Exemption No. 11448 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0397 

U.S.A. 

 

for an exemption from parts 21, 27; and 

§§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) & (b); 91.7(a); 

91.9(b)(2); 91.103; 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 

91.151(b); 91.203(a) & (b); 91.405(a); 

91.407(a)(1); 409(a)(2); 91.417(a) & (b); 

91.1501; 137.19(d); 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), 

and (v); 137.31(a) & (b); 137.33(a); and 

137.42 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter posted to the public docket on June 13, 2014,1

 Mr. David P. Murray, Willkie Farr 

& Gallagher, LLP, Counsel for Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., 1875 K Street, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20006 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Yamaha) for an exemption from parts 21, 27, and §§ 

45.23(b), 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(b), 

91.203(a) & (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) & (b), 91.1501, 137.19(d), 

137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v), 137.31(a) & (b), 137.33(a), and 137.42 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Yamaha petitioned for an exemption to operate the Yamaha 

RMAX for the purpose of providing commercial agricultural-related services. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and changing 

design approvals, productions approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness 

approvals. 

 

1

 By letter dated November 6, 2014, the petitioner responded to the FAA’s request for information. 
2

Part 27 prescribes, in pertinent part, the airworthiness standards for the issuance of type 

certificates for normal category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and 

nine or less passenger seats. 

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman capital 

letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on 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. 

Sections 61.113(a) and (b) prescribe that— 

(a) no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a 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. 

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless 

it is in an airworthy condition. 

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless there is available 

in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual 

material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. 

Section 91.103 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before 

beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight, to 

include— 

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports 

and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot 

be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has 

been advised by ATC; 

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following 

takeoff and landing distance information: 

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and 

landing distance data contained therein; and 
3

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft 

performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, 

aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature. 

Section 91.109 prescribes, in pertinent part, that no 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. 

 

Section 91.119 prescribes, in pertinent part, that, 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; 

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain 

cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure 

airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.” 

Section 91.151(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that 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.

 

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating a civil aircraft unless 

it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective 

U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the 

second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c). 
4

Section 91.203(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless the airworthiness certificate 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. 

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft owner or operator shall have that 

aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between required 

inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies 

repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter. 

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft that has 

undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been 

approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter. 

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft 

unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of 

an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. 

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribe, in pertinent part, that— 

(a) 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— 

(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. 

Section 91.1501 requires, in pertinent part, that operators support the continued airworthiness 

of each airplane including revising the inspection program, incorporating design changes, and 

incorporating revisions to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. 
5

Section 137.19(d) prescribes, in pertinent part, that the applicant for an agricultural aircraft 

operator certificate must have at least one certificated and airworthy aircraft, equipped for 

agricultural operation. 

Sections 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v) prescribe, in pertinent part, the tests of skill for 

agricultural aircraft operations that must be demonstrated by the applicant in the areas of (ii) 

approaches to the working area, (iii) flare-outs, and (v) pullups and turnarounds. 

Section 137.31(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft unless 

that aircraft meets the requirements of Sec. 137.19(d). 

Section 137.31(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate and aircraft unless 

that aircraft is equipped with a suitable and properly installed shoulder harness for use by each 

pilot. 

Section 137.33(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft unless a 

facsimile of the agricultural aircraft operator certificate, under which the operation is 

conducted, is carried on that aircraft. 

Section 137.42 prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft in 

operations required to be conducted under part 137 without a safety belt and shoulder harness 

properly secured about that person. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner proposes to operate the RMAX UAS to conduct commercial agriculturalrelated services in the United States. The petitioner also intends to conduct commercial 

agricultural aircraft operations as described in 14 CFR, part 137. The RMAX is capable of 

providing a wide array of essential agricultural spraying services, including watering, 

fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The RMAX can also be equipped with sensors and 

equipment to detect and monitor agricultural areas that require irrigation, fertilization, or other 

treatments. 

The petitioner has provided the following information along with its petition to support its 

request for an exemption, which includes proprietary and/or confidential supporting 

documents: 

1) RMAX training program; 

2) Yamaha RMAX Ground Theory Manual; 

3) Yamaha RMAX Operations Manual; and 

4) Yamaha RMAX Agricultural Guidebook 

Documents 1 through 4 above are hereinafter collectively referred to as the operating 

documents. 
6

The FAA has organized the petitioner’s information into four sections: (1) the Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS), (2) the UAS Pilot in Command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating 

parameters, and (4) the public interest. 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

The Yamaha RMAX is a remotely-piloted rotorcraft. It is 9 feet long and 3 feet 6 inches tall, 

has an empty weight of 141 lbs. and a load capacity of about 61 pounds for both liquid and 

granular applications. The main rotor is about 10 feet in diameter and extends 4 feet from 

either side of the RMAX and less than 3 feet from its front. The RMAX usually flies at a 

speed of no more than 12 mph (with a maximum speed of 45 mph). It is powered by a 2-

cylinder, 246 cc engine that uses regular unleaded fuel with 2-stroke engine oil with a 

maximum output of 21 horsepower. 

The petitioner states that the RMAX carries neither a pilot nor passenger and will operate 

within visual line of sight (VLOS) of a trained pilot and visual observer (spotter) only over 

uninhabited areas (e.g. fields, groves and orchards) and away from airports (i.e. three nautical 

miles or more) and populated areas. 

The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated 

with the aircraft and its operation, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H 

(Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted and 

meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 

333 of P.L. 112-95 (Section 333). The petitioner further states that UAS operated without an 

airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the conditions and limitations 

proposed by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed 

wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 CFR part 21, 

Subpart H and not subject to the proposed conditions and limitations. 

The petitioner further cites the well-established performance and safety record of the RMAX 

with its 20 year history of use in Japan and its recent approved use in Australia and South 

Korea. The RMAX has also been flown in the United States as a public aircraft for research 

and development purposes. The petitioner states that the RMAX has logged over 2 million 

flight hours, treating more than 2.4 million acres of farmland each year in Japan alone. 

During the this two decade period, there have been no injuries due to problems with the 

aircraft in Japan, Australia or South Korea and in the limited instances where a problem with 

the aircraft has occurred, the RMAX has either been safely landed and shut down by the pilot 

or fallen to the ground without personal injury. There have been no collisions with other 

aircraft. 

The petitioner also states that the RMAX has a host of onboard safety systems, including: a 

self-monitor function (diagnostic before takeoff); altitude control system (YACS); global 

positioning system (GPS) flight control system; lost link safety default (hover and land); 

YACS and GPS warning/indicator lights; speed indicator light; and rotor brake (propellers tilt 

upon shut down to allow air resistance to quickly bring the propellers to full stop. 
7

Regarding aircraft markings (§ 45.23), the petitioner states that even though the RMAX will 

have no airworthiness certificate, an exemption is warranted because it has no entrance to the 

cabin, cockpit, or pilot station on which the required marking can be displayed. Yamaha 

proposes instead to display markings to the fullest extent possible in compliance with the 

location requirements of § 45.27(a) and the size requirements of § 45.29(f). 

Regarding maintenance and inspections, the petitioner states that the requirements in the 

pertinent sections of 14 CFR part 91 which refer to 14 CFR part 43 are only applicable to 

aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. However, the petitioner supports its request for relief 

from these maintenance requirements by describing and referencing specific RMAX 

maintenance and inspection procedures in the operating documents. Furthermore, equivalent 

levels of safety for maintenance and inspections can be achieved using the same kind of 

CASA-approved maintenance requirements and Yamaha’s own certified technicians. 

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC) 

The petitioner states that § 61.113(a) limits private pilots to being in command of noncommercial flights (i.e., not for compensation or hire); while § 61.113(b) provides an 

exception that allows a private pilot to command an aircraft without passengers or property, in 

connection with business or employment if “[t]he flight is only incidental to that business or 

employment. 

Yamaha states that the PIC of a RMAX would not meet the conditions of § 61.113(b) because 

the operation of the RMAX would not be incidental to the proposed agricultural-related 

services, but rather essential to it. 

Yamaha is requesting an exemption from the limitation in § 61.113(a) that prohibits the 

holder of a private pilot certificate from acting as a PIC for compensation or hire. 

Alternatively, Yamaha is requesting an exemption from § 61.113(b) that would allow the 

holder of a private pilot certificate to act as PIC for compensation or hire even if the flight is 

not incidental to the business or employment of the PIC. Either of these requests, if granted, 

would allow a person holding a private pilot certificate to act as PIC of an RMAX operation 

for compensation or hire. 

The petitioner states that it has integrated safety elements into the operation of the RMAX 

including comprehensive pilot and visual observer (spotter) training and certification 

requirements. These requirements, developed in cooperation with Australia’s Civil Aviation 

Safety Authority (CASA) include: a comprehensive UAV training course which includes 

theory and practical components, a pilot theory exam, supervised flight training including 

agricultural spraying, completion of Yamaha’s training program requirements including 

examination; and continued periodic training even after certification. 

Completion and satisfaction of Yamaha training and certification requirements would be a 

condition for pilots and spotters operating the RMAX for agricultural purposes in the United 
8

States. In addition, for agricultural-related operations that involve chemical applications, the 

pilot operating the RMAX would also be certified under the FAA’s rules governing 

Agricultural Aircraft Operations, 14 CFR part 137. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

The petitioner states the following conditions will be observed in support of its ability to 

provide at least an equal level of safety or no adverse safety effect to persons or property in 

the air or on the ground: 

a. The petitioner states that the RMAX will be operated within visual line of sight 

(VLOS) of the PIC. 

b. The PIC is always accompanied by a trained “spotter” who is positioned at the 

opposite side of the agricultural area and is in constant radio communication with 

the pilot. The spotter ensures that the RMAX is always within line-of-sight and 

helps identify and alert the PIC to any potential obstacles on the ground or in the 

air. 

c. Both the PIC and spotter will have completed a comprehensive training and 

certification program established by Yamaha prior to operation of the RMAX. 

d. The PIC will take all preflight actions as set forth in its flight manual, which 

includes a comprehensive preflight checklist. 

e. The RMAX will only be flown during daylight hours and in good weather. 

f. The PIC and spotter will maintain a safe distance from the RMAX when it is 

operating as set forth in its flight manual. 

g. UAS flights will be limited to a maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL), and will normally be flown at altitudes of 20 feet AGL or less over a field 

or other agricultural area. 

h. UAS flights will only be flown over uninhabited areas (e.g. fields, groves, and 

orchards) and away from airports (i.e. three nautical miles or more) or populated 

areas. 

i. The maximum flight time for each UAS operation will be 60 minutes, with most 

agricultural flights lasting approximately 30 minutes. 

j. Operations of the RMAX that meet the definition of an “agricultural aircraft 

operation” will be conducted in accordance with 14 CFR part 137. 
9

The petitioner states that although the RMAX has sufficient fuel capacity to provide for one 

hour of flight time, flight times for agricultural-related purposes are typically only 30 minutes 

due to the RMAX’s load capacity for spraying and other applications. The petitioner notes 

that the RMAX is typically refueled while it refills its payload, and thus is likely to comply 

with the 20-minute requirement from § 91.151(b), Fuel requirements for flight in VFR 

conditions, most of the time. Regardless of the potential for compliance, such a requirement is 

not necessary for the RMAX because it only operates 20 feet above an empty field, so the risk 

or danger associated with failing to reach a safe landing place is not present. 

For the agricultural-related operations being requested, the petitioner intends to apply for an 

agricultural aircraft operator certificate issued under 14 CFR part 137. The petitioner has 

identified several sections of part 137 from which it seeks relief. Section 137.19(d) requires 

that an applicant for an agricultural aircraft operation has at least one certificated and 

airworthy aircraft. Section 137.31(a) prohibits agricultural operations in aircraft that do not 

meet § 137.19(d). The petitioner is requesting to conduct agricultural aircraft operations with 

RMAX aircraft that are not certificated, but are otherwise airworthy. 

The petitioner requests relief from §§ 137.31(b) and 137.42 which require installation and use 

of a safety belt and shoulder harness by the pilot during agricultural aircraft operations. The 

petitioner states that since the RMAX is an unmanned aircraft (UA), these requirements are 

inapplicable. The petitioner states that an equivalent level of safety will be maintained by 

requiring the pilot and visual observer to maintain appropriate distances from the RMAX 

during operations to ensure their safety. 

The petitioner also requests relief from certain requirements in section § 137.19(e)(2) that 

describe skill areas for maneuvers that are inapplicable to the RMAX when performing 

agricultural services. These include the demonstration of skill for the following maneuvers: 

(ii) approaches to the working area, (iii) flare-outs, and (v) pullups and turnarounds. Yamaha 

states that demonstrated compliance with the remaining applicable skills requirements of 

§ 137.19(e)(2), along with the knowledge requirements of § 137.19(e)(1), will provide an 

adequate level of safety for operation of the RMAX. 

The petitioner also requests relief from § 137.33(a) which requires that a facsimile of the 

agricultural aircraft operator certificate be carried on the aircraft. Similar to relief granted in 

Exemption 11062, because the RMAX is an unmanned aircraft, this requirement is not 

necessary. Yamaha proposes that RMAX pilots will have copies of the required certificates 

with them and available for inspection at all locations where and while the RMAX is being 

used to perform agricultural chemical spray application and dispensing services. 

Public Interest 

The petitioner states that in many applications, the RMAX has proven more economical and 

effective than other spraying methods, helping farmers increase productivity, lower costs, and 

reduce the amount of chemicals used. The petitioner further states that the RMAX can 

provide many agricultural services more efficiently, economically, and safely than other air- 
10

or ground-based methods. Farmers, growers, and land managers, therefore, will immediately 

benefit from the availability of the spraying services. Further public benefits include greater 

operator safety on steep/slippery hills and terrain, reduced chemical usage, reduced operator 

and other human exposure to chemicals, no crop damage or soil compaction and greater fuel 

efficiency. Thus the grant of the requested exemptions is in the public interest. 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 

41350). Four comments were received. The Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 

International (AUVSI) supported the petition and the Air Line Pilots Association International 

(ALPA) opposed it. The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) and an 

individual commenter raised safety issues and concerns. 

AUVSI stated that Yamaha's exemption outlines at least an equivalent level of safety over the 

use of a manned aircraft and it has adequately addressed the safety requirements in a number 

of Federal aviation regulations. In support of the petition, AUVSI cited the economic benefits 

of UAS used in agricultural operations, the 20 year service history of the RMAX, Yamaha’s 

pilot and spotter training requirements, the low operating altitudes, and Yamaha’s request to 

only operate over uninhabited areas and away from airports and other populated areas. 

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA stated that the 

petitioner’s UAS performance characteristics are more akin to a manned helicopter. ALPA 

asserted that the impact of the petitioner’s UAS on the NAS should be evaluated in 

comparison with small manned helicopters of similar size, technology and performance 

capabilities. ALPA noted that the anticipated operation would put the aircraft at the same 

altitude as other aircraft in the NAS with only geographic separation to mitigate the risk of 

collision. ALPA further noted that the aircraft “does not have a barometric altimeter”. ALPA 

stated that processes or mitigations must be in place to ensure the UA can accurately maintain 

altitude, including engineering processes, software development and control, electronic 

hardware development and control, configuration management, and quality assurance to 

ensure the aircraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of safety as other aircraft 

operated commercially in the NAS. 

ALPA commented that Communication and Command (C2) (typically referred to as 

command and control) link failures are one of the most common failures on UAS, and that 

lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent fly‐a‐ways or other scenarios. An 

individual commenter also expressed concerns about the need to prevent a fly-away situation. 

The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption to mitigate the risk 

associated with such failures. 

ALPA noted the petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid requirements in 

§ 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be 

operated within VLOS of the PIC and visual observer (VO). 
11

ALPA commented on the petitioner’s proposal to operate at least 3 NM from airports. ALPA 

noted that Class B, C, and D airspaces all have dimensions at the surface that exceed 3 NM. 

The FAA agrees with this concern and establishes through this exemption and related 

Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COAs) safe operational distances from airports. 

ALPA also identified that the RMAX is not equipped with a Mode C transponder, which is a 

requirement for operating within 30 nautical miles of a Class B airport, unless otherwise 

authorized by Air Traffic Control (ATC). The low operating altitudes within VLOS, in 

addition to a dedicated spotter, sufficiently mitigate the risk of a mid-air collision with other 

aircraft. The COA issued by the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) to approve specific 

operations within the Mode C veil, if any, will address specific risk mitigations to ensure 

those operations are conducted safely. 

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or hire,” and 

therefore contends the pilot must hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with 

an appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific 

and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA 

asserted a current second-class airman medical certificate should be required. NAAA also 

commented on pilot qualification, stating it is necessary for the FAA to evaluate pilots of 

unmanned aircraft on their knowledge and skills in UAS operation. Requirements for this 

licensing should be developed along with other rigorous rules and qualifications to ensure safe 

integration of the unmanned aircraft into the NAS. 

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training requirements of sport, recreational, private 

and commercial certificates and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport 

pilot certificate, and operating under this exemption, would not adversely affect operations in 

the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground. Additional discussion of 

the FAA’s review is found in the FAA’s Analysis section of this exemption. 

ALPA also expressed concern that the petitioner’s request is not for a single specific 

operation or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA stated that this 

results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPA’s 

concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires that each 

operator secure COA which covers specific details of the petitioner’s operation. The FAA 

recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS access demand and will review and 

adjust accordingly. 

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-level airspace, and therefore clear low-level 

airspace is vital to the safety of these operators. NAAA stated that seeing and avoiding other 

aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for agricultural safety, and that 

agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions 

to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS operations at low altitudes will increase the 

potential for collision with agricultural aircraft. 
12

The FAA recognizes these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and 

limitations into this exemption, including: (a) a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for all 

operations; (b) operations conducted within VLOS of the pilot in command (PIC) and the VO; 

and (c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-of-way to manned aircraft. 

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certification should be a requirement for all unmanned 

aircraft to operate within the NAS. NAAA recommended UAS be equipped with ADS-B or 

similar identification and positioning systems, strobe lights, high-visibility markings and 

registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned 

aircraft. 

With regard to the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR part 137, Agricultural Aircraft 

Operations, NAAA stated that part 137 was created with agricultural aircraft in mind in order 

to facilitate the necessary exemptions to allow them to perform their missions properly and 

safely without relying on FAA waivers to be issued for normal agricultural operations. 

NAAA further stated that while UAS were not envisioned when part 137 was originally 

written, it believes the intention of the section needs to be applicable to all agricultural aircraft 

and not limited to manned aircraft. NAAA noted that part 137 sets out a number of 

requirements, including a knowledge and skills test, which is crucial for both manned and 

unmanned agricultural pilots to understand. NAAA acknowledged that while some 

provisions of Part 137 are impractical for UAS, it believes that the RMAX needs to be 

required, to the greatest extent practicable, to comply with part 137 operating requirements, 

including airworthiness certification § 137.19(d), rather than grant a blanket exemption for the 

entire part. The FAA is requiring that Yamaha comply with part 137 to the extent possible as 

discussed below. 

As discussed in greater detail below, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine, considering a number of 

factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certificate is not necessary for certain 

operations. The Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft 

operated by the petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has organized its analysis into five sections: (1) the UAS, (2) the UAS PIC, (3) the 

UAS operating parameters, (4) the UAS operating certificate, and (5) the public interest. 

UAS 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification Procedures for Products 

and Parts, and 14 CFR part 27, Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft. In 

accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 

49 USC § 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capabilities, 

design safety features, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, 
13

the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft meets the conditions of 

Section 333. Because of the size, method of operation, and speed of the RMAX, operation of 

the RMAX under the conditions and limitations below will not adversely impact safety. An 

engineering review of the data supplied to the FAA during its evaluation supports this finding. 

Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 14 CFR parts 21 and 27, and any 

associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, are not necessary. 

The RMAX is larger and heavier than UAS previously approved to operate under Section 

333. The FAA reviewed engineering data supplied by the petitioner to assess whether the 

increase in size and weight would adversely impact safety. Our evaluation considered risk 

mitigating factors such as RMAX service history, pilot and spotter training requirements, 

system safety features, the intended low-altitude and remote area of operations, and other 

operating limitations. 

The RMAX UAS has been in operation since 1997 and logged more than two million flight 

hours. There are approximately 2,600 RMAX UAS in use worldwide. Yamaha has 

developed production, certification, operation, and maintenance requirements for the RMAX. 

Yamaha provided data that demonstrates the RMAX historical safety record for the types of 

agricultural service operations being requested in its petition. 

Manned aircraft conducting agricultural operations can weigh thousands of pounds and carry 

hundreds of gallons of fuel and payload. The RMAX weighs approximately 200 lbs. and 

carries about 2 gallons of fuel and 4 gallons of payload. Manned aircraft are operated by an 

onboard pilot and may carry other onboard crewmembers. The RMAX pilot and crew will be 

remotely located from the aircraft and will remain outside a designated safety zone when the 

RMAX is operating, ensuring that the pilot and observer are never so close to the RMAX to 

pose a hazard to the crew. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or 

accident is eliminated with the use of a UAS for the proposed operation. 

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident. 

The RMAX carries much less fuel and would impact the surface with less energy than a 

manned aircraft and therefore lowers the potential risk and severity of fire following an 

incident or accident due to fuel or payload spillage. 

The petitioner’s UAS has on-board safety features that ensure the UAS can operate safely 

under both normal and contingency operating conditions. These features include automation 

to increase safety and reduce pilot workload. Some examples are the self-monitoring function 

(pre-takeoff diagnostics), an altitude control system (YACS), and a GPS flight control system. 

The lost-link safety default feature allows the RMAX to automatically hover and land in 

response to a lost-link event. Safety features such as the YACS and GPS warning/indicator 

lights and speed indicator light provide critical system status information to the pilot. When 

concluding a flight, the rotor brake feature causes the propellers to tilt upon shut down to 

allow air resistance to quickly bring the propellers to full stop. These safety features ensure 

that these operations will not adversely impact safety compared to a manned aircraft 
14

performing a similar operation and address ALPA’s comments on mitigating risk of command 

and control link failures. 

The petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b), Display of marks: general, is not 

necessary because its UAS will not be certificated under 14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UA 

must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have 

identification (N-Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings 

must be as large as practicable per § 45.29(f).

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), Maintenance required, 

91.407(a)(1), Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 

91.409(a)(2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records. The FAA has 

determined that relief from § 91.409(a)(1) is also necessary. Data provided by the petitioner 

indicates the main rotor system has not experienced any mechanical failures and the only 

documented tail rotor failures occurred prior to a design change in 2003. The petitioner has a 

documented history of correcting mechanical failures through design changes, improving the 

reliability of the system. The average mechanical failure rate from 2009-2013 was 1 per 

46,500 flight hours. The FAA has considered these factors in its evaluation of the petitioner’s 

request and determined that adherence to the conditions and limitations below regarding the 

responsibilities for maintaining, inspecting, and pre-flight inspection are sufficient to ensure 

that safety will not be adversely affected. Therefore the FAA finds that exemption from 14 

CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) is warranted 

subject to the conditions and limitations below. 

UAS PIC 

The FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and has determined that it does 

not differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11213 to 

Aeryon Labs, Inc. (Docket No. FAA-2014-0642). Therefore, the FAA finds that a PIC 

conducting operations under this grant of exemption may operate the UAS for 

compensation or hire, or in furtherance of a business, with any of the following pilot 

certificates: sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport. Additionally, a 

PIC must hold and possess either a medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67 or a 

U.S. issued driver’s license irrespective of the pilot certificate held. In addition, PICs must 

comply with 14 CFR § 61.53, Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency. 

Operating Parameters of the UAS 

The petitioner’s operating documents describe operational procedures and limitations 

developed for the RMAX to provide mitigate potential safety risk to persons and property. 

The FAA considered these procedures and limitations in determining the proposed operations 

can be conducted safely. 

The petitioner has requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a), Civil aircraft airworthiness. While 

the petitioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate, the FAA has determined 
15

that for the purposes of this exemption the pilot may determine the aircraft is in an airworthy 

condition prior to flight. The FAA’s regulations state that the PIC of a civil aircraft is 

responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. Therefore, 

relief from § 91.7(a) is granted and relief from § 91.7(b) is not necessary. 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2), Civil aircraft flight manual, 

marking, and placard requirements 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 compliance with the regulations. 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.103 Preflight Action. The PIC will take all 

actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landings, and takeoff 

distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. The FAA has imposed 

stricter requirements with regard to visibility and distance from clouds; this is to both keep the 

UA from departing the VLOS and to preclude the UA from operating so close to a cloud as to 

create a hazard to other aircraft operating in the NAS. The FAA also notes the risks 

associated with sun glare; the FAA believes the that PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other 

air traffic, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a return-to-home sequence, are sufficient 

mitigations in this respect. The PIC will also account for all relevant site-specific conditions 

in his or her preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA is not granting relief from § 91.103. 

While the petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight tests, the petition did not describe training scenarios in which a 

dual set of controls would be utilized or required, i.e. dual flight instruction, provided by a 

certificated flight instructor or other company-designated individual, which would require that 

individual to have fully functioning dual controls. The FAA is requiring that the petitioner’s PICs 

possess at least a sport pilot certificate. This exemption will also require that training operations 

only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner 

can conduct its operations without the requested relief from § 91.109. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes: 

General, the petitioner states that the RMAX will be operated at altitudes below 500 feet AGL 

and closer than 500 feet to persons, primarily the PIC and visual observer, although the PIC and 

VO will always maintain a safe distance from the RMAX as required by the operating documents. 

The RMAX will only be flown over uninhabited areas. Therefore, regarding the relief requested, 

the FAA finds that: 

a. Relief from § 91.119(a), which requires operating at an altitude that allows a safe 

emergency landing if a power unit fails, is not granted. The FAA expects the petitioner to 

be able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on 

the surface if a power unit fails. 

b. Relief from § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, because this 

grant of exemption prohibits operations over congested or densely populated areas. 

c. Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes 

below 500 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft 
16

below the following altitudes: over other than congested areas, an altitude of 500 feet 

above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. The FAA finds 

operations conducted in compliance with the conditions and limitations in this grant of 

exemption warrant relief from § 91.119(c). 

d. Relief from § 91.119(d) is not applicable. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121, Altimeter settings, when the 

UA is equipped with a barometric altimeter, relief from § 91.121 is not necessary. When the UA 

is not equipped with a barometric altimeter, an alternate means for measuring and reporting UA 

altitude is necessary, such as GPS. As stated in the conditions and limitations below, the FAA 

requires altitude be reported in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the altitude indicator to 

zero feet AGL rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude before flight. Considering the 

limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 is granted to the extent 

necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below. 

Regarding petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(b), Fuel requirements for flight in 

VFR conditions, prior UAS specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 

10673 for daytime, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The conditions and limitations below 

prohibit the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

conditions) there is enough available fuel for UAS to operate for the intended operational time 

and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve fuel recommended by the 

manufacturer if greater. The FAA finds that this provides sufficient reason to grant the relief from 

14 CFR § 91.151. 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.1501, Continued Airworthiness and Safety 

Improvements – Purpose and definition. This regulation requires operators to support the 

continued airworthiness of each airplane. While under this grant of exemption petitioner is 

permitted to operate without an airworthiness certificate, the PIC is still required to ensure the 

aircraft is in a condition for safe flight prior to each operation. Therefore, relief from § 91.1501 is 

not applicable. 

UAS Operating Certificate 

The petitioner did not request relief from § 137.19(c), Certification requirements, which 

requires the applicant for a commercial agricultural aircraft operator certificate to have 

available the services of at least one person who holds a current U.S. commercial or airline 

transport pilot certificate and who is properly rated for the aircraft to be used. The petitioner 

requests to conduct commercial agricultural aircraft operations under 14 CFR part 137, 

Agricultural Aircraft Operations, with persons holding a private pilot certificate. The FAA 

has determined that relief from § 137.19(c) is necessary to the extent necessary to permit 

persons holding a sport, recreational, or private pilot certificate to act as PIC for commercial 

agricultural aircraft operations. The basis for this relief is the same as discussed in the UAS 

PIC section above. The PIC must still comply with the additional knowledge and applicable 

skill requirements in part 137 as well as the petitioner’s training requirements in the operating 

documents. Lastly, because of the relief provided to § 137.19(c), we also provide relief to the 

pilot certificate requirements of § 137.41(c), Personnel. 
17

Regarding the requested relief from §§ 137.19(d), Certification requirements, and 137.31(a), 

Aircraft requirements, Yamaha states that it will retain custody of the RMAX UAS and the 

agricultural related services would be under the direction, supervision, and control of 

Yamaha. As stated in the analysis above, and consistent with the Secretary’s determination 

that airworthiness certification is not necessary, the FAA finds that relief from 14 CFR parts 

21 and 27 is not necessary. 

The FAA has determined that based on Yamaha’s safe operating history of the RMAX, and 

the RMAX design safety features, operations conducted under the requirements of this 

exemption will not adversely impact safety. Thus, although the RMAX is not certificated, the 

FAA finds that relief from §§ 137.19(d) and 137.31(a) is warranted to the extent necessary to 

permit the RMAX to be operated in commercial agricultural aircraft operations. Although 

relief from the requirement for the aircraft to be certificated is granted, prior to operating, the 

aircraft must be in a condition for safe flight in accordance with § 91.7(b). 

Regarding the requested relief from § 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v), Certification 

requirements, the FAA has determined that demonstration of the skills described in these 

paragraphs is not necessary because they are not compatible or applicable to the operation of 

the RMAX during agricultural aircraft operations as described in the petitioner’s operating 

documents. Yamaha’s RMAX training and certification program provides the PIC with the 

necessary skills to safely operate the RMAX. Granting relief from a demonstration of the 

skills described in § 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v) does not adversely impact safety, therefore 

relief is warranted. Skill requirements in the other sections of § 137.19(e)(2) not exempted 

must be demonstrated as required for certification as a agricultural aircraft operator under 

14 CFR part 137. If the operating procedures of the RMAX ever change or evolve to require 

the PIC to perform any of the skills described in 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v), Yamaha must 

petition for amendment to this grant. Lastly, because of the relief provided to 

§ 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v), the FAA also grants relief from those portions of the 

associated knowledge and skill test requirements of § 137.41(c), 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from §§ 137.31(b), Aircraft requirements, and 

§ 137.42, Fastening of safety belts and shoulder harnesses, the FAA finds that an exemption 

from these requirements related to the installation and use of a shoulder harness and safety 

belt is warranted because the RMAX is an unmanned aircraft with no onboard pilot. These 

requirements are intended to ensure the safety of the onboard pilot during manned agricultural 

aircraft operations and thus, relief from §§ 137.31(b) and 137.42 does not adversely impact 

safety. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 137.33(a), Carrying of certificate, which 

requires that a facsimile of the agricultural aircraft operator certificate be carried on the 

aircraft, the FAA finds that relief is necessary and warranted. The FAA has previously 

determined that relief from §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) for the carriage of the aircraft 

flight manual and aircraft registration onboard the aircraft is not necessary. The FAA finds 

that this analysis is applicable to the requirements of § 137.33(a). These documents may be 
18

kept in a location accessible to the PIC. Therefore, a facsimile of the agricultural aircraft 

operator certificate may also be kept in a location accessible to the PIC. 

Public Interest 

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety 

achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no 

passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying 

crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation 

enabled by this exemption is in the public interest. 

The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding regulatory relief: 

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination

Part 21 Relief not necessary 

Part 27 Relief not necessary 

45.23(b) Relief not necessary 

61.23(a) and (c) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

61.101(e)(4) and (5) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

61.113(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

61.113(b) Relief not necessary 

61.133 Relief not necessary 

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.9(b)(2) Relief not necessary 

91.103 Relief not granted 

91.109 Relief not granted 

91.119(a) Relief not granted 

91.119(b) and (d) Not applicable 

91.119(c) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.151 Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary 

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.407(a)(1) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.417(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.1501 Relief not necessary 
19

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination

137.19(c) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

137.19(d) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

137.31(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

137.31(b) Relief granted 

137.33(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

137.41(c) Relief not necessary 

137.42 Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

The FAA’s Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. is granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c); 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 61.113(a); 91.7(a); 

91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151; 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b); 

137.19(c) and (d),; 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v); 137.31(a) and (b); 137.33(a); and 137.42 to 

the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate the RMAX UAS for the purpose of 

agricultural-related services operations. This exemption is subject to the conditions and 

limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations: 

In this grant of exemption, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., is hereafter referred to as the 

operator. 

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

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the Yamaha RMAX Type 

II G UAS as described in the operating documents with a maximum take-off weight not to 

exceed 99 kg (218) pounds. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new 

petition or a petition to amend this exemption. 

2. The UA may not be operated at an airspeed exceeding 45 miles per hour. In no case will 

the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed 

recommended by the aircraft manufacturer. 

3. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL. 
20

4. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This 

requires the PIC to be able to use 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. 

5. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the 

visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy 

the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO 

and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times; electronic messaging or 

texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must 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 duties required of the VO. 

6. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations 

in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are 

hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be 

accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. 

If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the 

procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations herein take 

precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as 

outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its operating 

documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated 

and revised documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. 

The operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension 

or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or 

revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the 

operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or 

revisions to the operating documents. 

7. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or 

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 may 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. 

8. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a 

condition for safe operation. 

9. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS 

is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential 

discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals 

a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from 
21

operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be 

in a condition for safe flight. 

10. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, 

inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components. 

11. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer safety 

bulletins. 

12. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, commercial, 

private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a current FAA 

airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The PIC 

must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in 

which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. 

13. The PIC and VO must be trained and qualified in accordance with the operating 

documents. 

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate 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 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the 

purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner 

consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under 

the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during 

dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, 

all persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC 

must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 

14 CFR § 91.119. 

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All 

operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights 

under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. 

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) 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 of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained 

or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement 

with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law 

enforcement official upon request. 
22

17. The UA may 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. 

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the private or controlled-access property. 

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. 

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough available fuel for the UA to conduct the intended 

operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve fuel 

recommended by the manufacturer if greater. 

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The exemption 

holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that 

cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA. 

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as 

large as practicable. 

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and 

any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9, 91.203, and 137.33(a), must be available 

to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. 

These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement 

official upon request. 

24. The UA must remain clear and give way to all manned aviation operations and activities 

at all times. 

25. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle. 

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating 

persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator 

must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a 

situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are 

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

manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and, 

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 
23

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 or essential persons are considered participating persons 

under this exemption. 

27. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission 

from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each 

flight to be conducted. 

28. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to 

the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported 

to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the 

NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. 

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the unmanned aircraft system (UAS), 

pilot in command (PIC), and operator must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR 

including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, 91, and 137. 

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

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2015. 

/s/

John Barbagallo 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service