that would work is the manufacturers of the vehicles know what a safe amount of lost link time is. And for example, they can specify in Certain Applications where the link is absolutely critical and if theres any sort of lost link, it needs to immediately return to the landing location in a way that is safe. In other case a lot of these systems are so highly autonomous that interruptions in the link may not be as important if its in an area where its controlled, so its all depending on the risk of the situation and you can actually program a lot of that into the actual avionics of the system. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on some of what you were just sharing, mr. Kallman. You talked a lot about technology and where we are. We see an aircraft sitting in front of captain moak there. It is possible to put in the type of technology or can you expand on the types of technology that would increase safety but yet not require an aircraft license as the gentleman to your right is advocating that would keep us safe. What other technologies are out there . I mentioned two very important ones the geofence technology which is very common in the industry and can be used on vehicles as small as the ones you see here. The management functionality et gets to a lost link also loss of gps so that should the vehicle no longer be able to make itself aware of where it is it knows how to land safely. Theres a lot of really Great Research going on right now here in the United States and other parts of the world that professor roy talked about on sense and avoid technology. Thats going to be a critical piece for enabling a lot of these high risk applications at higher altitude with other traffic in the area and theres already very significant advancements in that area as well. How confident are you that if we do not change our regulatory scheme, that canada australia, europe will own this type of technology and on a scale of one to ten being most confident that if we dont change things that were going to lose out . I would say im pretty confident. Because were seeing a lot of the highly skilled manufacturers in europe really surpassing a lot of the u. S. Company of their ability to go and iterate, do very frequent testing, do a lot of research on their products where theyre able to actually go two or three generations in their products where a u. S. Company may only be able to do it once. So we are starting to see some of that. So theyre actually doing a lot more testing in europe or canada or other places than we are here . Just because a lot of them, the main manufacturers there have easy access to testing facilities. So ms. Gilligan let me come to you from an faa standpoint, obviously we have some six sites that were talking about, but if there is so much work going on in these Foreign Countries, are you gathering data in terms of commercial activity from them successes, failures or are we just being more focused on the United States and not using their learning from their mistakes or successes . No, sir theres a lot of coordination at the international level. Both in terms of what should we as an industry be setting as the standards for these operations as well as sharing experience that we are seeing around the world. But i do want to comment on the vast differences in the complexity of our air space and our Aviation System over some of the other countries where we are seeing that theres some easier access. We have ten times the number of registered airplanes than our friends to the north. We have multiple times the numbers of operations. And thats without a doubt. But there is, as mr. Defazio was talking about, there are certainly areas that where these, the risk would be minimal. Ive learned today that i probably violated a federal law by taking pictures of a golf course. Now, there was more danger of somebody getting hit by a golf ball than there is from the drone that flew over the to take the pictures but as we see that, can we not look at it on a riskbased assessment and really open up the testing so that our Airline Pilots can feel comfortable with what we have but yet not keep it so confined . Were working closely with the test site in north dakota, for example, with just that in mind. Recognition that there is lower level of air traffic over most of the state of north dakota and theyre looking at how they can broaden access for that test site. So yes sir, we agree that there are areas where this can safely be accomplished and were looking at working with the test sites on how we can expand that. So have we implemented any recommendations that weve received from Foreign Countries that would actually help alleviate some of this . Or are we just gathering data . Im not aware that we have recommendations from Foreign Countries that would address this, but we are learning from their experience and looking at if were learning and not implementing, thats not doing any good, is it . Im sorry when i was going to say is were learning from them and looking at how we can implement what theyve learned safely here in this system. We continue to look for ways to do this safely. All right. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you mr. Meadows. I want to thank the members for watching the clock. You may notice mr. Larson and i kept ourselves on the clock. We have a lot of folks who want to ask questions so i appreciate that. Well now go to ms. Titus. Thank you mr. Chairman. I represent las vegas, so theres a lot of enthusiasm in nevada for the development of drones or uafs, weve got a lot of open space. Weve got creach air force base. Weve got a creative gaming industry that wants to provide Bottle Service by the pool with these things. I mean the potential is great. We applied to become a test center, we got that. I was supportive of that. Weve been working on it. But the enthusiasm is starting to wane because that test site is not producing like we thought it would. I hear ms. Gilligan being positive about it, but the things that i hear from people who have briefed me from nevada are more in line with what dr. Dillingham pointed out. Just they just dont think its getting off the ground, so to speak. And i heard ms. Gilligan say about three different times, we are working on this so we can start to address some of the concerns. Well, that doesnt give me a lot of comfort because youve been working on the rule for such a long time, i dont think working on it to address the concerns is going to get us there in time to be competitive. I dont know why a business wouldnt just go test in canada instead of going to one of our test centers. Seemed to me there are three problems that i hear over and over from the different folks from nevada who come and talk to me. One is they dont know what information should be collected. Its just not been clear to them what datas needed what how to put it together what procedures should be followed. Now, i hear dr. Dillingham say youre working on establishing that, but theres no timeframe for when thats going to be done so that could be who knows when that might be. A second problem that they seem to have is this speeding up the coa process. We heard some reference to that you have to do it over every single time takes so long. I wonder why we couldnt maybe prioritize the coas for the test sites over others because that seems to be where we want to put our emphasis. Third, the problem of intellectual property, protecting industrial secret, so to speak, of companies that many ko and test there that has to give all this information to the faa and the public. I just wonder if you would address some of these questions, ms. Gilligan. And dr. Dillingham would you give us your perspective on them. Yes maam, id be glad to. If i could start with the last one first, thats why we are very pleased to see that nevada has stepped out to begin the approval process for a designee. We believe and i think they believe that using a designee will allow them to bring industry into the site without having to put in jeopardy the intellectual property that i know some of the folks who wanted to work at that site have had. So we think thats an important step forward. I believe the approval for that designee should be completed this month. So i think with that the test site will see that they can now sort of market that they have the ability for industry to bring their Research Projects to this test site and not put at risk the intellectual property that was a concern earlier on. So i think thats an important improvement and we applaud nevada for stepping out first to take that on. In terms of the coas, we do prioritize the requests. All of the test sites have approved authorities now for air space. There are some that are still pending. Were again trying to work through those as quickly as we can because, we agree with you the test sites have been designated as a location where we can take advantage of what we can learn to continue to integrate uas safely. So we are pursuing that as well. And im sorry, i forget the first one. Ive forgotten the first one myself. What information should be collected. Data, im sorry yes. Again, we saw these sites initially and primarily and continue to see them primarily to be a place where industry can go to do the research and development that they want to do, the work that some of my colleagues here on the panel have talked about. In terms of what data the faa needs, we now realize that is a valuable piece of information for the test sites to have. With the applications for the centers for excellence we have identified the Research Needs that the faa has and again in our biweekly Conference Calls with the test sites as well as now with the visits that will be made by our staff from the technical center, well be working closely with the test site operators to make sure they understand what could be helpful to faa based on the work they could be seeing at their test sites. Dr. Dillingham . Ms. Titus, you hit on all the key points the same stories that weve been hearing from theest sites. Weve had the opportunity to interview half of them and visit some of the test sites. And those are the key issues. I think in terms of increasing their value and their capacity to input, i think ms. Gilligan if faa fulfills those things that ms. Gilligan talked about that will go a long way but i think sort of key to this is something that mr. Defazio said about looking at this antideficiency law and seeing is there a way that, you know, funds could be made available to pay for research or support research at the test sites, and also in terms of the idea that we only have six test sites, i mean, our information suggests that in canada for example, they are ready to designate a very large air space up to 18,000 feet for testing beyond visual line of sight. So perhaps as we move towards the next stage of this, that not only additional test sites and a maximum use of the current ones that we again think in terms of riskbased approach to it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportuni