HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6822673 v1 

### BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

CLAYCO, INC.
Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2014-0507

FAA Exemption No. 11109

PETITION OF CLAYCO, INC. FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ADD UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) TO,

AND UPDATE THE CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF,

ITS EXEMPTION NO. 11109

Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 13 th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-637-6934 / -5659 Fax: 202-637-5910 lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com COUNSEL FOR CLAYCO, INC.

DATE: August 12, 2015HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6822673 v1 1. BACKGROUND AND EXEMPTION REQUEST On December 10, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) granted Clayco, Inc. (“Clayco”) an exemption from certain of the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FAR”) to operate unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) for the purpose of aerial imaging. See Exemption No. 11109 (“Exemption”). Clayco is proud and honored to have been one of the first such exemptions issued by the FAA pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”). In the months since Clayco received its Exemption, UAS operators have begun using a larger variety of small UAS, and the FAA has refined, updated, and standardized the conditions and limitations accompanying Section 333 exemptions. Accordingly, Clayco hereby respectfully requests the following amendments to its Exemption: (1) Add the DJI S-900, DJI S-1000, DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Matrix, and Kespry UAS as designated UAS in Limitation No. 1. (2) Replace the conditions and limitations (Nos. 1-32) in the Exemption with the standard conditions and limitations imposed on recent exemptions such as: a. Exemption No. 12015 (July 13, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1399) (“Birdseye Farming Exemption”); b. Exemption No. 11110A (May 7, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Amended Exemption”); and c. Exemption No. 11192A (July 20, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0850) (“Viking UAS Amended Exemption”). These requested amendments are non-controversial and not precedent-setting. Indeed, they are fully consistent with recent Section 333 exemption amendments granted by the FAA. See, e.g., Trimble Amended Exemption (adding a new UAS model – the Trimble UX-5 hp; superseding and amending conditions and limitations in original exemption with more recent set of conditions and limitations); Viking UAS Amended Exemption (to same effect).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6822673 v1 Granting the requested amendments to the Exemption would not create a hazard to users of the National Airspace System or the public, nor would it pose a threat to national security. Moreover, the requested amendments would not adversely affect safety, but rather would provide at least an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the regulations from which exemption is sought. In addition, there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to the public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original Exemption to Clayco. 1 The requested amendments would permit Clayco to use additional models of UAS under the Amended Exemption and would align the conditions and limitations in the Amended Exemption with the set of refined, updated, and standardized conditions and limitations accompanying similar, but more recent, Section 333 exemptions.

2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ADD CERTAIN UAS TO CLAYCO’S EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. The DJI S-900, DJI S-1000, DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and DJI Matrix UAS have been designated as the UAS under other exemptions, 2 and the Kespry is similar to many of the UAS that have already been designated. 3 These aircraft are small, lightweight, battery-powered UAS, with several safety-related features. For example, depending on the specific model, these UAS have return-to-home/go-home features, auto-landing/auto-take-off, low-battery warnings, position/altitude hold, and/or geo-fencing features. Clayco will use these UAS

1 To the extent necessary, Clayco refers the FAA to, and incorporates herein, the demonstrations of the public interest and equivalent level of safety justifying the original Exemption set out in its original petition for exemption filed in mid-2014 in this docket and the Exemption itself. In addition, Clayco incorporates the list of regulations in its Exemption for the regulations from which an exemption is being sought, plus the following with respect to the pilot certification requirements: §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.315(a). See discussion about the pilot certification requirements below.

2 S e e , e

. g

. , E x e m p t i o n N o

. 1 1 8 2 2 ( J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 ; D o c k e t F A A
− 2 0 1 5
− 1 0 9 3 ) ( D J I P h a n t o m 2 V i s i o n + , D J I Phantom 3, DJI Inspire 1); Exemption No. 11260 (April 1, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0736) (DJI Inspire, DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus, DJI Spreading Wings S1000); Exemption No. 11710 (May 29, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0797) (DJI Inspire1, DJI S-900, DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus); Exemption No. 11388 (April 20, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0001) (DJI S900, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 2).

3 Collectively, the listed DJI UAS and Kespry UAS are “these UAS”.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6822673 v1 for the purpose of aerial data collection and under the same conditions and limitations imposed on more recent Section 333 exemptions. These conditions and limitations collectively ensure that these UAS (and the previously designated Skycatch UAS) operations under the Amended Exemption will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of safety to that provided by large manned aircraft operations performing the same functions. There has been no change in the public interest and safety reasons that were the bases for granting the original Exemption. Notably, the requested amendment to add UAS models to the Exemption is fully consistent with other amended exemptions granted by the FAA to add new or additional UAS models. See, e.g., Trimble Amended Exemption; Viking UAS Amended Exemption. The rationales for the issuance of those amendments apply equally to this Petition for an amendment to add these UAS to Clayco’s Amended Exemption.

3. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN CLAYCO’S EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. Since Clayco’s Exemption was granted more than eight months ago, the FAA has instituted a more streamlined, expedited summary grant exemption process and further refined and updated the standard conditions and limitations being imposed on Section 333 exemptions. Several of the conditions and limitations in Clayco’s Exemption are substantively more restrictive than more recent ones, thereby placing Clayco at a disadvantage and unnecessarily restricting its small UAS operations.For example, when Clayco’s Exemption was granted, the FAA was requiring UAS pilots-incommand (“PIC”) to hold, at a minimum, a private pilot certificate. See Clayco Exemption Limitation No. 15. Since then, the FAA has determined that PICs with at least sport pilot certificates would be sufficient for a Section 333 exemption. See, e.g., Trimble Amended Exemption Limitation No. 13; Viking UAS Amended Exemption Limitation No. 13; Birdseye Farming Exemption Limitation No. 13. Clayco fully supports the FAA’s change in this regard. No aspect of the incremental additionalHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6822673 v1 aeronautical knowledge, aeronautical experience or flight proficiency (between a private pilot and sport pilot) is significant for the daytime, VMC, low-altitude, visual-line-of-sight, small UAS operations over private or controlled-access properties with property owner/controller permission to be covered by the Amended Exemption. Accordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS PIC to have more aeronautical knowledge, experience, and flight proficiency than that required for a sport pilot certificate. As another example, Clayco’s original (and current) Exemption does not permit the UA to operate within five nautical miles of the airport reference point of an airport as denoted on a current FAA aeronautical chart. See Clayco Exemption Limitation No. 18. More recent Section 333 exemptions have refined that restriction to permit such operations if a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or if such other operations are otherwise permitted by a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”) issued to the exemption holder. See, e.g., Birdseye Farming Exemption Limitation No. 16; Trimble Amended Exemption Limitation No. 16; Viking UAS Amended Exemption Limitation No. 16. In addition, when the Clayco Exemption was granted in late 2014, the FAA was limiting UAS operations to specific use cases, in Clayco’s case “for the purpose of aerial imaging.” Clayco Exemption at 17 (section titled “The FAA’s Decision”). However, the FAA’s more recent Section 333 exemptions for UAS operations grant broader authority such that exemption holders-operators can engage in “aerial data collection.” See, e.g., Birdseye Farming Exemption at 2; Trimble Amended Exemption at 2; Viking UAS Amended Exemption at 2-3. Accordingly, Clayco requests that language in its Exemption limiting its UAS operations to the specific use case of “aerial imaging” be removed and replaced with “aerial data collection,” as the FAA has done in other cases. See Exemption No. 11156A (July 8, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0610); see also Trimble Amended Exemption at 1-2. Rather than amend or replace specific, individual conditions and limitations on a piecemeal basis, however, the FAA should simply replace or supersede the conditions and limitations in theHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6822673 v1 current Clayco Exemption with the standard conditions and limitations imposed on more recent Section 333 exemptions, such as the Birdseye Farming Exemption, the Trimble Amended Exemption, and the Viking UAS Amended Exemption. This request is fully consistent with recent amended Section 333 exemptions that the FAA has granted. For example, Trimble Navigation petitioned to amend its original exemption to revise several, but not all, of the conditions and limitations. In the amended exemption that the FAA granted, however, the FAA simply replaced and superseded all of the conditions and limitations in the original Trimble Exemption with the more recent set of conditions and limitations. See Trimble Amended Exemption at 3-7 (conditions and limitations Nos. 1-31); see also Viking UAS Amended Exemption at 3-7 (same). Clayco respectfully requests that the FAA follow the same course and reach the same result here.

4. PUBLICATION NOTICE OF THIS PETITION FOR AMENDMENT IS NOT NECESSARY. As explained above, the requested amendment to add similar, well-known UAS models (e.g., the DJI UAS have previously been designated under other exemptions) to a current exemption would not set any new precedent, nor would updating the conditions and limitations. For that reason, there is no need for the FAA to issue a public notice of, or receive public comment on, this Petition, and any such public notice and comment would delay the processing of this Petition and negatively impact Clayco’s operations and ability to meet its changing operational needs. Therefore, good cause exists for the FAA to not publish a summary of this Petition in the Federal Register, as the FAA previously determined in the Trimble Amended Exemption (at 1) and the Viking UAS Amended Exemption (at 2). Nonetheless, if such publication is deemed necessary, Clayco proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2014-0507 Petitioner: Clayco, Inc.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6822673 v1

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an amendment to its current exemption no. 11109 to operate additional small UAS for aerial data collection purposes pursuant to recent conditions and limitations on Section 333 exemptions.

5. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Clayco respectfully requests that the FAA refrain from publishing a summary of this Petition for an Amendment in the Federal Register, and grant this Petition for an Amendment to the Exemption without delay. Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi Hogan Lovells US LLP COUNSEL FOR CLAYCO, INC.