# Petition for Summary Grant of Exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations

— and

— Request for Approval to Operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems Under Section 333

Submitted by: Microsoft

Dated: December 23 , 2015

By Electronic Submission to: www.regulations.gov

By Paper Submission to: U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Filed By:

Daniel P. Ridlon Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Ave., Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 206.359.6762 DRidlon@perkinscoie.com

Counsel for MicrosoftTABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

- i

- I. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1

II. The FAA has the legal authority to grant the requested exemption

................................ .. 1

III. The Microsoft Corporation is the petitioner

................................ ................................ ...... 1

IV. The sUAVs that Microsoft plans to operate are safe and the FAA has already granted petitions for the use of all but one of them

................................ ........................... 2

A. DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

................................ ................................ ......................... 2 B. DJI Inspire 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 C. DJI Matrice 100

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 D. DJI Spreading Wings S900

................................ ................................ .................... 3 E. 3D Robotics X8+

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 F. TBS Discovery Pro

................................ ................................ ................................ 4 G. AscTec Firefly

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4

V. Microsoft’s proposed operations are similar to others that have already been approved by the FAA and will be subject to operational limitations that will minimize the risk to other users of the NAS and people a nd property on the ground

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 7

A. The FAA has already granted other exemptions for similar purposes

................... 7 B. Microsoft will follow operational limitations that will ensure an equivalent level of safety

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 C. Microsoft’s pilots will be sufficiently qualified to ens ure they can safely operate the sUAVs

................................ ................................ ................................ . 9

VI. The FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft plans to operate meet the conditions of Section 333 and therefore that the requirements of 14 CFR § 21, subpart H and 14 CFR § 36 need not be met

................................ ................................ ..... 9

A. 14 CFR § 21 , subpart H

- Airworthiness Certificates

................................ ............ 9 B. 14 CFR § 36

- Noise standards

................................ ................................ ............ 10

VII. The FAA should exempt Microsoft from a number of regulations because the operations proposed by Microsoft will ensure a level of safety that is at least equivalent to that achieved by the regulations, if not greater

................................ .......... 11

A. 14 CFR § 45.27(a)

- Location of marks on nonfixed

- wing aircraft

..................... 11 B. 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e), 61.113(a), 61.315(a)

- Limitations and requirements for pilots

................................ ................................ .................. 11 C. 14 CFR § 91.7(a)

- Airworthy Condition

................................ ............................. 12 D. 14 CFR § 91.119(c)

- Minimum safe altitudes

................................ .................... 12 E. 14 CFR § 91.121

- Altimeter settings

................................ ................................ .. 13 F. 14 CFR § 91.151

- Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions

.................... 13TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

- ii

- G. 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b)

- Maintenance Requirements

................................ ................................ .......... 14

VIII. Granting Microsoft’s requested exemption is in the public interest

................................ 15

IX. Microsoft’s proposed program has no implications for national security

....................... 16

X. Microsoft’s proposed operations will not affect the privacy rights of anyone not involved in the operations

................................ ................................ ................................ 16

XI. Publication in the Federal Register is unnecessary because the FAA has already granted exemptions similar to that requested by Microsoft

................................ ............. 16

XII. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 16- 1

- I. Introduction

Microsoft submits this petition for a summary grant of exemption from certain aviation regulations and requests approval to operate unmanned aerial vehicles in the National Airspace System (NAS) under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 CFR Part 11

. Microsoft plans to use a number of commercially available small unmanned aerial vehicles ( s UAVs ) to collect data for research. The FAA has already granted petitions for similar aerial data collection efforts . It has also granted exempti ons to other petitioners for the use of the same model aircraft

— with the exception of one model that is similar in its characteristics to models for which approval has been granted. Like tho se other petitions

, Microsoft’s operations will ensure an equival ent level of safety to that achieved by the regulations from which it seeks exemptions. Further, granting the requested exemption s will serve the public interest by allowing flights that would otherwise be conducted by manned aircraft to be flown by UAVs, thereby increasing safety, and will advance Microsoft’s research, which will benefit the public. Finally, Microsoft’s operations will not have any negative effect on national security or the privacy interests of non

- participants

. For these reasons, the FAA should grant Microsoft’s petition and approve Microsoft’s proposed operations

. Because other exemptions have been granted for petitioners conducting similar operations and using all but one of the same sUAV s , the exemption Microsoft requests would not set a precedent. (A list of prior grants for similar use cases is in Section V.A.) Further, any delay in acting on the petition to allow for publishing would be detrimental to Microsoft. As a result, good cause exists for not publishing a sum mary of the petition in the Federal Register

, and the FAA should summarily grant Microsoft’s petition.

II. The FAA has the legal authority to grant the requested exemption.

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“the Act”) authorizes the FAA to allow operation of unmanned aircraft that do not pose a hazard based on (1) the ir size, weight, speed, and operational capability

, (2) the proximity of operation to airports and populated areas, and (3) operation within visual line of sight.

T he FAA also has the authority to grant exemptions from certain regulations if granting those exemptions is “in the public interest.” 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f). Congress has specified that one factor of the public interest is “ encouraging and developing civil a eronautics .” 49 U.S.C. §40101(d)(3)

. Further, Congress’ mandate to integrate UAVs into the NAS demonstrates that allowing UAV operations is also in the public interest.

III. The Microsoft Corporation is the petitioner.

The petitioner is the Microsoft Corpo ration, which is located at:

One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052

The initial point of contact for questions regarding this petition is Daniel Ridlon, who is outside counsel for Microsoft. His contact information is:- 2

- Daniel Ridlon Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 DRidlon@perkinscoie.com (206) 359

- 6762

IV. The s UAVs that Microsoft plans to operate are safe and the FAA has already granted petitions for the use of all but one of them

.
Mic rosoft plans to operate seven models of sUAV s. The FAA has granted other petitioners exemptions to use all but one of them. Six of the sUAV s Microsoft plans to use are off

- the

- shelf sUAV s , while the other is a kit

- built sUAV . All of these sUAV s are used widely by hobbyists and weigh less than 55 pou n ds

. All of the sUAVs Microsoft plans to use are operated with off

- the

- shelf ground control stations that are certified by their manufacturers to be compliant with FCC regulations

. Below is a brief des cripti on of each of the sUAV s Microsoft plans to use

.
A. DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

The DJI Phantom 2 Vision + is a light

- weight, multi

- function quadcopter. The FAA has already granted numerous exemptions for the use of the DJI Phan tom 2 Vision +. H ere are a few

ex amples:

• Exemption 12513 to 19 Holes of Production ( Docket No. FAA−2015−0816 )

• Exemption 12311 to Adam Paul ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1616 )

• Exemption 12002 to Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1226 )

• Exemption 11978 to Aerial 360 Imaging (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1476 )

• Exemption 11971 to Aerial Approach, Ltd ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0753 )

• Exemption 12206 to Aerialnomics, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0838 )

• Exemption 12046 to AerOptix, LLC (Docket No FAA

– 2015

– 1534 )

• Exemption 12153 to AeroUAVs, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1641 )

• Exemption 12030 to American Family Mutual Insurance Company (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1380 )

• Exemption 12302 to Brad G. Beshaw ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1527 )

• Exemption 11760 to Brian L. Short (Docket No. F AA

– 2015

– 0992)

• Exemption 11993 to BUNGEE LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1511 )

Additional information on the DJI Phantom 2 Vison + can be found in a ppendices A to D

. B. DJI Inspire 1

The DJI Inspire 1 is a light

- weight, multi

- function quadcopter. The FAA has already granted numerous exemptions for the use of the DJI Inspire 1. H ere are a few examples:

• Exemption 12002 to Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1226 )

• Exemption 12046 to AerOptix, LLC (Docket No FAA

– 2015

– 1534 );- 3

- • Exempti on 12030 to American Family Mutual Insurance Company (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1380)

• Exemption 12302 to Brad G. Beshaw ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1527 )

• Exemption 11760 to Brian L. Short (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0992)

• Exemption 11814 to Alert5 International, LLC (Docket N o. FAA

– 2015

– 1142 )

• Exemption 12496 to 360 Delaware Orbit Tours ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0705 )

• Exemption 11788 to Bird’s Eye Aerial Photography, Inc. ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1003 )

• Exemption 11289A to Bird’s Eye Solutions, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0944 )

• Exemption 11993 to BUNGEE LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1511 )

Additional information on the DJI Inspire 1 can be found in appendices E to H

.
C. DJI Matrice 100

The DJI Matrice 100 is a light

- weight, multi

- function quadcopter. The FAA has already granted other exemption s for the use of the DJI Matrice 100 , including the following :

• Exemption 12378A to XO Innovations (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0344 ) 1

• Exemption 13152 to Kansas Studios, LLC (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3044 )

• Exemption 11814 to Alert5 International, LLC (Docket No. FAA

– 201 5

– 1142 ) 2

• Exemption 11646A to BioSensing Systems, LLC (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0700 )

Additional information on the DJI Matrice 10 0 can be found in appendices I to K

.
D. DJI Spreading Wings S900

The DJI Spreading Wings S900 is a light

- weight, multi

- function hexacopter. The FAA has already granted numerous exemptions for the use of the DJI Spreading Wings S900. H ere are a few examples:

• Exemption 12002 to Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1226 )

• Exemption 12153 to AeroUAVs, LLC ( Docket No. F AA

– 2015

– 1641 )

• Exemption 11674 to 4Rotor Filming LLC ( Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0655 )

• Exemption 12453 to Adam J. Dorn ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0608 )

• Exemption 12348 to Aerial Assistant LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1000 )

• Exemption 12424 to Aruas LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 2251 )

• Exemption 11788 to Bird’s Eye Aerial Photography, Inc. ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1003 )

• Exemption 11289A to Bird’s Eye Solutions, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0944 )

• Exemption 11400 to Contend Corporation ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0155 )

1 On August 6, 2015, the FAA in itially granted Exemption 12378 to XO Innovations, but withheld approval of the DJI Matrice 100 so that it could conduct an assessment of the aircraft. But on September 3, 2015, the FAA granted an amendment to XO Innovations’ exemption to include the DJI Matrice 100. This amendment is Exemption 12378A

. 2 The letter granting this exemption refers to the aircraft as a “DJI Matrix 100,” but we believe this i s an error and that the exemption is actually for the DJ I Matrice 100 ( we do not believe that DJI makes a Matrix 100, only the Matrice 100 )

.- 4

- • Exemption 12496 to 3 60 Delaware Orbit Tours ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0705 )

Additional information on the DJI Spreading Wings S900 can be found in appendi x L

.
E. 3D Robotics X8 +
The 3D Robotics X8+ is a light

- weight, multi

- function quadcopter. The FAA has already granted numerous e xemptions for the use of the 3D Robotics X8 +

. H ere are a few examples :

• Exemption 11626 to Olsson Associates ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0537 )

• Exemption 11617 to Aerial Precision Survey ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0549 )

• Exemption 11307A to Price Aviation Group ( Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1018 )

• Exemption 12118 to Lone Star Sky Solutions, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0819 )

• Exemption 12366 to R.A. Smith National, Inc. ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1803 )

• Exemption 12495 to Prestige Aerial ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0629 )

• Exemption 12009 to Aerial In digo, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

- 1466 )

• Exemption 11172A to Blue

- Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, Inc. ( Docket No. FAA

2014

- 0787 )

• Exemption 12397 to Drone Dynamics LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0651 )

• Exemption 11433 to Cape Productions, Inc . ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0223 )

Additional information on the 3D Robotics X8 + can be found in appendices M to O

.
F. TBS Discovery Pro

The TBS (Team Blacksheep) Discovery Pro is a kit

- built quadcopter. The FAA has already granted exemptions for the use of the TBS Discovery P ro, including the following:

• Exemption 11416 to Aerial Pros, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0182 )

• Exemption 12188 to Ocelleye, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1783 )

• Exemption 12070 to SDHS ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1339 )

• Exemption 12377A to Starnes Aviation LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1784 ) 3

• Exemption 11596 to Birds Eye Aerial Drones, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0483 )

Additional information on the TBS Discovery Pr o can be found in appendices P and Q

.
G. AscTec Firefly

The AscTec Firefly is a light

- weight, multi

- function hexacopter

, manufactured by Ascending Tech nologies, Gmb H. Here is picture of the AscTec Firefly

, some basic information about it , and a diagram showing the control station :

3 On August 6, 2015, the FAA first granted Exemption 12377 to Starnes Aviation LLC, but withheld approval of the TB S Discovery Pro so that the FAA could conduct an assessment of that aircraft. On September 3, 2015, the FAA amended Exemption 12377 to include the TBS Discovery Pro. This amendment is Exemption 12377A

.- 5

- Figure 1 : Photograph of the AscTec Firefly

Category Information Aircraft Description Firefly
Aircraft Builder Asc ending Tec hnologies, GmbH Engine s Six Hacker Motor GmbH X

- BL

- 52S Electric Motors, 1000kv
Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight 1.6kg (3.52 lb)

Payload Capacity 600g (1.32 lbs)
Maximum Altitude 4,500 meters (14,763.8 feet)
Maximum Endurance 12 to 14 minutes Maximum Airspeed 15m/s (33.55 mph) Ground Control Station Futaba T 7C (see graphic below) Auto Return Feature(s) In the event of a lost control link, the sUAV will automatically enter a pre

- selected emergency mode. There are three emergency modes that the pilot in command can select before the flight. The sUAV ’s behavior in each of them is different:

• Direct Landing : The sUAV will slowly land in place at the p oint where contact was lost.

• Come Home Straight : The sUAV will return to the original start point at its- 6

- current altitude.

• Come Home High : The sUAV will climb to a pre

- selected altitude and return to the original start point.

Figure 2: Diagram of Futa ba T7C Control Station- 7

- Additional informatio n on the AscTec Firefly can be found in appendices R and S

.
V. Microsoft’s proposed operations are similar to others that have already been approved by the FAA and will be subject to operational limitations that will minimize the risk to other users of the NAS and people and property on the ground

. Microsoft plans to use commercially available, off

- the

- shelf sUAV s or kit

- built sUAV s to gather data for research. The sUAV s will be equipped with sensors or other eq uipment that are smal l enough to fit within the sUAV ’s payload capacity and will not affect the sUAV ’ s flight characteristics. These sensors and equipment will allow the sUAV s to capture data that is relevant to Microsoft’s ongoing research efforts. The sUAV s used in the program will be flown in areas away from people who aren’t participating, and will only be operated below 400 feet AGL

. The FAA has granted numerous exemptions for aerial data collection, and many for research activity similar to what Mi crosoft will conduct . Indeed, the FAA has identified aerial data collection as one of the two areas in which it will grant summary exemptions. Microsoft will operate the sUAV s under a set of limitations that will ensure an equivalent level of safety to

m anned flight

.
A. The FAA has already granted other exemptions for similar purposes . The FAA has already granted numerous exemptions for aerial data collection. More specifically, the FAA has also granted a number of exemptions for research similar to what Microsoft proposes. Here are but a few examples of other exemptions granted for research :

• Exemption 11273 to AIG PC Global Services, Inc. (Docket No. FAA

– 2014

– 0913) : This exemption was sought, in part, to conduct research and development into how UAVs

cou ld be used to support AIG’s business and to test different payloads and sensors.

• Exemption 11290 to Amazon.com (Docket No. FAA−2014−0474) : This exemption was sought to conduct research and development for Amazon’s Prime Air service.

• Exemption 12167 to Bliss Laboratory (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1689) : This exemption was sought to use a UAV manufactured by DJI to conduct research into multiple

- input and multiple

- output (MIMO) wireless channel phenomenology of UAS vehicles within the NAS.

• Exemption 11315 to The Climate Corporation and Precision Planting, LLP (Docket No. FAA

– 2014

– 1037) : This exemption was sought, in part, to conduct research and development into how best to integrate UAVs into the petitioners research, modeling, simulation and imaging business op erations.

• Exemption 12104 to Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0946) : This exemption was sought to conduct research into the ability of UAVs to collect detailed information about a n “interesting phenomenon,” such as an animal or fire.- 8

- • Exemption 11274 to USAA (Docket No. FAA−2014−0796) : This exemption was sought to conduct research and development.

• Exemption 12462 to Panoptes Systems Corporation (Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 2196) : This exemption was sought to conduct research, testing, an d aerial data collection.

B. Microsoft will follow operational limitations that will ensure an equivalent level of safety.

Microsoft’s operations will take place under conditions that will ensure an equivalent level of safety , including the following:

• Withi n v isual l ine of s ight : All flights will be conducted within visual line of sight of the pilot in command (PIC).

• Daytime visual meteorological conditions : All flights will occur during the day

, in visual meteorological conditions.

• Below 400 feet AGL : All flight s will be conducted below 400 feet AGL , with most flights occurring below 200 feet AGL.

• Pre and Post

- Flight Checklist s : Each sUAV has a checklist that dictates the pre

- flight and post

- flight actions the PIC must take. There is also a Microsoft Resea rch Area Safety Checklist (“Area Safety Checklist”) that applies to all sUAV s Microsoft will operate

. The individual checklists require the PIC to perform the Area Safety Checklist before commencing a flight. All of the checklists can be found in Appendi x T.

• Maximum Speed : The sUAV s will not be operated at a speed exceeding the manufacturer ’ s recommended speed, and in no event faster than 87 knots (100 miles per hour).

• Operating areas : A ll flights will be conducted in areas that are at least 5 nm from an airport unless Microsoft has either obtained a letter of agreement from the airport’s management or has otherwise been granted a COA to operate in the area. If a manned aircraft enters the operating area, the PIC will give the manned aircraft the right of way and then immediately terminate the flight by landing the sUAV in the nearest area where it safe to do so. All flights will also be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating individuals, vessels, vehicles and structures unless the followin g conditions are met:

o If non

- participating individuals are present, t here are barriers or structures sufficient to protect them from the sUAV and, in the event of an accident, any debris;

o If non

- participating individuals are present, Microsoft will ensure they stay protected by the barrier or structure and end the flight immediately if they leave the safety of the barrier or structure during the flight;- 9

- o The owner of the vessel, vehicle, or structure has granted permission for operating close to those object s; and

o The PIC has made a safety assessment and determined that operations that close to the nonparticipating individuals, vessel, vehicle or structure do not present an undue hazard.

• Emergencies and unforeseen problems : In the event of any emergency, equipment failure, or unforeseen problem

, the PIC will terminate the flight as soon as practica b l e and land the sUAV in the nearest area where it is safe to land

.
C. Microsoft’s pilots will be sufficiently qualified to ensure they can safely operate the sUAV s.
All of Microsoft’s pilots will hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. They will also hold a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the Distri ct of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. All pilots will also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

The FAA is routinely granting exemptions that require these same qualifications for PICs. See, e.g.

, Exemption 11389 to Consumers Energy Company ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0005 ); Exemption 13564 to Workhorse Group Inc. ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3055 ).

VI. The FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft plans to operate meet the conditions of Section 333 and therefore that the requirements of 14 CFR § 21 , subpart H and 14 CFR § 36 need not be met.

A. 14 CFR § 21 , subpart H

- Airworthiness Certificates

The Regulation : Normally a civi l aircraft cannot be operated “in air commerce without an airworthiness certificate in effect.” 49 U.S.C. § 44711(a)(1). 14 CFR part 21, subpart H, contains the requirements for issuing such an airworthiness certificate.

How Microsoft achieves an equivale nt level of safety : Section 333 of the Act allows the FAA to permit s UAVs to operate without meeting the requirements of 14 CFR § 21 if those s UAV s “as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to natio nal security.” Section 333(b)(1). Microsoft’s operations meet the requirements of Section 333

. B y achieving an equivalent level of safety to that provided by 14 CFR part 21, subpart H

, Microsoft’s operations do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. Microsoft’s operations also do not pose a threat to national security ( this issue that is discussed more fully below in Section IX )

. As a result, Microsoft should be allowed to operate its sUAVs without airworthiness certificates . Manned air craft require airworthiness certificates because an accident could endanger the lives of not only the people onboard the aircraft, but also the public. By contrast, the sUAVs Microsoft will operate are unmanned and pose much less of a danger to the public than manned aircraft. All of- 10

- the sUAVs operated by Microsoft weigh less than 55 pounds, with most of them weighing less than 10 pounds. As a result, any accident involving one of these sUAVs will be far less dangerous than one involving a much larger ma nned aircraft, which can destroy structures and vehicles or injure people in the area. And all of the sUAVs use electrical power, and therefore do not carry flammable fuel that can cause the type of destructive fires that are common in accidents involving manned aircraft. Further, all of the sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use will be operated at low speeds, low altitudes, far from airports or nonparticipating individuals, and within the visual line of sight of the PIC, so the possibility of harm to the publi c or other users of the NAS is much lower than for a manned flight. Given the lack of passengers or crew, absence of flammable fuel, small size of the sUAVs, low speeds and altitudes at which they operate, and the operating areas, the requirement for an a irworthiness certificate is unnecessary to achieve the same level of safety achieved by requiring manned aircraft to obtain such a certificate. As a result, the FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use meet the requirements of Section 333, and therefore do not require airworthiness certificates

. Previous exemptions : The FAA has already found that all but one of the sUAVs that Microsoft intends to use meet the criteria of Section 333 , and therefore can operate without airworthiness

ce rtificates

. See supra Section IV. Many of these petitions were for similar operations , with the same limitations proposed by Microsoft . Because the FAA has already determined that all but one of the sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use meet the criteria of Se ction 333 , the FAA should make the same finding here . Further, the one sUAV that has not been the subject of a prior exemption, the AscTec Firefly, is similar to other sUAVs that have been granted an exemption, and has an equivalent level of safety. So t he FAA should also make the determination that the AscTec Firefly meets the conditions of S ection 333, and therefore does not require an airworthiness certificate

.
B. 14 CFR § 36

- Noise standards

14 CFR § 36’s requirement s only apply to aircraft with airworthiness certificates. Because the FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft plans to use meet the conditions of Section 333 and therefore that no airworthiness certificate is necessary, the FAA should also determine that compliance with the related noise standards contained in 14 CFR § 36 is unnecessary . The FAA has routinely found that sUAVs that meet the requirements of Section 333 and therefore do not need an airworthiness certificate pursuant to 14 CFR § 21, subp art H also do not need to comply with the noise standards in 14 CFR § 36. See, e.g. , Exemption 13567 to Aerialpixels, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3174 ); Exemption 13577 to Unmanned Eagle Eye, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3705 ).- 11

- VII. The FAA should exempt Microsoft from a number of regulations because the operations proposed by Microsoft will ensure a level of safety that is at least equivalent to that achieved by the regulations , if not greater

. This section addresses the specific regulations from which Microsoft seeks an exemption and explains why the proposed operations will have at least an equivalent level of safety. The FAA has granted other exemptions from all but one of these regulations. 4

A. 14 CFR § 45.27(a)

- Location of marks on nonfixed

- wing aircraft

The Regulation : 14 CFR § 45.27(a) requires operators of rotorcraft to “display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail the marks required by § 45.23.”

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety : Complyi ng with this regulation would be impractical and operating with the required marks elsewhere does not affect safety. The sUAV s used by Microsoft lack the same structure as other rotorcraft, making the requirements for the placement of these markings impra ctical. Microsoft requests an exemption from these requirements, and instead proposes that the sUAV s in Microsoft’s program will display nationality and registration markings as large as possible on the upper and lower surfaces of the sUAV . Changing the location of these markings will not affect safety, and therefore the FAA should grant an exemption from 14 CFR § 45.27(a).

B. 14 CFR §§ 61.23 (a) and (c) , 61.101(e), 61.113(a), 61.315(a)

- L imitations and requirements for pilots

The Regulation s : The r egulation s normally apply limitations and restrictions for pilots, including the following:

• 14 CFR § 61.23(a) r equires a medical certificate for certain operations

.

• 14 CFR § 61.23 (c) limits the operations someone can conduct with a U.S. driver’s license rather than a medical certificate.

• 14 CFR § 61.101(e) prohibits a recreational pilot from acting as PIC in certain circumstances.

• 14 CFR § 61.113(a) prohibits a person holding a private pilot certificate from acting as PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire.

• 14 CFR § 61.315(a) allows a person holding a sport pilot certificate to act as PIC only for a light

- sport aircraft , and even then only in certain circumstances

. How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety : The above regulations are unnecessary for sUAV s, and an equivalent level of safety can be achieved without them. Because of the sUAV s ’ size, weight, speed, and the fact that it does not carry persons, operating them does not require the same level of experience and training as a traditional mann ed aircraft. Indeed, sUAV s can be operated by hobbyists without any training or certification

. The dangers created by operating a sUAV are far less than that involved in operating manned aircraft, including a light

- sport aircraft.

4 We are not aware of any exemption having been grant ed to 14 CFR § 45.27(a)

.- 12

- As a result, an equiva lent level of safety can be achieved by granting an exemption to the above regulations that will allow operation of sUAV s by pilots who hold (1) either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate, and (2) a current F AA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government.

Previous exemptions : The FAA has routinely granted exemptions to these regulati ons with the same conditions proposed by Microsoft

. See, e.g. , Exemption 11389 to Consumers Energy Company ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0005 ); Exemption 13564 to Workhorse Group Inc. ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3055 ). The FAA should therefore grant the same exemptions to these regulations to Microsoft.

C. 14 CFR § 91.7(a)

- Airworthy Condition

The Regulation : 14 CFR § 91.7(a) states that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition

. T he FAA has taken the position that an e xemption from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) is necessary for UAVs. See Exemption 11208 to Sky

- Futures USA, Inc. ( Docket No. FAA

– 2014

- 0641 ) (“ Although the petitioner did not request relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness, the FAA finds that relief fr om § 91.7(a) is necessary. ”).

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety : The FAA should grant an exemption to 14 CFR § 91.7(a) because Microsoft’s procedures will ensure an equivalent level of safety

. P rior to every flight, the PIC will ensur e that the sUAV is in an airworthy condition based on compliance with the sUAVs operating documents and the conditions and limitations imposed by the FAA. Because these precautions will ensure an equivalent level of safety, the FAA should grant Microsoft an exemption to 14 CFR § 91.7(a).

Previous exemptions : T he FAA routinely grants exemptions from 14 CFR § 91.7(a)

. See, e.g., Exemption 13568 to Jamie Lee Kinney ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

- 3353 ); Exemption 13548 to Macbeth Air Services, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3576 ). It should do so here.

D. 14 CFR § 91.119 (c)

- Minimum safe altitudes

The Regulation : 14 CFR § 91.119(c) prohibits operating aircraft at an altitude be low 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or in sparsely populated areas. Even then

, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. If an exemption to this regulations was not granted, Mic rosoft’s sUAV s could not operate with in 500 feet of the PIC or other personnel involved in the flight

. How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety : Considering the size, weight, and speed at which Microsoft’ s sUAV s will operate, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by allowing sUAV s to operate within 50 0 feet of personnel involved in the flight . For non

- participants or vessels , vehicles, or structures, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved if sUAV s are operated over 500 feet away unless the following conditions are met:

o If non

- participating individuals are present, there are barriers or structures sufficient to protect them from the sUAV and, in the event of an accident, any debris;- 13

- o If non

- particip ating individuals are present, Microsoft will ensure they stay protected by the barrier or structure and end the flight immediately if they leave the safety of the barrier or structure during the flight;

o The owner of the vessel, vehicle, or structure has g ranted permission for operating close to those objects; and

o The PIC has made a safety assessment and determined that operations that close to the nonparticipating individuals, vessel, vehicle, or structure does not present an undue hazard.

Previous exempti ons : The FAA routinely grants exemption s to 14 CFR §91.119(c) s ubject to the same conditions proposed above

. See, e.g. , Exemption 11815 to Enviroskycam ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1101 ); Exemption 12187 to Boulder Emergency Squad ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1720 ). As a result, the FAA should grant the same exemption to 14 CFR § 91.119(c), subject to the above conditions, to Microsoft.

E. 14 CFR § 91.121

- Altimeter settings

The Regulation : 14 CFR § 91.121 requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising alt itude by reference to an altimeter that is set “to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.” The sUAV s Microsoft will operate do not have the same altimeters used in manned aircraft, so complia nce with this regulation would be impossible.

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety : Even without the normal altimeters, Microsoft’s operations will have an equivalent level of safety . The sUAV s Microsoft will operate all supply the PIC with altitude information. The PIC will use that information to ensure that the sUAV maintain s an altitude of less than 400 feet AGL. Further, b ecause the sUAV will always be within visual line of sight, the PI C can also use visual clues to ensure that the sUAV remains below 400 feet AGL

. The altitude information available to the PIC combined with the PIC’s ability to see the sUAV at all times ensures an equivalent level of safety, and therefore the FAA should grant an exemption to 14 CFR § 91.121.

Previous exemptions : The FAA routinely grants exemptions to 14 CFR § 91.121. See, e.g.

, Exemption 11815 to Enviroskycam ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1101 ); Exemption 12187 to Boulder Emergency Squad ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1720 )

. The FAA should grant the same exemption to 14 CFR § 91.121 to Microsoft.

F. 14 CFR § 91. 151

- Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions

The Regulation : 14 CFR § 91.151 sets minimum requirements for the a mount of fuel an aircraft has before it can fly in VFR conditions . The first part of the regulation applies to aircraft, and requires that, before a daytime flight begins, the airplane must have enough fuel to reach its first point of intended landing plus enough fuel to fly for an additional 30 minute s. 14 CFR §91.151(a)(1). 5 The second part of the rule applies to rotorcraft, and requires the rotorcraft to

5 14 CFR §91.151(a)(2) is inapplicable because Microsoft will not be operating its UAVs at night.- 14

- have at least enough fuel to reach its first point of intended landing plus enough fuel to fly for an additional 20 minutes . 14 CFR §91.151(b). Several of Microsoft’s sUAV s could not comply with either regulation because they have a maximum endurance of less than 20 minutes.

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety : An exemption to 14 CFR § 91.151 is warranted because Microsoft’s ope rations will ensure an equivalent level of safety. Microsoft’s sUAV s will only be operated below 400 feet AGL and within the visual line of sight of the PIC. As a result, they will not travel far from the PIC. Further, the flights will be short , and 5 m inutes of battery life will always be preserved (i.e., the flight will end before battery levels drop below what is required to maintain 5 minutes of flight) . The sUAV s will provide the PIC with information on the level of battery power remaining that wil l allow the PIC to determine when this level of power is reached

. All of these considerations allow the sUAV s to operate with an equivalent level of safety even though they don’t comply with 14 CFR § 91.151. As a result, the FAA should grant Microsoft an exemption to 14 CFR § 91.151.

Previous exemptions: The FAA routinely grants exemptions to 14 CFR § 91.151. See, e.g.

, Exemption 13574 to GDI, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3701 )(granting an exemption to 14 CFR §91.151(a)(1)); Exemption 13576 to Wiser Consultants, LCC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3703 )(same). The FAA should grant that same exemption to Microsoft.

G. 14 CFR § § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b)

- Maintenance Requirements

The Regulation s : The regulations impose a number of requirements for maintenance of aircraft including the following:

• 14 CFR § 91.405(a) requires that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between required inspection s, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

• 14 CFR § 91 .407(a)(1) prohibits any person from operating an aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, r ebuilding, or alteration unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter

.

• 14 CFR § 91 .409(a)(1) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of the same chapter and been approved to return to service by an authorized person.

• 14 CFR § 91 .409(a)(2) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar mon ths, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of the same chapter

.

• 14 CFR § 91. 417(a) sets requirements for maintenance records, including records of all maintenance or alteration of the aircraft

, aircraft and component operating times

, inspection status, status of airworthiness directives and safety directives, and forms detailing alterations to the aircraft and its major components

.- 15

- • 14 CFR § 91.417(b) sets requirements for how long an owner or op erator must retain maintenance records.

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety : Following these regulations would be impractical and unnecessary to achieve an equivalent level of safety. Because of their size, weight, speed, and the fact tha t sUAV s do not carry people, they do not pose the same danger that manned aircraft do. As a result, the complex regulations that govern maintenance for manned aircraft are unnecessary. The same level of safety or greater can be achieved by the procedures Microsoft will follow , which will include required pre and post

- flight inspections and compliance with the sUAV manufacturers’ maintenance requirements. Because an equivalent level of safety can be achieved without these regulations

, the FAA should grant an exemption to them.

Previous exemptions : The FAA routinely grants exemptions to all of these regulations. See, e.g.

, Exemption 13510 to Vive Media, LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3612 ); Exemption 13512 to Wolfe LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3 556 ). The FAA should do the same here.

VIII. Granting Microsoft’s requested exemption is in the public interest.

There are several reasons why the public interest would be served by granting the exemption Microsoft requests. First, Microsoft seeks to use sUAV s to serve a function that would otherwise be carried out by manned aircraft. Manned aircraft are much larger than sUAV s, and carry people and flammable fuel. As a result, the consequences of an accident involving a manned aircraft are serious. This is true not only for the people on the aircraft, but also for those on the ground who could be harmed or killed. By contrast, the sUAV s Microsoft operates are small, weighing less than 55 pounds. They also do not carry people or fuel. In the event of an ac cident, there are no occupants that would be in danger

, and the risk to people on the ground is far less than in an accident involving manned aircraft. For these reasons the FAA has found that using UAVs rather than manned aircraft enhances safety, and is therefore in the public interest. The FAA routinely cites this safety enhancement as sufficiently serving the public interest so as to justify the grant of an exemption

. See, e.g.

, Exemption 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352 ); Exemption 11109 to Clayco, Inc. (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0507).

Second, Microsoft will use its sUAV program to conduct research that benefit s the public good. Overall, Microsoft is engaged in extensive activities that benefit the global public in general, from high

- sp eed computing, to robotics, artificial intelligence, imagery, and extensive partnerships with public universities, government organizations, and NGOs. Microsoft will be leveraging sUAV s as platforms to broaden its ongoing research.

Finally, Microsoft’s r esearch has the potential to help integrate UAVs into the NAS. Microsoft will leverage its software and networking expertise to focus on secure and reliable data transmission that will better enable successful integration of autonomous UAVs into the NAS. Congress has established that integrating UAVs into the NAS is in the public interest.- 16

- IX. Microsoft’s proposed program has no implications for national security.

National security will not be negatively impacted by Microsoft’s program. All operations will be over privately held land, with the landowner’s permission. None of these operations are planned near any military installations. The sUAV s Microsoft proposes to use are small, and will not be operated above 400 feet AGL. As a result of these factors, Microsoft’s operation will not have any negative impact on national security.

X. Microsoft’s proposed operations will not affect the p rivacy rights of anyone not involved in the operations.

M icrosoft will be conducting operations exclusively over private pr operty , with the express permission of the landowner. All flights will be conducted below 400 feet AGL and more than 500 feet away from any non

- participants. So Microsoft’s operations will not have an effect on the privacy of any non

- participants.

XI. Publication in the Federal Register is unnecessary because the FAA has already granted exemptions similar to that requested by Microsoft.

There is good cause to not publish a summary of this petition in the Federal Register. As discussed throughout the p etition, the FAA has already granted exemptions to other petitioners who are conducting similar operations, using the same sUAV s, and seeking exemptions from the same regulations. So this exemption would not set precedent. Further, the delay caused by
pu blication of this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner

— Microsoft is ready to begin its research now, and any delay in conducting that research will have a negative impact on Microsoft.

If the FAA does decide to publish a summary of the petition in the Federal Register, here is a proposed summary:

Microsoft seeks an exemption from the following regulations for the operation of small unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct research: 14 CFR § 45.2 7(a); 14 CFR § 61.23(a) and (c); 14 CFR § 61 .101(e); 14 CFR § 61.113(a); 14 CFR § 61.315(a); 14 CFR §91.7(a); 14 CFR §91.11 9(c); 14 CFR § 91.121; 14 CFR § 91.151(a)(1) and (b); 14 CFR § 91.40 5(a); 14 CFR § 91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 14 CFR § 91.417(a) and (b)

. The exemption will serve the publ ic interest by reducing the risk to the operator and general public. The public interest will also be served by allowing Microsoft to conduct research that benefits the public, including research that can help integrate unmanned aerial vehicles into the n ational airspace system.

XII. Conclusion

The FAA should summarily grant Microsoft’s petition for an exemption and approve Microsoft’s proposed operations . The FAA has already granted numerous petitions for aerial data collection efforts similar to those Micro soft will conduct , and other petitions for similar research

. The FAA has also granted prior petitions for operations involving all but one of the sUAV s Microsoft proposes to use. Similarly, Microsoft’s petition asks for exemptions from- 17

- regulations that h ave been routinely granted to other petitioners

. Because of the small size of the sUAV s involved and the proposed operational limitations, Microsoft’s operations will have an equivalent, if not better level of safety than manned operations that comply with the exempted regulations . And Microsoft’s operations will neither affect national security nor the privacy rights of those not involved. Finally, granting Microsoft’s petition will serve the public interest by enhancing safety and allow ing research that will advance the welfare of society. For these reasons, the FAA should summarily grant Microsoft’s petition for an exemption and approve Microsoft’s proposed operations

.