Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York 1676 International Drive • Penthouse McLean, VA 22102
Tel: 703.336.8800 mckennalong.com Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708
Matthew J. Clark

703.336.8714 Email Address mmckinnon@mckennal ong.com mclark@mckennalong.com

June 10

, 2015

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Moderni zation and Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act ) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, University of Oregon ( hereinafter sometimes referred to as " UO " or "the University" ) hereby applies for a Summa ry Grant of Exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs ) identified below, to operate small unmanned aerial vehicles ( i.e., small

unmanned aircraft systems or UAS ) for the purpose of conducting aerial data collection, including aerial imaging and remote sensing and surveying

, in support of its education and research operations

. UO respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for expedited approval, as the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) has previously issued grants of exe mption in circumstances

similar in all material respects to those presented herein.

In addition to this Petition for Exemption, UO will also submit The University UAS Operations Manual under separate cover. UO submits this Operations Manual as a confid ential document under separate cover pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), as the material contain confidential commercial and proprietary information that UO has not and will not share with others. The information contained in the Operations Manual is not ge nerally available to the public and is protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of University of Oregon for Summary Grant of Exemption Pursuant to

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 2

For your convenience, this Petition is organized as follows:

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

P AGE

I. B ACKGROUND & D ESCRIPTION OF P ETITI ONER

................................ ................................ 3

II. D ESCRIPTION OF P ROPOSED O PERATION

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

III. R ELEVANT S TATUTORY A UTHORITY

................................ ................................ ................. 5

IV. UO' S P ROPOSED UAS O PERATIONS M EET THE R EQUIREMENTS OF S ECTION 333

OF THE R EFORM A CT

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and Operational Capability

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

B. Approval is Warranted Based on the Operational Restrictions in UO's Operating Documents

................................ ................................ .............................. 6

V. R EGULATIONS F ROM W HICH E XEMPTION I S S OUGHT

................................ ...................... 6

A. 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8

B. 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a ) and (b): Maintenance Inspections

................................ ................................ .......................... 8

C. 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113, 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.315: Private, Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges and

Limitations

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

D. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

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

E. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

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

F. 91.103: Preflight Action

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

G. 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

................................ ................................ ................. 12

H. 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other Than Congested Areas

.............. 12

I. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

................................ ................................ .................... 13

J. 91.151( a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

................................ 13

VI. D RUG AND A LCOHOL P ROGRAM

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

VII. P UBLIC I NTEREST

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

VIII. P RIVACY

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

IX. F EDERAL R EGISTER S UMM ARY

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

X. C ONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 15U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 3

I. B ACKG ROUND & D ESCRIPTION OF P ETITIONER

In 1859, Congress required Oregon’s founders to establish a public university. In the early 1870s, Judge Joshua Walton convinced residents of Eugene City to become home to what would become the state’s flagship universit y. Since its founding in 1876, UO has produced seven Oregon governors, eight U.S. Senators, two Nobel Prize winners, thirteen Pulitzer Prize winners, nineteen Rhodes Scholars, thirteen Olympic medalists, and six NFL Hall of Famers. Today, more than
24,00 0 UO students, from all 50 states and more than 95 countries, can choose from 272 academic programs in 10 schools and colleges at the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels.

The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university committed to exceptional teach ing, discovery, and service. I n 1969, the University of Oregon was admitted into the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU), an organization of leading research institutions devoted to maintaining a strong sy stem of academic research and education. UO is one of just thirty

- six public universities in the AAU, and one of only two in the Pacific Northwest.

Research, both basic and applied, is fundamental to the identity and mission of the University. UO has a long history of interdisciplinary research that continues today in the University’s nineteen research centers and institutes. Accounting for more than half of all sponsored research dollars at the University, the UO’s centers and institutes employ some of the most productive researchers in the country. In addition to the centers and institutes, UO also has strong and expanding research programs in the College of Education, the College of Business, the College of Arts and Sciences, the Museum of Cultural and Natural History, the Office of International Affairs, the School of Allied Arts and the Division of Equity and Inclusion. Supporting all research on campus are nine Research Core Facilities that provide cutting edge physical science tools and experti se to internal faculty/staff/students and external entity users to enable outstanding research

and innovation.

The University is always seeking innovative ways to bolster its research programs. New UAS technologies have enormous potential for numerous applications at UO, including, for example, aerial imaging, remote sensing, geological/geographic surveying and mapping, field archeology work, and habitat analysis. For example, the ability to deploy a UAS relatively quickly and repeatedly and at low alt itudes, allows for acquiring very high resolution remotely sensed research data that would otherwise be too costly, unsafe, or impossible using manned aircraft and

other traditional methods. The ability to operate UAS would benefit UO’s research programs

t remendously. For these reasons, the University of Oregon seeks an exemption for commercial operations of small UAS for the purpose of conducting aerial data collection.

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(a), UO provides the following information in su pport of its Petition for Exemption.

The contact information for Petitioner is as follows:

Bryan Dearinger

Assistant General CounselU.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 4

University of Oregon

Office of General Counsel

219 Johnson Hall Eugene, Oregon 97403

- 1226

Phone: (541) 346

- 3082

Email: bdearing@uoregon.edu

II. D ESCRIPTION OF P ROPOSED O PERATION

The University of Oregon seeks an exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act to use a number of different UAS platforms for aerial data co llection in support of its education and research operations . By way of example, education and research programs supported by the proposed UAS operations, includes, but is not limited to: archeological studies, architecture, marine biology , geological stu dies , geographic mapping, 3D photogrammetry, aerial photography/ videography, habitat analysis, wildlife and forestry surveys/monitoring, engineering and aeronautical

resear ch, journalism and digital arts. Aerial data collected by UO 's UAS would also be used to promote and market UO , as well as support student re creational and collegiate sport activities.

All of the UAS platforms UO intends to use have been approved for commercial use in other grants of exemption

, including the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phan tom 2 Vision+, and Blade 350QX. As set forth below, the FAA has previously determined that these vehicles meet the criteria established

in Section 333 of the Reform Act and are suitable platforms for performing aerial data collection.

The University is committed to maintaining the highest standards of flight safety

. All UAS operations will be performed in accordance with the accompanying UO operating documents, and in accordance with the requirements of an applicable COA. Among other things, and as de tailed in the operating documents, all UAS operations will occur in uncontrolled airspace, within visual line

- of

sight (VLOS) of the pilot and visual observer, and will be limited to daytime VFR conditions.
Moreover, UO 's operating documents incorporate r edundant safeguards to enhance safety.

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption are not new or novel to the FAA. The FAA has previous ly issued grants of exemption to use small UAS for aerial data collection in support of similar educationa l and research activities , including:

 Exemption No. 11552 to Sinclair Community College to conduct educational research and training (Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0374);

 Exemption No. 11304 to Auburn University Aviation Center to conduct training courses

to instr uct students in the operation of unmanned aircraft and their associated systems. (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1014 ); and

 Exemption No. 11265 to the City of Roswell Coalition to perform research, development and validation of a formal UAS training curriculum (Dock et No. FAA

- 2014

- 0732).U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 5

The low

- risk UAS operations proposed by UO in this Petition for Exemption fall squarely within the category of aerial data collection that has been subject to previous approval

.

III. R ELEVANT S TATUTORY A UTHORITY

This Petition for E xemption is submitted pursuant to Section 333(a) through (c) of the

Reform Act . Congress has directed the FAA "to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system." Pursuant to Section 333 of the Refo rm Act, the FAA Administrator is to permit unmanned aircraft systems to operate in the NAS where it is safe to do so based on the following considerations:

 The UAS's size, weight, speed and operational capability;

 Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

 Operation of the UAS within the visual line of sight of the operator.

Additionally, the FAA Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from the agency's safety regulations and minimum standards when the Admin istrator decides a requested exemption is in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (defining the authority of the Administrator); 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (permitting exemptions from §§ 44701(a), (b) and §§ 44702

– 44716, et seq. ). A party requesting a n exemption must explain the reasons why the exemption: (1) would benefit the public as a whole, and (2) would not adversely affect safety (or how it would provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rules). See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 (petitions f or exemption).

IV. UO ' S P ROPOSED UAS O PERATIONS M EET THE R EQUIREMENTS OF S ECTION 333 OF

THE R EFORM A CT

UO 's proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption qualify for expedited approval via the summary grant process pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Ac t

, as each of the statutory

criteria and relevant factors are satisfied and the FAA has previously issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this Petition for Exemption.

A. Approval is Warranted Base d on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and Operational Capability

The FAA is familiar with and has already determined that all five of the vehicles chosen by

UO meet the requirements of Section 333 of the Reform Act due to their weight, speed and operationa l capabilities : the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and Blade 350QX

. See

, e.g.
,

 DJI Phantom 2: Exemption No. 11315 to The Climate Corporation and Precision Planting, LLC; Exemption No. 114 45 to Unmanned Aerial Solutions; and Exemption No. 11289 to Bird's Eye Solutions, LLC.U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 6

 DJI Phantom 2 Vision+: Exemption No. 11224 to NextEra Energy, Inc.; Exemption No. 11230 to Montico, Inc.; Exemption No. 11228 to Steven Zeets ; Exemption No. 11218 to Saratoga Aerial Vehicle; and Exemption No. 11215 to Mike Johnson

 Blade 350QX : Exemption No. 11358 to New Heights Aerial Media, LLC.

The FAA has found the following shared characteristics of the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and Blade 350QX to warrant approval for a grant of exemption:

 They all weight l ess than 55 pounds in cluding payload;

 They all have the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in

- flight contingencies or failures and uses an auto

- pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost

- link event with a pre

- coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar operation and mitigate the risk of

command and control link failures ;

 The radio frequencies used for operations and control of the UAS comply with the Fede ral Communications Commission (FCC ) and other appropriate governmen t oversight agency requirements; and

 The UAS all operate at a speed of 87 knot s or less.

B. Approval is Warranted Based on the Operational Restrictions in UO 's Operating Documents

The University UAS Operations Manual and the manufacturer's manuals for the selected UAS platforms (hereinafter collectively referred to as "operati ng documents") contain all the procedures and limitations necessary to safely and successfully perform the proposed operations

. To expedite the FAA's safety assessment of UO 's proposed UAS operations, UO has tailored its operating documents to comply with the condition s and limitations imposed on similarly situated petitioners seeking to use small UAS for aerial data collection. See

, e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11552 issued to Sinclair Community College, Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0374. In particular, the

oper ating documents contain systems and procedures to permit UO to comply with the conditions and limitations in the FAA's Grant of Exemption. Id.

V. R EGULATIONS F ROM W HICH E XEMPTION I S S OUGHT

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority t o issue exemptions. This statutory authority, by its terms, includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is defined underU.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 7

§ 40101 of the Act, including UAS, from its safety regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested exe mption is in the public interest. 1

UO seeks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of 14 C.F.R. Parts 45, 61 and 91 for purposes of conducting the requested operations using small UAS , including:

FAR Description

91.9(c); 45.23(b) and 45.27(a) Aircraft Marking and Identification Req ui rements

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance and Inspection Req ui rements

61.23(a) and (c); 61.113 ; 61.101(e)(4) and (5) , 61.315 Private, Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate Privileges and Limitations

91.7(a) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

91.9(b)(2); 91.203(a) and (b) Carrying Aircraft Flight Manual, Certification and Registration in

the Aircraft

91.103 Preflight Action

91.109(a) Flight Instruction

91 .119(c) Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other than Congested Areas

91.121 Altimeter Settings

91.151(a) Fuel Req ui rements for Flight in VFR Conditions

Listed below are the specific sections of 14 C.F.R. for which an exemption is sought, and the operatin g procedures and safeguards that Petitioner has established which will ensure a level of safety better than or equal to the rules from which exemption is sought. 2

1 See 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (authorizing the grant of exemp tions from requirements of regulations prescribed pursuant to Sections 44701(a) and (b) and Sections 44702

- 44716).

2 See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(e), which requires a petition for exemption to include:

{footnote continued}U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 8

A. 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification

Req ui rements

UO seeks an exemption from the aircraft marking and identification req ui rements contained in 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a).

● 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(c), Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking and Placard R eq ui rements

, provides that:

No person may operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with Part 45 of this chapter.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b), Markings of the Aircraft, states:

When marks include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number is displayed o n limited, restricted or light

- sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches

nor more than 6 inches high, the words "limited," "restricted," "light

- sport, "experimental," or "provisional," as applicable.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.27(a), Rotorcraft, states:

Each operator of a rotorcraft must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both

surface s of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail the marks req ui red by § 45.23.

In prior grants of exemption under Section 333 of the Reform Act , the FAA determined that exemption from these req ui rements was warranted provided that the aircraft "have identificatio n (N

Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R Part 45, Subpart C if the markings are as large as practicable." 3 All UAS flown by UO will bear N

- number markings that are as large as practicable in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C. 4

B. 91.405 (a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Inspections

The University seeks an exemption from the maintenance inspection req ui rements contained in 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a) (1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b). These regulations

{continued from previous page} The 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 you seek exemption.

3 FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352.

4 See, e.g., FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352, at 14.U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 9

specify maintenance and inspection standards in reference to 14 C.F.R. Part 43. 5 An exemption from these regulations is needed because Part 43 and these sections only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, which the UAS to be operated under this grant of exemption will not have.

An eq ui valent level of safety will be achieved because maintenance and inspections will be performed in accordance with the operating documents and any req ui red manufacturer Safety or

Service Bulle tins. Further, as req ui red by the operating documents, the PIC will conduct a pre

- flight inspection of the UAS and all associated eq ui pment to account for all discrepancies and/or inoperable components. Maintenance will be performed and verified to addre ss any conditions potentially affecting safe operation of the UAS and no flights will occur unless, and until, all flight critical components of the UAS have been found to be airworthy and in a condition safe for operation. A functional test flight will b e conducted following the replacement of any flight

- critical components. As req ui red by the operating documents, the PIC who conducts the functional test flight will make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight.

The operating documents als o include req ui rements to follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the air craft and aircraft components. Moreover , the operating documents also include procedures to document and

maintai n a record of the UAS maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, status of replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total time in service of Petitioner's UAS . As a whole, the maintenance and inspection procedures req ui red by Petitioner's ope rating documents

ensure that an eq ui valent or higher level of safety will be achieved.

C. 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113 , 61.101(e)(4) and (5)

, 61.315 : Private, Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges and Limitations

UO seeks exemption from t hese sections , which restricts private

, recreational or sport pilot certificate holders from flying aircraft for compensation or hire, and would also req ui re a second class medical certificate. The purpose of Part 61 is to ensure that the skill and compet ency of any PIC matches the airspace in which the PIC will be operating, as well as req ui ring certifications if the private pilot is carrying passengers or cargo for hire. In this case, while the UAS will be operated as part of a commercial operation, it carries neither passengers nor cargo.

In the Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial 6 , the FAA determined that the unique characteristics of UAS operation outside of controlled airspace did not warrant the addition al

cost and restrictions atten dant with req ui ring the PIC to have a Commercial Pilot Certificate and

Class II Medical Certificate. The fulfillment of the additional req ui rements for a private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benef its when UAS operations are involved.

5 See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 91.4 05(a) (stating that each owner or operator of an aircraft "[s]hall have the aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections

... have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter

. ").

6 FAA D ocket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352

.U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 10

More recently, the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates would also have adequate aeronautical knowledge to pilot a UAS. Accordingly, because these

individuals would also be su bject to security screening by the De partment of Homeland Security (DHS ), the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates would be qualified to serve as the PIC for UAS operations. 7

The restrictions Petitioner has placed on its UAS operations meet or exceed the restrictions similarly imposed on Astraeus Aerial and other operators in more recently granted exemptions under

Sect ion 333 of the FAA Reform Act. UO will operate away from persons and property that is not the subjec t matter of the flight

. UO will also req ui re all PICs to be thoroughly trained in the unique aspects of UAS flight. As set forth in the operating documents, pilots will have experience not only in UAS operations generally but have logged flight time in t he specific make and model used for the operations before they are permitted to participate in commercial flights on behalf of UO . The pilot qualification, training, and currency req ui rements in the operating documents ensure that UO 's pilots

are competen t and proficient in the UAS they are operating. The Petitioner's training and qualification req ui rements are consistent with those contained in prior FAA

- issued grants of exemption , and will provide a higher level of competency and proficiency for its pil ots and will

ensure at least an eq ui valent level of safety.

D. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

Inasmuch as there will be no airworthiness certificate issued for the UAS, UO seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), which req ui res that a civil aircra ft be in an airworthy condition to be operated. While the petitioner’s UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, the FAA has determined that for the purposes of this exemption the pilot may determine the aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior t o flight. The operating documents contain procedures which allow the PIC to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition safe for flight, and an exemption from § 91.7(a) is therefore warranted.

E. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the A ircraft and 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

Title 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) and § 91.203(a) and (b) req ui re the operator to carry

airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals onboard the aircraft.

Pursuant to 1 4 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2):

(b) No person may operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft

–

... (2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is req ui red by § 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or

7 See Grant of Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0642 at pgs.

8

- 9).U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 11

Ro torcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any

combination thereof.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a) and (b):

(a) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it

has within it the followi ng:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate...

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate req ui red by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Given the small size and configuration of the UAS, it would be impossible to keep airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals on board the UAS because there is simply no

roo m and the UAS has no cabin or cockpit.

In an FAA Office of Chief Counsel's Opinion dated August 8, 2014, and prepared by Dean E. Griffith, Attorney, AGC

- 220, it was acknowledged that the intent of 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b) and 91.203(a) and (b) is met if the pil ot of the unmanned aircraft has access to the UAS flight manual, registration certificate, and other req ui red documents from the ground control station from which he or she is operating the aircraft. 8 As this FAA Office of Chief Counsel Opinion clarifies, the intent of the rule is to ensure the pilot has access to these key documents during flight. Therefore, an eq ui valent level of safety will be achieved by ensuring that the pilot has access to the documents at the ground

control station from which he or she is piloting the UAS. 9

F. 91.103: Preflight Action

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103, which req ui res a PIC to become familiar with specific information before each flight, including information contained in the FAA

approved Fl ight Manual on board the aircraft. While the PIC will be familiar with all information

8 Memorandum from Mark Bury, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation and Regulation, to John Duncan, FAA Flight Standards Service (Aug. 8, 2014); see also Docket No.

FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at 16

- 18.

9 See also Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. at pg. 11:

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2): Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requ irements and § 91.203(a) and (b): Civil aircraft: Certifications required. The FAA has previously determined that relief from these sections is not necessary. See Exemption No. 11062. Relevant materials may be kept

in a location accessible to the PIC in co mpliance with the regulations.U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 12

necessary to safely conduct the flight, an exemption is requested to the extent that an FAA

- approved Flight Manual is req ui red

.

Adherence to the req ui rements in the ope rating documents will ensure that the UAS is in an airworthy condition prior to flight. The PIC will perform a series of checklists designed to identify any defects or inoperable components, which cover pre

- flight, take

- off, landing and post

- flight proced ures. The PIC will also be req ui red to review weather, flight req ui rements , battery charge, landing and takeoff distance, UA performance data, and contingency landing areas

— before initiation of flight. Petitioner's operating documents will be kept at the ground control station and will be accessible to the PIC at all times while operating the UAS.

G. 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a), which provides in pertinent part that "[n]o person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls." UAS and remotely piloted aircraft, by their design, do not have functional dual controls. Instead, flight control is accomplished through the use of a device that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. Accordingly, an exemption will be req ui red for the flight instruction req ui rements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a).

Given the size and speed of the UAS t hat Petitioner intends to use, an eq ui valent level of safe training can still be achieved without dual controls because no pilot or passengers are aboard the UAS, and as req ui red by the operating documents, all persons will be a safe distance away in the

e vent that the UAS experiences any difficulties during flight instruction. Moreover, all flight training will be conducted in controlled and sterile environment. As a whole, the procedures provided for in the operating documents ensure that UAS flight ins truction can be performed safely.

H. 91.119 ( c) : Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other Than Congested Areas

UO requests an exemption from the minimum safe altitude req ui rements of 14 C.F.R. §

91.119 (c)

. 10 Section 91.119 prescribes the minimum safe altitudes under which aircraft may not operate, including 500 feet above the surface and away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure

in non

- congested areas. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c).

An exemption is req ui red because the proposed UAS operations will normally n eed to occur below 400 feet AGL. Additionally, due to the nature of the proposed operations, the PIC and/or

Observers may need to be less th an 500 feet away from the UAS. Compared to flight operations

10 Relief from § 91.119(a) will not be necessary because Petitioner will be able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the ground in the event of a failure. Petitioner's proposed UAS operations will not occur over congested areas, and therefore an exemption from § 91.119(b) will not be necessary. See

, e.g ., Grant of Exemption No. 11157 to Slugwear, Inc., dba Likeonatree Aerial at pg. 15 (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0534 ).U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 13

with rotorcraft weighing far more than the maximum we ights proposed herein, and given the lack of flammable fuel with the UAS, any risk associated with these operations is far less than those that presently exist with conventional aircraft.

An eq ui valent level of safety will be achieved given the size, wei ght, and speed of the UAS, as well the controlled location where the operations will occur. In order to avoid any risk to manned aircraft, flight operations will be restricted to below 400 feet AGL

. As set forth in the operating

documents , the UAS will b e operated in a controlled environment, and all flights will occur at a
lateral dis tance of at least 500 feet from nonparticipating persons, unless that person is in a position where he or she is shielded from the UAS and any possible debris resulting from UAS failure. Procedures will be in place to ensure f light operations can be safely terminated if a nonparticipating person within 500 feet of the UAS leaves a shielded position. Further, UAS operations will occur at least 500 feet away from vehicles or structures unless 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 operations near the PIC or Observer will not present an undue hazard per § 91.119(a).

Ad herence to these restrictions in UO 's operating documents will ensure the proposed operations can

be conducted without compromising safety to persons or property on the ground.

I. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

To the extent necessary for UO to conduct the proposed operations, Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, which req ui res a person operating an aircraft to maintain

cr ui sing altitude or flight level by reference to an altimeter that is set to the elevation of the departure airport or barometric pressure.

The FAA has stated that an eq ui valent level of safety to the req ui rements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 can be achieved in circumstances where: (1) the UAS will be operated 400 feet AGL or below, (2) within VLOS, (3) where GPS based altitud e information is relayed in real time to the operator at a ground

- based on

- screen display and, (4) where prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point is established for the PIC to confirm accuracy of the onboard GPS. 11

The UAS that Petitioner int ends to use for performing the proposed operations meet all these operational characteristics. Moreover, the operating documents req ui re the PIC to calibrate the aircraft's GPS compass prior to each flight operation. As the FAA has determined in circumst ances similar to this Petition for Exemption, Petitioner's UAS and the safety mitigation procedures contained in the operating documents, ensure that an eq ui valent level of safety will be achieved, and a grant of exemption to the req ui rements of § 191.121 is therefore appropriate.

J. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

UO requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)'s fuel req ui rements for flight in VFR

conditions. Section 91.151 states:

11 See Grant of Exe mption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at 21).U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 14

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airp lane 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 cr ui sing 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.

Here, the technological limitations on UAS battery power means that no meaningful flight operations can be conducted while still maintaining a 30

- minute battery reserve. An exemption from

the fuel req ui rements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) is therefore req ui red

.

The FAA has previously granted relief from the fuel requirements of § 91.151(a) for flight in daytime VFR conditions in circumstances similar to those presented in this Petition for Exemption

. 12
In Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc.

, 13 the FAA determined that a requirement prohibiting

the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forec ast weather conditions)

there was enough available power for UAS to operate for the in tended operational time and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater

, would ensure an equivalent level of safety to the fuel requirements of § 91.151(a)

. 14 Petitioner's operating d ocuments impose this same requirement and an exemption from § 91.151(a)'s fuel req ui rements for flight in VFR conditions is therefore appropriate

.

VI. D RUG AND A LCOHOL P ROGRAM

The University of Oregon will have policies in place to ensure that no person may participate in UAS flight operations if they are under the influence of alcohol or any drug.

VII. P UBLIC I NTEREST

The public interest will be served by granting UO 's Petition for Exemption. Congress has established a national policy that favors early integr ation of UAS into the NAS in controlled, safe working environments such as those proposed in this Petition. Granting this Petition for Exemption helps fulfill Congress' goal in passing Section 333(a) through (c) of the Reform Act

— the FAA

Administrator's a ssessment of whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS before completion of the statutorily req ui red rulemaking.

Beyond increased levels of safety, t he public stands to benefit enormously from the education

and research programs supported by the proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption

. Whether it i s studying historic archeological sites or monitoring marine biology on the Pacific coast,

the public as a whole will benefit from the information gathered and studied as part of UO's

12 See

, e.g., Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673

.

13 Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0642.

14 Exemption No. 11213 at pg. 12.U.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 15

educat ion and research programs supported by the proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption.

VIII. P RIVACY

The proposed operations will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, or local laws regarding privacy. UO will not conduct flight operations over property that it does not own or control without the prior consent and knowledge of the property owner.

IX. F EDERAL R EGISTER S UMMARY

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the

F EDERAL R EGISTER , should it be determined that publication is needed:

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

45.23(b); 45.27(a); 61.23(a) and (c); 61.113; 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 61.315; 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.9(c); 91.10 3; 91.109(a); 91.119 (b) ; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203 (a) & (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417 (a) & (b).

The exemption will enhance safety by reducing risk to the general public and property

owners from the substa ntial hazards associated with using conventional fixed

- wing aircraft or rotorcraft for aerial data collection in support of university education and research programs

.

X. C ONCLUSION

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption satisfy the criteria articulated in

Section 333 of the Reform Act and the FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all respects to those presented by the University of Oregon in this Petition for Exemption. In consideration of the foregoing, UO respectf ully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for expedited approval via the FAA's summary grant process.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of our requested exemptions. Should you have any questions, or if you need additional inf ormation to support the requested exemptions, please do

not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Matthew J. ClarkU.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 16

Counsel for University of Oregon

AttachmentsU.S. Department of Transportation

J une 10 , 2015 Page 17

(The foll owing attached item will be submitted under separate cover as it contain s proprietary and commercial information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §

522 et seq. , and should be held in a separate file pursuant to 14 C.F.R . § 11.35(b)).

Attachment :

 The University UAS Operations Manual