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, 2015HOGAN 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. [AAIRHOGAN 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; AmazonHOGAN 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 ceaseimmediately 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 oftraining 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, andthe 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 Documents 3 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 3.2.1HOGAN 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 andHOGAN 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 privateHOGAN 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 withHOGAN 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. 5 The 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 andHOGAN 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 wouldHOGAN 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 o r a b ove 1 8 , 0 0 0 fe et M S L , to 2 9

. 9 2 ′′ H g

. (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 theirHOGAN 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, inHOGAN 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 UASHOGAN 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).