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 CORP ORATION, Regulato ry 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 Administ ration (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 petitione d for an exemption to operate the Yamaha RMAX for the purpose of providing commerc ial agricultural-related services.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinen t part, the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, productions a pprovals, airworthiness cert ificates, 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 pertinen t part, the airworthiness standa rds for the issuance of type certificates for normal category rotorcraft w ith maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and nine or less passenger seats.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, th at when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number is di splayed on limited, restricted or light-sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally cer tificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to th e cabin, cockpit, or pilo t station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “res tricted,” “light-sport,” “experimental,” or “provi sional,” as applicable.

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

(a) no person who holds a private pilot certificat e 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, th at 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 airc raft 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 avai lable information concerning that flight, to

include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in th e vicinity of an airp ort, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternativ es 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 air ports 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 co ntained therein; and3

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specifi ed 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, an d 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 fli ght instruction unless th at 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 aircra ft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power uni t fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a c ity, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altit ude 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, an d 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 eac h person operating th e helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;

Section 91.121 requires, in per tinent part, each pe rson operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter th at is set “...to the elev ation 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 fl ight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind a nd forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of in tended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pe rtinent part, any person from ope rating a civil aircraft unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current ai rworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective U.S. registration certificate issu ed 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 opera te a civil aircraft

unless the airworthiness certificat e or a special flight author ization 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 sh all, 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 ope rating an aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alterati on unless it has been approved for return to service by a person au thorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent pa rt, 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 certificat e in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

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

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the follo wing 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, pr ogressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, ro tor, 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 regi stered 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 c ontinued airworthiness of each airplane including revising the inspec tion program, incorporating design changes, and incorporating revisions to Instruct ions for Continued Airworthiness.5

Section 137.19(d) prescribes, in pertinent part, th at the applicant for an agricultural aircraft operator certificate must have at least one cer tificated and airworthy aircraft, equipped for agricultural operation.

Sections 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (v) prescr ibe, 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) fl are-outs, and (v) pull ups and turnarounds.

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

that aircraft meets the re quirements 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 insta lled shoulder harness for use by each pilot.

Section 137.33(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, th at no person may operate an aircraft unless a facsimile of the agricultural aircraft operat or 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 conducte d under part 137 without a safe ty 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 pe titioner 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 esse ntial agricultural spraying se rvices, includ ing watering, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The RMAX can also be equipped with sensors and equipment to detect and monitor agricultural areas that require ir rigation, fertilization, or other

treatments.

The petitioner has provided the following inform ation 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 informa tion into four sections: (1) the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), (2) the UAS Pilo t 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 us es 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 trai ned pilot and visual obs erver (spotter) only over uninhabited areas (e.g. fields, grove s and orchards) and away from airports (i.e. three nautical miles or more) and populated areas.

The petitioner states that give n the size, weight, speed, and lim ited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certa in conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent leve l of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 (Section 333). The petitioner fu rther states that UAS operated without an

airworthiness certificate in the restricted e nvironment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, th an a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating w ith an airworthiness certifica te issued under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H and not subject to the pr oposed 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 Un ited States as a public aircraft for research and development purposes. The petitioner st ates 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 peri od, 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 injur y. 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 takeo ff); altitude control system (YACS); global positioning system (GPS) flight control system; lost link safety default (hover and land); YACS and GPS warning/indicator li ghts; speed indicator light; and rotor brake (propellers tilt upon shut down to allow air resistance to quickly bring the prope llers to full stop.7

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

have no airworthiness certificat e, an exemption is warranted because it has no entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot sta tion on which the required marking can be displayed. Yamaha proposes instead to display markings to the fu llest 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 peti tioner states that the requirements in the pertinent sections of 14 CFR part 91 which refe r to 14 CFR part 43 are only applicable to

aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. However, th e petitioner supports its request for relief from these maintenance requirements by de scribing and referencing specific RMAX maintenance and inspection procedures in the operating documents. Furthermore, equivalent levels of safety for maintenance and inspec tions can be achieved us ing 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 pr ivate pilots to being in command of noncommercial flights (i.e., not for compensati on or hire); while § 61.113(b) provides an exception that allows a private pilot to command an aircraft without passe ngers or property, in connection with business or employm ent 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 incide ntal 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 exem ption from § 61.113(b) that would allow the holder of a private pilot certificat e 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 ce rtificate to act as PI C of an RMAX operation for compensation or hire.

The petitioner states that it has integrated sa fety elements into the operation of the RMAX including comprehensive pilot and visual obs erver (spotter) traini ng and certification requirements. These requirements, developed in cooperation with Aust ralia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) include: a compre hensive UAV training course which includes theory and practical components, a pilot theo ry exam, supervised flight training including agricultural spraying, completion of Yamaha’s traini ng program requirements including examination; and continued periodic training even after certification.

Completion and satisfaction of Yamaha training and certifica tion requirements would be a condition for pilots and spotters operating the RMAX for agricultural purposes in the United8

States. In addition, for agricultu ral-related operations that invol ve chemical applications, the pilot operating the RMAX would also be certified under the FAA’s rules governing Agricultural Aircraft Op erations, 14 CFR part 137.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states the following conditions w ill 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 traine d “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 pot ential 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 Yama ha 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 da ylight 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 uninha bited areas (e.g. fields, groves, and orchards) and away from airports (i.e. th ree nautical miles or more) or populated

areas.

i. The maximum flight time for each UAS ope ration will be 60 minutes, with most agricultural flights lastin g approximately 30 minutes.

j. Operations of the RMAX that meet the definition of an “ag ricultural 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 tim es for agricultural-related purpos es 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 re fills 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 operat es 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 requ ested, the petitioner intends to apply for an agricultural aircraft operator certificate issued under 14 CF R 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 agricultura l operations in airc raft that do not meet § 137.19(d). The petitioner is requesting to conduct agricultu ral aircraft operations with

RMAX aircraft that are not certific ated, 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 ha rness by the pilot during agricultu ral aircraft operations. The petitioner states that since the RMAX is an unmanned aircraft (UA), these requirements are inapplicable. The petitioner states that an eq uivalent level of safety will be maintained by requiring the pilot and visual observer to ma intain appropriate distances from the RMAX during operations to ensure their safety.

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

describe skill areas for mane uvers that are inapplicable to the RMAX when performing agricultural services. These include the dem onstration 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 requirem ents of § 137.19(e)(1), will provide an adequate level of safety for operation of the RMAX.

The petitioner also requests reli ef from § 137.33(a) which requir es 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 unma nned aircraft, this requirement is not necessary. Yamaha proposes that RMAX pilots will have copies of th e required certificates with them and available for inspection at al l 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 applica tions, the RMAX has proven more economical and effective than other spraying methods, helping fa rmers increase productiv ity, lower costs, and reduce the amount of chemicals used. The pe titioner further states that the RMAX can provide many agricultural services more efficiently, economi cally, and safely than other air-10

or ground-based methods. Farmers, growers, an d 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 terrai n, 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 reques ted exemptions is in the public interest.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Regi ster on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41350). Four comments were received. Th e Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) supported the petition and the Air Line Pilo ts Association International (ALPA) opposed it. The National Agricultu ral Aviation Association (NAAA) and an

individual commenter raised safety issues and concerns.

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

use of a manned aircraft and it has adequately addressed the sa fety 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 requi rements, the low operating altit udes, and Yamaha’s request to only operate over uninhabited areas and away from airports and other popul ated areas.

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspe cts of the petition. AL PA stated that the petitioner’s UAS performance characteristics ar e 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 onl y 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 developm ent and control, electronic hardware development and control, configur ation management, and quality assurance to ensure the aircraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of sa fety 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 requ ire safe modes to prevent fly

‐ a

‐ ways or other scenarios. An individual commenter also expres sed 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 m eans 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 ope rate 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 esta blishes through this exemption and related

Certificates of Waiver or Au thorization (COAs) safe operation al distances from airports.

ALPA also identified that the RMAX is not equi pped 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 mitig ate the risk of a mid-air collision with other aircraft. The COA issued by the Air Traffi c Organization (ATO) to approve specific operations within the Mode C ve il, if any, will addre ss specific risk mitigations to ensure those operations are conducted safely.

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “comp ensation or hire,” and therefore contends the pilot mu st 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 mo del 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 qua lifications 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 th at a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot certificate, and operating unde r this exemption, would not a dversely 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 th at the petitioner’s request is not for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of th e 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 im pact to the NAS, the FAA requires that each operator secure COA which covers specific de tails of the petitioner’s operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will genera te new NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-le vel airspace, and ther efore clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these operato rs. NAAA stated that seei ng and avoiding other

aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for agricultural safety, and that agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other ai rcraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS opera tions at low altitude s 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 yiel d right-of-way to manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certifica tion 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, st robe lights, high-visibility markings and registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, w ith the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned

aircraft.

With regard to the petitioner’s re quested 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 al low 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 need s 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 unders tand. 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 certifi cation § 137.19(d), rather than gran t 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, Secti on 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act

of 2012 authorizes the Secretar y of Transportation to determ ine, considering a number of factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certificat e is not necessary for certain operations. The Secretary has made that determin ation 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 analys is into five sections: (1) the UAS, (2) the UAS PIC, (3) the UAS operating parameters, (4) the UAS operatin g 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 crit eria provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC § 44704, and in consideration of the si ze, weight, speed, operational capabilities, design safety features, and limited operating area a ssociated with the aircraft and its operation,13

the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft m eets 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 belo w 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 certificati on and testing requirements of part 36, are not necessary.

The RMAX is larger and heavier than UAS pr eviously approved to operate under Section 333. The FAA reviewed engineering data supp lied by the petitioner to assess whether the increase in size and weight w ould adversely impact safety. Our evaluation considered risk mitigating factors such as RMAX service hist ory, pilot and spotter training requirements, system safety features, the intended low-al titude and remote area of operations, and other operating limitations.

The RMAX UAS has been in operation since 199 7 and logged more than two million flight hours. There are approximately 2,600 RMAX UAS in use worldwide. Yamaha has developed production, certificati on, operation, and maintenance requirements for the RMAX. Yamaha provided data that demonstrates the RM AX historical safety record for the types of agricultural service operations bei ng requested in its petition.

Manned aircraft conducting agri cultural 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 crew members. 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 ob server 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 im pact the surface with less energy than a manned aircraft and therefore lowers the poten tial risk and severity of fire following an

incident or accident due to fuel or payload spillage.

The petitioner’s UAS has on-board safety featur es that ensure the UAS can operate safely under both normal and contingency operating cond itions. These features include automation to increase safety and reduce pilot workload. Some examples are the self-monitoring function (pre-takeoff diagnostics), an alt itude 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 pr ovide critical system status information to the pilot. When concluding a flight, the rotor brake feature cau ses the propellers to tilt upon shut down to allow air resistance to quickly bring the propeller s to full stop. These safety features ensure that these operations will not adversely imp act safety compared to a manned aircraft14

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 accordan ce 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 al so necessary. Data pr ovided by the petitioner indicates the main rotor system has not expe rienced 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 fa ilures through design changes, improving the reliability of the system. The average m echanical failure rate from 2009-2013 was 1 per 46,500 flight hours. The FAA has considered these factors in its evaluatio n of the petitioner’s request and determined that adherence to the conditions and limitations below regarding the responsibilities for maintaining, inspecting, and pr e-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, comm ercial, or airline tran sport. 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 limita tions 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 re quire an airworthiness certific ate, the FAA has determined15

that for the purposes of this ex emption 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 re lief 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 re lief 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 w eather, flight battery require ments, 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 th e 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 procedur es. 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 ex emption will also require that training operations only be conducted during dedicated training session s. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner can conduct its operations without the requested relief from § 91.109.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed 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 w ithout 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 aircraft16

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 request ed 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 cer tificate, 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 reque st relief from § 137.19(c), Certification requirements , which requires the applicant for a commercial agricult ural 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 aircra ft to be used. The petitioner requests to conduct commercial agricultura l aircraft operations under 14 CFR part 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations , with persons holding a privat e pilot certificate. The FAA

has determined that relief from § 137.19(c) is necessary to the extent necessary to permit persons holding a sport, recreationa l, or private pilot certificate to act as PIC for commercial agricultural aircraft operations. The basis for this relief is th e 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 pe titioner’s training require ments in the operating documents. Lastly, because of the relief provide d 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 reta in custody of the RMAX UAS and the agricultural related se rvices would be under the direc tion, supervision, and control of

Yamaha. As stated in the anal ysis 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 re quirements of this exemption will not adversely impact safety. Th us, 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 commercia l 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 demonstra tion 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 operation s as described in the petitioner’s operating documents. Yamaha’s RMAX training and certif ication 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 im pact safety, therefore relief is warranted. Skill requirements in th e other sections of § 137.19(e)(2) not exempted must be demonstrated as requi red for certification as a agricu ltural 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 reque sted 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 installa tion and use of a shoulder harness and safety

belt is warranted because the RMAX is an unma nned aircraft with no onboard pilot. These requirements are intended to ensure the safety of the onboard pilot du ring manned agricultural aircraft operations a nd thus, relief from §§ 137.31(b) and 137.42 does not adversely impact safety.

Regarding the petitioner’s reque sted 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 necessa ry 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 th e aircraft is not necessary. The FAA finds that this analysis is appli cable to the requirements of § 137.33(a). These documents may be18

kept in a location accessible to the PIC. Ther efore, 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 petiti oner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircra ft of significantly great er proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives th e 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 necessary19

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 gr ant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority c ontained 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) an d (b); 137.33(a); and 137.42 to the extent necessary to allow the petitione r to operate the RMAX UAS for the purpose of agricultural-related services operations. This exempti on is subject to the conditions and

limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations:

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

operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions an d 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 ex emption are limited to the Yamaha RMAX Type II G UAS as described in the operating documen ts 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 verb ally 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 dura tion of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perf orm 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 avai lable to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists betw een 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 revisi ons and present updated

and revised documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present updated and re vised 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 contacte d if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

7. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or a lterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight cri tical component, must undergo a functional test flight prio r to conducting further operat ions 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 functiona l 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 in specting 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 from21

operating until the necessary maintenance has be en performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

10. The operator must follow the UAS manufactur er’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for th e aircraft and aircraft components.

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

bulletins.

12. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hol d either an airline tr ansport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certifi cate. The PIC must also hold a current FAA

airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issu ed by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a posse ssion, or the Federal government. The PIC must also meet the flight revi ew requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in

which the PIC is rated on hi s or her pilot certificate.

13. The PIC and VO must be tr ained and qualified in acco rdance 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 evas ive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualific ation flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consis tent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficie ncy, 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, pr oficiency, and experien ce-building flights, all persons not essential for f light operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distan ce 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 me teorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s 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 agreemen t 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 Admi nistrator 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 it s GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the priv ate or controlled-access property.

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

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a f light 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 le ast five minutes or with the reserve fuel recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Author ization (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 c onduct operations that

cannot be conducted under the te rms of the attached COA.

22. All aircraft operated in accord ance 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 pa rt 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure th e 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 PI C 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 ar e present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating pers ons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight ope rations 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 safety23

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 conduc ted over private or contro lled-access property with permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from property owner/controller or authori zed 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) with in 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Boar d (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.

Unless otherwise specified in th is grant of exemption, the unma nned aircraft system (UAS), pilot in command (PIC), and operator must comply with a ll 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