November 6, 2015

 Exemption No. 12656A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2015−1679

Mr. Mark E. Mckinnon 

Mr. Matthew J. Clark

Council for Duke Unversity

1676 International Drive, Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Dear Messrs. McKinnon and Clark:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated August 6, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Duke University (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your 

current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the 

petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. You requested an amendment

to add the 3D Robotics Iris, 3D Robotics Iris+, and 3D Robotics Solo. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. The 

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed 

and operating capabilities to those in this petition.

Airworthiness Certification

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in 

reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited 
2

operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation 

has determined that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA 

finds that relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts, 

Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates, and any associated noise certification and testing 

requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12656 

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to add new aircraft to its UAS operations.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12656 remain in effect except 

as follows. Condition No. 1 has been updated to reflect the additional aircraft. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the SenseFly eBee, 

Mikrokopter Hex XL, and Freefly CineStar 6, 3D Robotics Iris, 3D Robotics Iris+, 

and 3D Robotics Solo when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. 

Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to 

amend this exemption.

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service