HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Google Inc.,

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF GOOGLE INC.

FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

E. Tazewell Ellett

Patrick R. Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-637-8644 / -5659

Fax: 202-637-5910

tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

COUNSEL FOR GOOGLE INC.

DATE: June 22, 2015
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER .................................................................. - 1 -

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST ............................................... - 1 -

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................... - 2 -

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS............................................ - 3 -

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations ........................ - 4 -

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training ....................................................................... - 8 -

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Google manuals related to UAS

operations ......................................................................................................................... - 9 -

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA........................................ - 11 -

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION

FOR EXEMPTION........................................................................................................................... - 11 -

5.1 Contact information ......................................................................................................... - 12 -

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Google seeks

an exemption .................................................................................................................... - 12 -

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought......................................... - 12 -

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest ........................... - 29 -

5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect

safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least

equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.......................... - 30 -

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule

from which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature

of the exemption sought. ................................................................................................ - 32 -

5.7 Additional information that supports request............................................................... - 33 -

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S........................ - 33 -

6 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ - 33 -
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

Google Inc. (“Google”) is headquartered in Mountain View, California. Google’s principal

mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

Google’s interest in small UAS operations stems from Project Wing, Google’s effort to design, build,

and operate small UAS for the aerial delivery of goods. Google is requesting this exemption to

further explore and research the possibility of using small UAS as a platform for the timely and

accurate delivery of goods.

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14

C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, Google requests that the FAA grant Google a

“summary grant” exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below in Sections 5.2 and

5.3) so that Google may operate one or more small UAS to perform aerial data collection, including

research and development related to aerial delivery with UAS. As explained below, Google’s

proposed UAS operations, as conditioned and limited herein, will not adversely affect safety, but

rather will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than that provided by the current rules,

large manned aircraft operations, and other delivery methods. See FAR § 11.81.

Google respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption on an expedited

basis. To that end, as detailed below, Google agrees to comply with the conditions and limitations

imposed in recent summary grant exemptions. See, e.g., Exemption No. 11277 (April 1, 2015;
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

Docket FAA-2014-0873) (“AAIR Exemption”1); Exemption No. 11290 (April 8, 2015; Docket FAA2014-0474) (“Amazon Exemption”); Exemption No. 11525 (May 11, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0338)

(“Pro Drones Canada Exemption”). Given the agreement to comply with these conditions and

limitations, and given that this Petition is similar in all material respects to those petitions for which

summary grant exemptions have been granted, and that the proposed UAS use falls within the

“aerial data collection” category of uses permitted by numerous summary grant exemptions, no new

precedent would be set by granting the requested exemption. Accordingly, as with the Pro Drones

Canada Exemption, at 1, good cause exists for the FAA to move forward with consideration of this

Petition and the grant of this exemption without publishing a summary of the Petition in the Federal

Register.

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions

and limitations. Each of these conditions and limitations is consistent with the conditions and

limitations in previously granted small UAS Section 333 exemptions, including recent summary grant

exemptions, and with FAA guidance. See, e.g., AAIR Exemption, Pro Drones Canada Exemption,

and Amazon Exemption. Collectively, these conditions and limitations ensure that the proposed

small UAS operations will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of

safety to that provided by the current rules, manned aircraft operations, and other delivery methods.

To facilitate the FAA’s review of this Petition for a summary grant exemption, Google provides a

chart at the end of this Section 3 cross-referencing the conditions and limitations from the AAIR

1

AAIR stands for Advanced Aerial Inspection Resources, LLC.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

Exemption, the Pro Drones Canada Exemption, and the Amazon Exemption with the corresponding

conditions and limitations outlined below.

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS

Each UAS operated under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to operations of a

Google-designed and manufactured multi-engine, battery-powered,

vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) fixed wing, small UAS (“Project

Wing UAS”). The UA will have a maximum takeoff weight of not more

than 55 pounds, including energy sources, equipment, and payload.

Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new or

amended exemption. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 1; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 1; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 1.]

3.1.2 The UA will not be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA

operating speed recommended by Google (as the UAS manufacturer),

and in no event will it be operated at an airspeed exceeding 87 knots

(100 miles per hour).2[AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 3; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 3; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 3.]

3.1.3 The UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the

FAA in accordance with FAR Part 47. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No.

22; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 22; Pro Drones Canada

Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.1.4 The UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part

45, with the markings being as large as practicable. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 22; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 22; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

2 Google may use groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the maximum speed

restriction. [Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 3.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations

All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization

(“ATO”)-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). All UAS

operations will be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA.

Should Google want to conduct operations that cannot be conducted

under the terms of the blanket COA accompanying this exemption,

Google will apply for a new or amended COA. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 21; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 21; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 21.]

3.2.2 Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television

filming are not permitted under this exemption. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 2; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 2; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 2.]

3.2.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport’s reference

point as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory, or for

airports not denoted with an airport reference point, the center of the

airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA-published aeronautical

chart, unless a letter agreement with that airport’s management is

obtained or such an operation is otherwise permitted by a COA issued

to Google. Google will make any such letter agreement available to the

FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 16; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 16; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 16.]

3.2.4 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer (“VO”). All UAS operations

will use a PIC and a VO. The PIC will be designated before the flight,

and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight.

The PIC will ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed

for the VO. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 6; Amazon Exemption

Limitation No. 6; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.5 The UA will be operated within visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the PIC

and VO at all times. The PIC will maintain VLOS with human vision

unaided by any device other than corrective lenses as specified on the

PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license.

[AAIR Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6; Amazon Exemption

Limitations Nos. 5 and 6; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitations

Nos. 5 and 6.] The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement

as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. [AAIR
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

Exemption Limitation No. 6; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 6; Pro

Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.6 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO will be able to

communicate verbally with each other at all times. Electronic

messaging or texting by the PIC and the VO is not permitted during

UAS flight operations. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 6; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 6; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 6.]

3.2.7 The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering

wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power

for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that

for at least five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power

recommended by Google (as the UAS manufacturer). [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 20; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 20; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 20.]

3.2.8 Prior to each UA flight, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection and

determine that the UAS (including the Ground Control Station) is in a

condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection will account for all

potential discrepancies, e.g., non-functioning components, items or

equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe

operation of the UAS, the UA is prohibited from operating until the

necessary maintenance has been performed, and the UAS is found to

be in a condition for safe flight. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 10;

Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 10; Pro Drones Canada Exemption

Limitation No. 10.]

3.2.9 The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to

ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 9; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 9; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 9.]

3.2.10 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below an altitude

of 400 feet above ground level (“AGL”). [AAIR Exemption Limitation No.

4; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 4; Pro Drones Canada Exemption

Limitation No. 4.]

3.2.11 Altitude reports made to ATC or other persons will be reported in feet

AGL. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 4; Amazon Exemption Limitation

No. 4; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 4.]

3.2.12 All UAS operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access

property with permission from the property owner/controller or

authorized representative. Permission from the property

owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each

flight to be conducted. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 27; Amazon
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

Exemption Limitation No. 27; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 27.]

3.2.13 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons,

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

(a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event

of an accident. Google will ensure that non-participating

persons remain under such protection; and if a situation

arises where non-participating persons leave such protection

and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease

immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of the nonparticipating persons; and/or

(b) The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures

has granted permission for operating closer to those objects

and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of

operating closer to those objects and determined that it does

not present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees, and essential persons are not

considered non-participating persons under this exemption.

[AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 26; Amazon Exemption Limitation No.

26; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 26.]

3.2.14 All UAS operations will be conducted during visual meteorological

conditions (VMC) only. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 15; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 15; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 15.]

3.2.15 Google will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight Rules

(SVFR). [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 15; Amazon Exemption

Limitation No. 15; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.16 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS

operations will not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. §

1.1. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 15; Amazon Exemption Limitation

No. 15; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.17 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and

yield right-of-way to all manned aviation operations and activities at all

times. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 24; Amazon Exemption

Limitation No. 24; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 24.]

3.2.18 The UA will not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000

feet horizontally from a cloud, or when visibility is less than 3 statute

miles from the PIC. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 17; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 17; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 17.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

3.2.19 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or

vehicle. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 25; Amazon Exemption

Limitation No. 25; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 25.]

3.2.20 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the

UAS operation or UA flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight

critical component) will undergo a functional test flight prior to

conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test

flights will only be conducted by a PIC with a VO, and will remain at

least 500 feet from other people. Functional test flights will be

conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to

persons and property. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 8; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 8; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 8.]

3.2.21 If the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal during any

operation, the UA will return to a pre-determined location within the

private or controlled-access property. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No.

18; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 18; Pro Drones Canada

Exemption Limitation No. 18.]

3.2.22 The PIC will abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No.

19; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 19; Pro Drones Canada

Exemption Limitation No. 19.]

3.2.23 The documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and

flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9

and 91.203 will be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of

the UAS at any time the UA is operating, and will be made available to

the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 23; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 23; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 23.]

3.2.24 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or

vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable

COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80)

within 24 hours. Accidents will be reported to the National

Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on the

NTSB website: www.ntsb.gov. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 28;

Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 28; Pro Drones Canada Exemption

Limitation No. 28.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training

The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operation under the requested exemption

will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC will hold (i) an ATP, commercial, private, recreational or sport

pilot certificate; and (ii) a current FAA airman medical certificate or a

valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a State, the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory/possession, or the Federal Government.

The PIC will satisfy the flight review requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 61.56

in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

[AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 13; Amazon Exemption Limitation No.

13; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 13.]

3.3.2 Google will not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless the PIC

demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner

consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption,

including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining

appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures.

PIC qualification flight hours and currency will be logged in a manner

consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of

training Google’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in

a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this

exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. These

training operations, however, may only be conducted during dedicated

training sessions. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 14; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 14; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 14.]

3.3.3 During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons

not essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and

the PIC will operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 14; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 14; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 14.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Google manuals related to UAS

operations

Google has manuals, checklists, and handbooks containing procedures for the UAS

operations under the exemption, as well as training programs (collectively, “the Manuals”). The

Manuals will be subject to the following limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Operating Documents3 will be accessible during UAS operations

and made available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists

between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the

procedures outlined in the Operating Documents, the conditions and

limitations in this exemption take precedence and will be followed.

Otherwise, Google will follow the procedures as outlined in the

Operating Documents. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 7; Amazon

Exemption Limitation No. 7; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 7.]

3.4.2 Google may update or revise its Operating Documents, and it is

Google’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and

revised documents to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon

request. Google will also present updated and revised documents if it

petitions for an extension or amendment of this exemption. If Google

determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon

which the FAA granted the requested exemption, then Google will

petition for an amendment to the exemption. Google will contact the

FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) if questions arise regarding

updates or revisions to the Operating Documents. [AAIR Exemption

Limitation No. 7; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 7; Pro Drones

Canada Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.4.3 Each UAS operated under this exemption will comply with all

manufacturer safety bulletins. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 12;

Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 12; Pro Drones Canada Exemption

Limitation No. 12.]

3.4.4 Google will follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the UAS and

UAS components. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 11; Amazon

3

“Operating Documents” means this requested exemption, the Manuals, and all other documents needed

by Google to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and

limitations stated in this grant of exemption. [AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 7; Amazon Exemption

Limitation No. 7; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

Exemption Limitation No. 11; Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation

No. 11.]

CROSS-REFERENCES

AAIR Exemption Limitation No.

Amazon Exemption Limitation No.

Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No.

Petition Limitation No.

1 3.1.1

2 3.2.2

3 3.1.2

4 3.2.10, 3.2.11

5 3.2.5

6 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6

7 3.4.1, 3.4.2

8 3.2.20

9 3.2.9

10 3.2.8

11 3.4.4

12 3.4.3

13 3.3.1

14 3.3.2, 3.3.3

15 3.2.14, 3.2.15, 3.2.16

16 3.2.3

17 3.2.18

18 3.2.21

19 3.2.22

20 3.2.7

21 3.2.1
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

22 3.1.3, 3.1.4

23 3.2.23

24 3.2.17

25 3.2.19

26 3.2.13

27 3.2.12

28 3.2.24

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

In accordance with FMRA Sec. 333, Google requests that the Secretary of Transportation

determine that Google’s proposed small UAS operations (i) do not create a hazard to users of the

National Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat to national security.

Google further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine –

as it did in the AAIR Exemption, the Amazon Exemption Limitation, and the Pro Drones Canada

Exemption – that relief from FAR Part 21 and any associated noise certification and testing

requirements of FAR Part 36 is not necessary for the UAS operations proposed in this Petition.4

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, Google provides the following information in support of this

Petition:

4 AAIR Exemption, at 6; Pro Drones Canada Exemption, at 2; Amazon Exemption, at 4. If the FAA

concludes that the UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21

and/or 36, then Google requests that the FAA include that relief in the exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 12 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

5.1 Contact information:

Name: Google Inc. submits this Petition for Exemption, through counsel,

E. Tazewell Ellett and Patrick R. Rizzi

Mailing address: E. Tazewell Ellett

Patrick R. Rizzi

Counsel for Google Inc.

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone/Facsimile number:

(T) 202-637-8644 (Ellett) / 202-637-5659 (Rizzi)

(F) 202-637-5910

E-mail addresses:

tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Google seeks an

exemption:

FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) -– Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.

FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

FAR § 61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my

sport pilot certificate?

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

FAR § 91.119(c), (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance,

rebuilding, and inspections.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:

Google proposes to conduct non-recreational/non-hobby small UAS operations, as described

herein, by operating one or more small UAS to perform aerial data collection, including research and
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

development related to aerial delivery with UAS. Google intends to operate the Google-designed

and Google-manufactured Project Wing UAS under the requested exemption. The Project Wing

UAS is a multi-engine, battery-powered, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) fixed wing, small UAS.

In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, Google petitions the FAA, pursuant to

FAR §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption from the following FAR sections for the

reasons noted, and consistent with other exemptions previously granted by the FAA, including the

AAIR Exemption, the Amazon Exemption, and the Pro Drones Canada Exemption.

FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) -– Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.

FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a

recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft— . . .

(4) For compensation or hire;

(5) In furtherance of a business; . . . .

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section,

no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in

command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for

compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire,

act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in

command of an aircraft in connection with any business or

employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or

employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for

compensation or hire.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 14 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

(c) ****.

FAR § 61.315(a) and (c)(2), (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my sport

pilot certificate?

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in

command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c)

of this section. . . .

(c) You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft: . . .

(2) For compensation or hire.

(3) In furtherance of a business. . . .

Google requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent necessary to permit

Google to conduct small UAS operations using PICs who hold (i) at least a sport pilot certificate, and

(ii) an FAA airman medical certificate or a U.S./state driver’s license. While Google recognizes that

the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is compensation

either to the pilot or for the operation, Google requests that the FAA exempt Google and its PICs

from this requirement, since the use of at least a sport pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations under

this exemption will be more safe than the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft operations.

Unlike conventional aircraft, the Project Wing UAS is lightweight, remotely controlled, and powered

by a battery (not fuel/gas), and it has no crew or passengers. The fulfillment of the additional

requirements for a sport pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any

additional safety benefits when UAS operations are involved.

The differences between the aeronautical knowledge and aeronautical experience

requirements for sport pilots and commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of manned

aircraft. However, no aspect of this incremental additional knowledge or aeronautical experience is

significant for the daytime, VMC, low-altitude, visual-line-of-sight, small UAS operations over private
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

or controlled access properties with property owner/controller permission as proposed in this

Petition. Put another way, there are stark and fundamental differences between the type of

experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a commercial manned aircraft with

passengers and property at higher altitudes and using airports should have, versus the type of

experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid

imperiling passengers or property. In Google’s case, the small amount of property carried aboard

the UA will be Google’s property. While the PIC will be compensated, all risk of damage to the

property (in fact to the UA itself) will be borne by Google. There is no expectation or need for the

PIC of the small UA to have the type of experience or aeronautical knowledge that a commercial

pilot for a manned aircraft would have.

Similarly, the differences between the flight proficiency requirements for sport pilots and

commercial pilots are not substantively significant here where the operations will be conducted

strictly during daylight VMC conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no higher than 400 feet AGL. And,

Google has agreed in this Petition to the pilot training and proficiency conditions and limitations

imposed by the FAA on other summary grant exemptions. See Proposed Limitations Nos. 3.3.2 and

3.3.3, above. 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.

Given that Google plans to operate its small UAS over private or controlled-access property

and at low altitudes during daytime in VMC, the parallel nature of sport pilot aeronautical knowledge

requirements to those of commercial pilot requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary to

operate the Project Wing UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the proposed UAS

operations here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exemption should

only be required to hold, at most, a sport pilot certificate. Such a condition would be consistent with
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 16 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

the certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the AAIR Exemption, the Amazon Exemption,

and the Pro Drones Canada Exemption.

For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, Google requests

that the FAA grant an exemption to permit Google to use as the PIC of its proposed UAS operations

pilots who hold at least a sport pilot certificate and either an FAA third-class airman medical

certificate or a U.S./state driver’s license, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations

proposed in this Petition, including the PIC qualification and training requirements.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

The regulation states in relevant part:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy

condition. . . .

Google requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary to permit Google

to conduct the small UAS operations described in this Petition.5The Project Wing UAS will not

require an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus relief is requested from

this regulation. See Exemption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble

Exemption”), at 16. An exemption is warranted because Google understands that, notwithstanding

the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with [Google’s Manuals]

to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that Google will still determine the

UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption,

at 16.

5 Google requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble Exemption,

at 16, 21; see also Amazon Exemption, at 5. However, Google notes that the FAA determined that no

such exemption was needed in Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0352)

(“Astraeus Exemption”) at 19, 22.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 17 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

FAR § 91.119 – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

The regulation states:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate

an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,

or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude

of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of

2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above

the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In

those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to

any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft.

If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on

the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided

each person operating the helicopter complies with any

routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by

the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may

be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in

paragraph (c) of this section.

Google requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit Google

to conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since such

altitudes are one of the key benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at these low

altitudes, Google’s UAS operations will be conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that which

would be achieved if larger manned aircraft were to be used at the altitudes required by FAR §

91.119.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

With respect to paragraph (a), Google intends to comply with this requirement to the same

extent as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA will operate at an altitude such that the loss

of a single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an emergency landing

“without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” Google agrees with the FAA’s

reasoning on this issue in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and therefore does not believe that relief is

required from paragraph (a).

With respect to paragraph (b), Google plans to operate these small UAS over private or

controlled-access properties (with owner/controller permission) in areas that are not congested or

densely populated. Accordingly, Google does not believe that an exemption is necessary from this

paragraph (b) covering “congested areas”.

With respect to paragraph (c), Google requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down

to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. Google’s UAS

operations require lower-level flying, but have a number of self-imposed restrictions to ensure at

least an equivalent level of safety. For example,

 All operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access property.

 Permission from the property owner/controller will be obtained prior to the beginning

of each UA flight.

 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons, vessels,

vehicles, and structures unless:

o Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect non-participating

persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. Google will

ensure that non-participating persons remain under such protection; and if a

situation arises where non-participating persons leave such protection and
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease immediately in a

manner ensuring the safety of the non-participating persons; and/or

o The UA is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the property

owner/controller has granted permission, and the PIC has made a safety

assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined

that it does not present an undue hazard.

Even with this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations by

manned aircraft that comply with this paragraph. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size,

speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk relative to the use of a small UA, with a much

smaller size and lighter weight, operating at much slower speeds, with batteries rather than a

significant fuel load, at all times within VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide view.

Accordingly, as the FAA determined in the Trimble Exemption, at 17-18, relief is warranted here

provided that Google adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlined

above and in this exemption. For these reasons, Google requests relief from the entirety of

paragraph (c), as was recently granted in the AAIR Exemption, at 6, the Amazon Exemption, at 5,

and the Pro Drones Canada Exemption, at 2.

To the extent necessary, Google also requests relief from paragraph (d)(1), which applies

only to helicopters and allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed helicopter route.

Flying a manned helicopter would pose a significantly greater risk than using a small UA for the

proposed operations, even if the helicopter is on a specific route or at a specific low height

prescribed by the FAA. A manned helicopter is much heavier, larger, and faster than a small UA.

Moreover, unlike an unmanned, battery-powered small UA, the helicopter has people on-board and

a fuel load. The operation of a small UA at all times within the VLOS of the PIC on the ground would
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 20 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

be at least as safe as a manned helicopter operation operating in conformity with the requirements

of paragraph (d)(1), and therefore an exemption from FAR § 91.119(d)(1) is warranted.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising

altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference

to an altimeter that is set, when operating—

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along

the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported

altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio,

the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate

altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b) * * * *.

It is not clear to Google that an exemption from this section is required, because, although

the regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a “cruising altitude” and dictates the

altimeter setting that will be used while at that cruising altitude, cruising altitudes for VFR flights do

not begin – according to FAR § 91.159 – until “more than 3,000 feet above the surface”.6

Nonetheless, Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary to permit

Google to conduct the small UAS operations described in this Petition. See, e.g., AAIR Exemption,

at 6; Amazon Exemption, at 5; Pro Drones Canada Exemption, at 2; Astraeus Exemption, at 21-22.

6 FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3-1-1para. 3-1-2. (Jul.

24, 2014).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

Google recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by Google

maintains altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA may rely on

Google’s UAS to be operating as proposed. Before each flight, the UA's altitude reading will be

reset to “0” when the motors arm to ensure that the measurements of the UA’s altitude are as

accurate as possible relative to the local elevation. To the extent that this methodology does not

satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, Google requests an exemption to permit UAS

operations using this methodology.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions

unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is

enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming

normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions

unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is

enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming

normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit Google to plan its UAS

operations as described above. The proposed small UAS operations in this Petition will (i) involve

operations in which one or more UAS is transported by means other than its own power to the

operational location, and (ii) begin and end at the operational site, with the takeoff, entire flight, and

landing all taking place within the immediate proximity of each other while remaining at all times

within VLOS of the PIC.

The goal of FAR § 91.151 is to ensure that pilots plan for an extra 20 minutes (rotorcraft

flying), 30 minutes (airplane daytime flying), or 45 minutes (airplane nighttime flying) of fuel at their
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

first intended point of landing in order to account for unexpected possible delays en route and at the

first planned destination. Many of these delays that plague manned aircraft are simply not an issue

with the proposed small UAS operations over private or controlled access property, because there is

virtually no “en route” portion of the flight and any problems at the point of landing are extremely

unlikely to cause delays, since a UA can always land just a few feet away if the intended point of

landing becomes unusable.

Given the relatively short operating time for the Project Wing UAS, requiring a full 20, 30, or

45 minutes of reserve “fuel” (battery power) would effectively take up all of the available time for

UAS operations. Google believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning purposes will

be at least as safe as using the reserves required by FAR § 91.151 for manned aircraft. To that end,

and consistent with AAIR Exemption Limitation No. 20, Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 20, and

Pro Drones Canada Exemption Limitation No. 20, the PIC under this requested exemption will be

prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions)

there is enough power available for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after

that for at least five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power recommended by Google (as the

UAS manufacturer). See Proposed Limitation 3.2.7. Such a battery reserve is more than sufficient,

particularly in light of the FAA’s acceptance of a 5-minute reserve in the AAIR Exemption, the

Amazon Exemption, and the Pro Drones Canada Exemption. Google believes that this proposed

reserve requirement, in combination with the operational requirements that Google is proposing

under this exemption, will provide at least an equivalent level of safety to that provided by FAR §

91.151.

For these reasons, Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit it to plan and

conduct UAS operations subject to the reserve power limitation explained above.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this

part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as

prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) ****.

Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Google to conduct the small

UAS operations proposed in this Petition without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy

repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and Trimble Exemption, the FAA

determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and that

achieving an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. Google has

proposed in Section 3 of this Petition several conditions and limitations related to maintenance and

inspections which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR §

91.405(a). For this reason, and consistent with the recent exemptions granted from this section in

the AAIR Exemption, the Amazon Exemption, and the Pro Drones Canada Exemption, Google

requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Google to conduct UAS operations as

proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and limitations proposed above, without having to

perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a).

Google does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405

is required, since Google will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in

accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative/non-functioning instrument or

item of equipment for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph

(c), and appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative/non-functioning

instruments or equipment in compliance with paragraph (d).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding

or alteration.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person

authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as

applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b)  .

(c) ** **.

Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Google to conduct small

UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS approved for return to

service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined

that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1), and that achieving

an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. Google has proposed in this

Petition maintenance-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at

least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1). For this reason, and consistent with the

recent exemptions granted from this section in the AAIR Exemption, the Amazon Exemption, and the

Pro Drones Canada Exemption, Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit

Google to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions

and limitations, without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person

authorized under FAR § 43.7.

Google does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407

is required, since Google will require that maintenance record entries are made as required, in
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

compliance with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried following maintenance

performed on the UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person

may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar

months, it has had—

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter

and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized

by §43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in

accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be

substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is

performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and

is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance

records.

(b)  .

Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Google to conduct

small UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain the annual inspection and

airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). In the Astraeus

Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR §

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and

limitations. Google has proposed in this Petition maintenance and inspection-related conditions and

limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR §

91.409(a)(1) and (2). For this reason, and consistent with the recent exemptions granted from this

section in the AAIR Exemption, the Amazon Exemption, and the Pro Drones Canada Exemption,

Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Google to conduct UAS
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without

having to obtain the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR §

91.409(a)(1) and (2).

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and

91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following

records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and

alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive,

and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate,

for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine,

propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records

must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the

Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person

approving the aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine,

each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe,

engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on

the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a

specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including

the time since the last inspection required by the

inspection program under which the aircraft and its

appliances are maintained.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness

directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each,

the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive

number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive

involves recurring action, the time and date when the next

action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this

chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and

currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and

appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the

periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section

shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by

other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section

shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time

the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or

operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until

the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return

to service.

(c) ** **.

Google requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit Google to conduct

small UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to keep the records described in

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). The FAA determined in the Astraeus Exemption that the proposed UAS

operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that achieving an adequate level

of safety required certain conditions and limitations. Google has proposed in this Petition

maintenance, inspection, and records-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a

level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). For this reason, and

consistent with the recent exemptions granted from this section in the AAIR Exemption, the Amazon

Exemption, and the Pro Drones Canada Exemption, Google requests an exemption from FAR §
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 28 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

91.417(a) and (b) to permit Google to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject

to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to keep the records described in FAR §

91.417(a) and (b).

Additional FAR Provisions.

The Petition does not seek exemption from certain regulations based on the reasoning and

FAA precedent outlined below in the footnote.7 However, Google also requests that, to the extent

that the FAA concludes that an exemption from one or more other provisions of the FAR would be

7 This Petition does not seek exemption from:

> FAR Part 21 or 36, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14.

> FAR § 91.7(b), based on the reasoning in the Trimble Exemption, at 17.

> FAR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014

Memorandum titled “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an

unmanned aircraft’s control station” (“FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum”), the Astraeus Exemption, at

19-20, 22, and the Trimble Exemption, at 17, 20.

> FAR §§ 45.23(b) and 91.9(c), based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and the

Trimble Exemption, at 14, related to FAR § 45.23(b), and assuming that the markings on the UA used to

comply with FAR Part 45, Subpart C requirements are as large as practicable.

> FAR §§ 47.3(b)(2) and 47.31(c), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum,

and assuming that all UA are registered in accordance with FAR Part 47.

> FAR § 91.103(b)(2), based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, which concluded

that an exemption from the preflight action requirements is not necessary when the grant of an exemption

for UAS operations includes conditions that satisfy preflight action requirements. Google proposes such

conditions in this Petition.

> FAR § 91.109, based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, which concluded that

an exemption from the requirement for dual flight controls for flight or simulator training or for flight testing

is not necessary when there is no indication that dual flight controls will be used during any flight or

simulator training or flight testing.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 29 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

required to permit the UAS operations described in this Petition, the FAA grant an exemption from

those FAR provisions as necessary to permit the small UAS operations described in this Petition.8

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest:

A grant of the requested exemption for small UAS operations as described herein would be

in the public interest for several reasons.

First, the ability to use a small UAS as described herein, subject to the conditions and

limitations proposed in this Petition, would enable Google to conduct research and development on

delivery services using UAS and explore the significant potential of such services. To this point,

Google believes that consumers want timely and accurate delivery of goods. During surveys, four

out of five shoppers say aerial delivery within the hour would make them more likely to order online

from a retailer, and research suggests that two-thirds of consumers say they expect to receive their

first drone-delivered package in the next five years.

Second, as part of the larger delivery industry, there is tremendous economic opportunity in

the use of small UAS for the delivery of goods. Industry analysts suggest that the courier and local

delivery market in the U.S. brings in nearly $100 billion in revenue annually. Aerial delivery using

UAS would help small businesses reach more customers at lower costs, enabling those businesses

to grow and create jobs.

Third, aerial delivery services with small UAS could also reach remote areas not served well

by current infrastructure or cut off from such connectivity by natural disasters and other

emergencies. The limits of ground transportation and other delivery platforms in such remote areas

8 Google would be happy to provide follow-on documentation providing the rationale underlying any such

additional exemptions.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 30 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

are self-evident. Unlocking the potential of aerial delivery with small UAS could help address this

significant issue.

Fourth, aerial delivery services with small UAS could also enhance overall safety as

compared to current delivery methods using trucks/cars/motorcycles or larger manned aircraft.

Aerial delivery services could have other potential social benefits. A recent study by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that the total value of societal harm from motor vehicle

crashes in 2010 was $871 billion, or 1.9 percent of GDP that year. Even a slight reduction in the

volume of traffic accidents involving delivery vehicles would have a substantial positive impact on

our society and economy. The same calculus applies when comparing delivery of products using

manned aircraft against such delivery using small UAS. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight,

size, speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk relative to the use of a small UAS, with a

much smaller size and lighter weight, operating at much slower speeds, with battery power rather

than a significant fuel load, at all times within the VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide

view. See, e.g., Amazon Exemption, at 4 (concluding that the proposed UAS operation would be in

the public interest as a result of the enhanced safety achieved by using a small UAS).

Google also wants to point out that our research efforts are currently aimed at gathering data

that will then be used to make our UAS even safer and more reliable as the technology develops.

We will further develop technologies that will improve safety and reliability and provide to the FAA

additional evidence of the safety of our operations as we move towards more widespread

commercial integration of UAS into the National Airspace System.

5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or

how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that

provided by the rule from which exemption is sought:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 31 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

Throughout this Petition, Google has explained many reasons why granting an exemption

from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would result in UAS operations that provide

a level of safety equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.

Moreover, the many conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, coupled with the operational

protocols for this small UAS, also would ensure at least an equivalent level of safety, as the FAA

concluded in the Amazon Exemption, the AAIR Exemption, the Pro Drones Canada Exemption, and

the Trimble Exemption, among others.

In general, the risks of any small UAS operation proposed in this Petition interfering with a

manned aircraft or harming persons or property would be minimized by numerous factors, including

but not limited to:

 the low altitude at which the UAS would operate;

 the locations at which the UAS would operate (e.g., remote areas; private or controlled

access property; away from airports);

 the small size, light weight, and relatively slow speed of the UAS;

 the restriction on UAS operations to VMC and daytime conditions;

 the requirement for the PIC to maintain VLOS of the UA at all times; and

 the PIC’s holding a valid driver’s license or FAA airmen medical certificate (to satisfy the

medical requirement) and at least a sport pilot certificate.

Importantly, the Project Wing UAS has several other safety-related protocols in case there is any lost

link between the UA and the operator or any other emergency. The lost link procedures for Google’s

small UAS will include: return to base, and land immediately. There is also an independent flight

termination system which will activate itself in a lost link event and immediately power-down and

bring the vehicle to the ground. “Geo-fence” functionality will also be implemented to ensure the UA

does not leave the pre-defined operations area. In addition, in most cases, there will be a further-
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 32 -

\\DC - 039430/000022 - 6671149 v3

restricted zone defined to provide a buffer from uncontrolled areas and to provide additional safety.

For example, in the event the UA were to reach the interior boundary, a “land” or “RTB” command

would be issued, whereas if the UA were to reach the outer boundary, this would result in a

deactivation command that would immediately bring the aircraft to the ground, ensuring that the UA

does not exit the operations area.

Moreover, the UA weighs less than 55 lbs. and will cruise at speeds less than 100 mph (less

than the maximum allowed under previous summary grant Section 333 exemptions). This

combination of weight and speed results in a relatively low kinetic energy profile, which significantly

reduces the safety risk to persons or property.

The conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition and the operational safety features of

the Project Wing UAS provide substantial protection against interference with manned aircraft

operations or with the safety of persons or property on the ground. For these reasons, granting an

exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would not adversely affect

safety, and would provide a level of safety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule

from which exemption is sought.

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from

which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature of the

exemption sought:

Google proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______

Petitioner: Google Inc.

Sections of 14 CFR: 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) and (b),

61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3), 91.7(a), 91.119(c) and (d)(1), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a),

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).