HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Everglades Farm Equipment Company,

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF THE EVERGLADES FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY

FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

Lisa Ellman and Patrick R. Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-637-6934 / -8644 / -5659

Fax: 202-637-5910

lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

COUNSEL FOR THE EVERGLADES FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY

DATE: July 8, 2015
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 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 ....................................................................... - 7 -

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding the Farm Equipment Company

manuals related to UAS operations ............................................................................... - 8 -

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 ......................................................................................................... - 11 -

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which the Farm

Equipment Company 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 ........................... - 27 -

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.......................... - 27 -

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. ................................................................................................ - 29 -

5.7 Additional information that supports request............................................................... - 29 -

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S........................ - 29 -

5.9 Attachments...................................................................................................................... - 29 -

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ - 30 -
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

The Everglades Farm Equipment Company (“Farm Equipment Company”) is a family-owned

business that started in 1963 serving the agricultural industry around Lake Okeechobee in Florida,

and has grown to 12 locations covering South and Central Florida. The Farm Equipment Company

serves a wide range of customers from some of the largest agricultural producers of sugar, citrus

and vegetables to individual farmers, nurseries, and commercial landscape management companies

as well as large and small property owners.

The Farm Equipment Company has pursued excellence by focusing on customer service

and satisfaction. The Farm Equipment Company is eager to benefit – and thus allow its customers

and the public to benefit – from the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). The Farm Equipment

Company seeks an exemption to operate small UAS for aerial data collection for purposes of crop

scouting, disease prevention, land forming, and stand count operations in South Florida.

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, the Farm Equipment Company requests that the

FAA grant the Farm Equipment Company an exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed

below in Sections 5.2 and 5.3) so that the company may operate one or more small UAS for

conducting aerial imaging, remote sensing, and aerial surveying in support of precision agricultural

operations. These proposed operations involve aerial data collection, consistent with grants like

Exemption No. 11213 (March 24, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0642) (“Aeryon Labs Exemption”), as well

as previously granted summary grant exemptions. As explained below, the Farm Equipment

Company’s proposed UAS operations, as conditioned and limited herein, will not adversely affect
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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 current data collection methods. See FAR

§ 11.81.

The Farm Equipment Company respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested

exemption on an expedited basis. To that end, as detailed below, the Farm Equipment Company

agrees to comply with the conditions and limitations imposed in recent exemptions, including ones

related to precision agriculture, aerial surveying, and research and development activities. See, e.g.,

Exemption No. 11345 (April 16, 2015; Docket FAA−2015−0048) (“PrecisionHawk Exemption”);

Exemption No. 11855 (June 18, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1163) (“US Drone Aviation Exemption”).

Given the Farm Equipment Company’s 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, and any delay in the FAA’s acting on

this Petition would be detrimental to the Farm Equipment Company and delay its implementation of

these use cases. Accordingly, as with the PrecisionHawk Exemption, at 1, and the US Drone

Aviation 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. As noted above, these conditions and limitations are the same conditions and

limitations as those in previously granted small UAS Section 333 exemptions, including recent

summary grant exemptions. To facilitate the FAA’s review of this Petition, the Farm Equipment

Company provides a chart at the end of this Section 3 cross-referencing the conditions and

limitations from the PrecisionHawk Exemption and the Aeryon Labs Exemption with the
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

corresponding conditions and limitations outlined below. 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, large manned

aircraft operations, and other data collection methods.

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS

The Farm Equipment Company intends to operate the small, lightweight Hawkeye Mk-III

UAS under the requested exemption. The Hawkeye Mk-III is a miniature propeller-driven, fixed-wing

airplane built by PrecisionHawk that weighs less than six pounds. The Hawkeye Mk-III has been the

UAS designated to be used in previously granted exemptions, including the PrecisionHawk

Exemption and Exemption No. 11309 (April 8, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0946) (“USAA Exemption”).

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 the Hawkeye Mk-III

UAS. The UA will have a gross weight of not more than 55 pounds,

including energy sources, equipment, and payload. Proposed

operations of any other UAS will require a new petition or a petition to

amend this exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 1;

PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 1.]

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

operating speed recommended by the UA manufacturer, and in no

event will it be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per

hour). The Farm Equipment Company may use either groundspeed or

calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the maximum speed

restriction. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 3; PrecisionHawk

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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 22; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 22; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No.

22.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 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 the airspace

requirements in the ATO-issued COA. Should the Farm Equipment

Company want to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under

the terms of the blanket COA accompanying this exemption, the Farm

Equipment Company will apply for a new or amended COA. [Aeryon

Labs Exemption Limitation No. 21; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 2; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No.

2.]

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

point (“ARP”) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory,

or for airports not denoted with an ARP, 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 the Farm

Equipment Company. The Farm Equipment Company will make the

letter agreement available to the FAA or any law enforcement official

upon request. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 16;

PrecisionHawk 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”). The PIC will be

designated before the flight, and cannot transfer his or her designation

for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can

perform the functions prescribed for the VO. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 6; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.5 The UA will be operated within the 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6;

PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6;

PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

3.2.6 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO must 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6;

PrecisionHawk 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 the UA manufacturer. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 20; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

10; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 9; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No.

9.]

3.2.10 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet

above ground level (“AGL”). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4;

PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 4.]

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

AGL. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4; PrecisionHawk

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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 27;

PrecisionHawk 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:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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

of an accident. The Farm Equipment Company must 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 must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the

safety of the non-participating 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.

[Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 26; PrecisionHawk Exemption

Limitation No. 26.]

3.2.14 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological

conditions (VMC) only. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15;

PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.15 The Farm Equipment Company will not operate UAS flights under

Special Visual Flight Rules (SVFR). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation

No. 15; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; PrecisionHawk

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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 24; PrecisionHawk

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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 17;

PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 17.]

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

vehicle. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 25; PrecisionHawk

Exemption Limitation No. 25.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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) must 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 must remain at

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be

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

persons and property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 8;

PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 8.]

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

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

private or controlled-access property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 18; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 19; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 23; PrecisionHawk 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

28; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

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 must hold (i) either an ATP, commercial, private, recreational

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

certificate or a valid driver’s license issued by a State, the District of

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

Government. The PIC must satisfy the flight review requirements of 14
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

C.F.R. § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her

pilot certificate. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 13;

PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 13.]

3.3.2 The operator 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 must be logged in a manner

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

training the Farm Equipment Company’s PICs and VOs (training,

proficiency, and experience-building) 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. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 14; PrecisionHawk 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 must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 14; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No.

14.]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding the Farm Equipment Company manuals

related to UAS operations

The Farm Equipment Company has a manual and checklist for the PrecisionHawk Hawkeye

Mk-III UAS (collectively, the “Manuals”). The Manuals will be subject to the following limitations and

conditions:

3.4.1 The Operating Documents1 must be accessible during UAS operations

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

between the conditions and limitations in the exemption and the

procedures outlined in the other Operating Documents, the conditions

and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be

followed. Otherwise, the Farm Equipment Company must follow the

procedures as outlined in the Operating Documents. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 7; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No.

7.]

1

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

needed by the Farm Equipment Company to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance

with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation

No. 7; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

3.4.2 The Farm Equipment Company may update or revise its Operating

Documents, and it is the Farm Equipment Company’s responsibility to

track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the

FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. The Farm

Equipment Company must also present updated and revised

documents if it petitions for an extension or amendment of the

exemption. If the Farm Equipment Company determines that any

update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted

the requested exemption, then the Farm Equipment Company must

petition for an amendment to the exemption. The Farm Equipment

Company will contact the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) if

questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the Operating

Documents. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7; PrecisionHawk

Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.4.3 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all

manufacturer safety bulletins. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

12; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 12.]

3.4.4 The Farm Equipment Company will follow the UAS manufacturer’s

maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit

requirements for the UAS and UAS components. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 11; PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No.

11.]

In sum, the Farm Equipment Company’s operations under this exemption will be subject to

the same conditions and limitations imposed in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the PrecisionHawk

Exemption.

CROSS-REFERENCES

Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

PrecisionHawk 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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

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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

In accordance with FMRA Section 333, the Farm Equipment Company requests that the

Secretary of Transportation determine that the Farm Equipment Company’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.

The Farm Equipment Company further requests that, based on the Secretary’s

determination, the FAA determine – as it did in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the PrecisionHawk

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.2

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

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, the Farm Equipment Company provides the following

information in support of this Petition:

5.1 Contact information:

Name: The Everglades Farm Equipment Company submits this Petition for

Exemption, through counsel, Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi.

Mailing address: Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi

Counsel for the Everglades Farm Equipment Company

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone/Facsimile number:

(T) 202-637-6934 (Ellman) / 202-637-5659 (Rizzi)

(F) 202-637-5910

E-mail addresses:

2 Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 7; PrecisionHawk Exemption, at 2. If the FAA concludes that the

UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21 and/or 36, then the

Farm Equipment Company requests that the FAA include that relief in the exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 12 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which the Farm Equipment

Company 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) – 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:

The Farm Equipment Company proposes to conduct small UAS operations, as described

herein, for aerial data collection including aerial imaging, remote sensing, and aerial surveying in

support of precision agriculture operations. In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, the

Farm Equipment Company petitions the FAA, pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b),

for an exemption from the following sections of the FAR for the reasons noted:

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:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

(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.

(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. . . .

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent

necessary to permit the Farm Equipment Company to conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold

(i) an FAA private pilot, recreational pilot, or a sport pilot certificate, and (ii) an FAA airman medical

certificate or a state driver’s license. While the Farm Equipment Company 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, the Farm Equipment Company requests that the FAA exempt the Farm

Equipment Company 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 Hawkeye Mk-III UAS is

lightweight, remotely controlled, and battery-powered (not fuel/gas), and it has no crew or
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 14 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

passengers. The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a sport, recreational or private 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 for 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 (“VLOS”), small UAS

operations over private 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 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 the

Farm Equipment Company’s case, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be the

Farm Equipment Company’s property. While the PIC will be compensated, all risk of damage to the

property (in fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by the Farm Equipment Company. 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. In addition, the Farm Equipment

Company has a training program to ensure that the experience, knowledge, and flight proficiency

needed to operate the Hawkeye Mk-III UAS safely are achieved for its PICs. 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 the Farm Equipment Company plans to operate its Hawkeye Mk-III 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 requirements, the limited
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

airmanship skills necessary to operate this small 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 the certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the Aeryon Labs Exemption

and the PrecisionHawk Exemption.

For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, the Farm

Equipment Company requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit the Farm Equipment

Company to use as 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 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. . . .

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from this provision to the extent

necessary to permit the Farm Equipment Company to conduct the small UAS operations proposed

in this Petition.3The Hawkeye Mk-III UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate under FAR

Part 21, Subpart H, and the Petitioner therefore requests relief from this regulation. See Exemption

No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”), at 16. An

exemption is warranted because the Farm Equipment Company understands that, notwithstanding

the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with [the Farm

Equipment Company’s Manuals] to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and

3 The Farm Equipment Company requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief

granted in the Trimble Exemption, at 16, 21. However, the Farm Equipment Company 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

- 16 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

that the Farm Equipment Company must still determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight

based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption, at 16.

FAR § 91.119(c) – 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.

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent

necessary to permit the Farm Equipment Company to conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower

than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since the ability to operate at such altitudes is one of the key

benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at these low altitudes, the Farm Equipment

Company’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

- 17 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

With respect to paragraph (a), the Farm Equipment Company intends to comply with this

requirement to the same extent as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA must 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.” The Farm

Equipment Company 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), the Farm Equipment Company 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, the Farm Equipment Company does not believe

that an exemption is necessary from this paragraph (b) covering “congested areas.”

With respect to paragraph (c), the Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption to

allow UAS operations down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than

congested” areas. The Farm Equipment Company’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. The Farm

Equipment Company 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 non-participating

persons; and/or
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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 a grant of 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 compared 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 the Farm Equipment Company adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions

and limitations outlined above and in the exemption. For these reasons, the Farm Equipment

Company requests relief from the entirety of paragraph (c), as was recently granted in the Aeryon

Labs Exemption and the PrecisionHawk Exemption.

The Farm Equipment Company does not request relief from paragraph (d) because it applies

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

and powered parachute-type aerial vehicles.

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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

(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 the Farm Equipment Company 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 must 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.”4 Nonetheless, the Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR

§ 91.121 to the extent necessary to permit the company to conduct the UAS operations proposed in

this Petition. See, e.g., Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 12; PrecisionHawk Exemption, at 2; Astraeus

Exemption, at 21-22.

The Farm Equipment Company recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS

operated by the company maintains altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the

FAA may rely on the Farm Equipment Company’s UAS to be operating as proposed. The PIC will

check the UA altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will effectively zero the UA’s altitude at the

point of takeoff, to ensure that 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, the Farm Equipment Company 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—

4 FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3-1-1, para. 3-1-

2. (July 24, 2014).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 20 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

(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.

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit the

Farm Equipment Company 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 or 30 minutes of fuel at

their 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 Hawkeye Mk-III UAS, requiring a full 30

minutes of reserve “fuel” (battery power) could take up much, if not all, of the time available for

Hawkeye Mk-III UAS operations. The Farm Equipment Company 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 Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 20 and PrecisionHawk Exemption Limitation No. 20, the PIC under the 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

by the UA 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 Aeryon Labs

Exemption and the PrecisionHawk Exemption. The Farm Equipment Company believes that these

limitations will further ensure that the proposed reserve planning and operational requirements that

the Farm Equipment Company is requesting to use under this exemption will provide at least an

equivalent level of safety.

For these reasons, the Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR §

91.151 to permit it to plan and conduct UAS operations subject to the reserve power limitation

explained above.

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) ****.

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit the

Farm Equipment Company to conduct the 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 the Trimble Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations

required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and that the achievement of an adequate level of safety

required certain conditions and limitations. The Farm Equipment Company 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 exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs

Exemption and the PrecisionHawk Exemption, the Farm Equipment Company requests an

exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit the company to conduct UAS operations as proposed in
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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).

The Farm Equipment Company does not believe that an exemption from the remaining

paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is required, since the Farm Equipment Company will make appropriate

logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark

any inoperative 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 instruments or equipment in compliance with paragraph (d).

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.

. . . .

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit

the Farm Equipment Company to conduct 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), subject to certain conditions and limitations. The Farm Equipment

Company 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 exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption

and the PrecisionHawk Exemption, the Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

§ 91.407(a)(1) to permit the company 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.

The Farm Equipment Company does not believe that an exemption from the remaining

paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is required, since the Farm Equipment Company will require that

maintenance record entries are made as required, in 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)  .

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to

permit the Farm Equipment Company to conduct 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. The Farm Equipment Company has

proposed in this Petition maintenance and inspection-related conditions and limitations which it
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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 exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs

Exemption and the PrecisionHawk Exemption, the Farm Equipment Company requests an

exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit the Farm Equipment Company to conduct UAS

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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

inspection program under which the aircraft and its

appliances are maintained.

(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) ** **.

The Farm Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to

permit the Farm Equipment Company to conduct 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 an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations.

The Farm Equipment Company has proposed in this Petition maintenance, inspection, and recordsrelated 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 exemptions granted

from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the PrecisionHawk Exemption, the Farm

Equipment Company requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit the company to
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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.5 However, the Farm Equipment Company also

requests that, to the extent that the FAA concludes that an exemption from one or more other

provisions of the FAR would be required to permit the UAS operations described in this Petition, the

FAA grant an exemption from those FAR provisions as necessary to permit the UAS operations

described in this Petition.6

5 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. The Farm Equipment

Company 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.

6

The Farm Equipment Company would be happy to provide follow-on documentation providing the

rationale underlying any such additional exemptions.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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

A grant of the requested exemption to allow small UAS to operate for aerial data collection

for the purpose of aerial imaging, remote sensing, and aerial surveying in support of the Farm

Equipment Company precision agriculture operations would be in the public interest for several

reasons.

First, the use of UAS by the Farm Equipment Company will increase efficiencies for sugar,

citrus and vegetable producers in addition to individual farmers – increasing crops’ yields over time

and lowering costs for consumers. Remote sensing via satellite and aircraft are expensive, timeconsuming, and unsafe compared with using small UAS for the same tasks. The consistent ability of

a UAS to repeatedly, safely, and cost effectively acquire very high resolution, remotely-sensed

research data at low altitudes holds the potential to change agriculture and production capabilities

for all kinds of operations, including that of the Farm Equipment Company.

Second, the Hawkeye Mk-III UAS operations proposed in this Petition are also

environmentally friendly – benefiting South Florida, the state, and the United States. The UAS use

described in this Petition will enhance the Farm Equipment Company’s abilities to detect and prevent

disease and treat crops efficiently, lowering the amount of pesticides necessary over time and

benefiting the environment and the public at large.

In sum, the ability to operate the Hawkeye Mk-III UAS will benefit the Farm Equipment

Company’s precision agriculture operations tremendously, and is in the public interest. The aerial

data collection operations proposed in this Petition would be far less risky, and more efficient, than if

conducted with larger, faster, heavier, combustible fuel-powered manned aircraft.

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:

Throughout this Petition, the Farm Equipment Company has discussed 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 28 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

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 Aeryon Labs Exemption, the PrecisionHawk Exemption,

the Astreaus 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 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 Hawkeye Mk-III UAS;

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

 the requirement for the UA to be operated within the VLOS of the PIC and VO at all

times.

Importantly, the Hawkeye Mk-III has several other safety-related protocols including

continuous in-flight diagnostics and monitoring, in-the-air flight path calculations, auto-pilot detection

of lost GPS or insufficient satellites, loiter and return home capabilities, autonomous emergency

recovery ability, emergency flight termination system, and manual override capabilities.

The risks to persons or property on the ground would be substantially mitigated – if not

eliminated – by these same factors, as well as the 500-foot set-off from non-participating persons,

vehicles, and structures absent additional safeguards. Per the conditions and limitations proposed

in this Petition, (i) the PIC will suspend/abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the Manuals; and (ii) the Farm Equipment

Company will coordinate extensively, as warranted, with the FAA, with local airports, and with

property owners to ensure that all UAS operations under the exemption are at least as safe as would

be manned aircraft operations used for similar purposes.

The conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition (which have been found by the FAA

to be acceptable for other summary grant exemptions) and the operational safety features of the
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 29 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

Hawkeye Mk-III 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:

The Farm Equipment Company proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______

Petitioner: The Everglades Farm Equipment Company

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), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a),

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

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to operate small UAS

for aerial data collection for purposes of crop scouting, disease prevention, land

forming, and stand count operations in South Florida.

5.7 Additional information that supports request:

The Farm Equipment Company is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA

might find helpful, or to answer questions in response to any FAA requests.

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

The Farm Equipment Company does not request to exercise the privileges of this exemption

outside the United States.

5.9 Attachments:

There are no attachments accompanying this Petition.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 30 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6673162 v3

6. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Farm Equipment Company respectfully requests that the FAA

grant this Petition for Exemption.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Ellman / Patrick Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

COUNSEL FOR THE EVERGLADES FARM

EQUIPMENT COMPANY