AFS-15-070-E 

Exemption No. 11175 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated October 15, 2014, Mr. Jack Weekes, Operations Vice President for 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter Petitioner or Operator), One 

State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, IL 61710-0001, petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) for an exemption part 21 Subpart H; §§ 45.23(b), 45.27, 61.113(a) and 

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

and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow the 

petitioner to operate the Aerialtronics Altura Zenith ATX81

 unmanned aircraft system (UAS) 

to conduct roof inspections. 

The petitioner requests an exemption from the following regulations: 

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

design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness 

 

1

 The petitioner listed one aircraft in the petition, the Aerialtronics Altura Zenith ATX8, however it submitted 

manuals for the ATX8 and three other aircraft to the FAA. The petitioner later clarified that it was only seeking 

authority to use the ATX8. See Record of Conversation, Docket FAA-2014-0846 (Feb. 4, 2015). 

In the matter of the petition of 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY

for an exemption from part 21Subpart H; 

§§ 45.23(b); 45.27; 61.113(a) and (b); 

91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.405(a); 

91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 

and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0846
2 

approvals. Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates prescribes the procedural requirements 

for the issue of airworthiness certificates. 

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 lightsport 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. 

Section 45.27 prescribes, in pertinent part, the location of marks for non-fixed-wing 

aircraft requiring the marks required by §45.23. 

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that— 

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command 

(PIC) of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or 

hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft. 

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC 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 91.119(c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person 

may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: 

(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. 

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(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under visual 

flight rules (VFR) conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) 

there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal 

cruising speed, (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, 

to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. 
3 

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner 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) prescribes that no person may operate any 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)(1) and (2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that – 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an 

aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had— 

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been 

approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or 

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance 

with part 21 of this chapter. 

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, 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— 

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the 

work performed; and 

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and 

(iii) The signature and certificate number of the person approving the 

aircraft for return to service. 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and 

each rotor. 

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, 

rotor, and appliance. 
4 

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft that are 

required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. 

 

(iv)The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the 

last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft 

and its appliances are maintained. 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety 

directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety 

directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. 

(vi)Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) for each major alteration to the 

airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. 

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: 

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until 

the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is 

performed. 

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and 

transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. 

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 shall 

be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return 

to service. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner proposes to operate its UAS to conduct commercial operations to obtain 

images of its policyholders' roofs to determine the nature and extent of damage to the roof 

surface. See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed 

operations. 

The petitioner has provided certain information to support its request for an exemption, which 

includes proprietary supporting documents. The petition and the following supporting 

documentation are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents: 
5 

1) State Farm UAS Training Course Syllabus 

2) State Farm UAS Operations Manual2

 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014, (79 

FR 67537). The FAA received three comments on the petition for exemption. The Small 

UAV Coalition (Coalition) supported the petition, and the Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed 

it. 

In support of the petition, the Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) states the petitioner has 

proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating 

similar aircraft. The Coalition states that it does not believe that heightened safety measures 

should be required for the petitioner simply because of the commercial nature of its 

operations. The Coalition urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS 

operations under section 333 of Pub. L. 112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks 

of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions 

among unmanned aerial vehicles based on commercial and non-commercial operations. The 

Coalition suggested FAA safety regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the 

particular proposed UAS operations by distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS 

pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. The Coalition asserted that because UAS 

operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal 

and appropriate regulations. 

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors in section 333 as a minimum. 

The Coalition stated the petition shows the FAA should consider factors other than those 

specified in section 333, such as the location and altitude of its small UAV operations. The 

Coalition maintained that the petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the seven factors in 

section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security 

of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasized the FAA must evaluate each 

factor within the context of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations. The Coalition also 

commented that the FAA should grant relief from the requirement to hold an airman’s 

certificate, but stated that at a minimum the FAA should provide an exemption from part 61 

and approve training, experience, and testing regiments that pertain to UAS commercial 

operations pertinent to the aircraft and operation proposed. The Coalition also asserted that 

Congress intended the section 333 national security criterion to focus on the operation rather 

than on the pilot and that shifting that focus imposes an unnecessary burden. 

 

2

 Appendix E Aerialtronics Zenith ATX8 Operations Manual and Appendix F Aerialtronics System Description 

Manual are considered part of the operating documents for this grant of exemption. References to the Nova 

F6500, MP32, and VP23 aircraft in the training syllabus and operations manual are not considered part of the 

operating documents. 
6 

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (No. 11110), 

neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its regulations found in 49 USC § 

44701(f), authorizes the FAA to provide exemption to the statutory requirement to hold an 

airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. The FAA notes that under this exemption 

the petitioner proposed to use pilots holding private certificates and it will be able to use the 

training program it proposed. Finally, the FAA does not agree that relying on the pilot 

certificate for a national security finding poses an unnecessary burden because pilots under 

this exemption, and the exemptions granted previously to section 333 requests, are already 

required to hold a pilot certificate to satisfy 49 USC § 44711. 

The Coalition commented that a visual observer (VO) should not be required for all small 

UAS operation. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more visual 

observers (VO) may allow the UAS to be operated beyond visual line of sight (VLOS) of the 

pilot in command (PIC) and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the unmanned aircraft 

(UA) within VLOS of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted. The FAA notes that one of the 

determinations for operations under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. As the 

PIC is determined to be in command of the UA, he must maintain VLOS while operating the 

UA. The FAA also notes that a visual observer complements the PICs capability to see and 

avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying 

tasks (e.g., maneuvering the aircraft close to actors and actresses and other objects on a film 

set). The VO provides an additional level of operational safety. 

The Coalition stated that submitting a plan of activities “in all cases” should not be required 

of small UAS operators and notifying the FAA should be necessary only when there is a 

potential conflict with manned aircraft operations because of the altitude of the UAV 

operation or its proximity to airports. The FAA notes that a plan of activities is only required 

for motion picture and television filming operations as is required for the same operations 

conducted by manned aircraft, thus assuring an acceptable level of safety. 

The Coalition also commented that in the case of the petitioner’s proposed operation over a 

residential or commercial property under 200 feet AGL and with both horizontal and vertical 

geo-fencing that it is not necessary to obtain a letter of agreement when in proximity of nontowered airports, rather, that the petitioner be mindful of any nearby airfields and 

knowledgeable about arrival and departure paths. These comments are addressed in the 

FAA’s analysis and conditions and limitations regarding Certificates of Waiver and 

Authorization (COA). 

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA notes the 

petitioner’s reference to operations conducted within “limited or predetermined” sterile areas 

is not defined, nor does the petitioner detail procedures for controlling the airspace or area of 

operation. Specifically, ALPA states “there must be means both to ensure that the sUAS 

remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on 

the operation is mitigated.” The FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will 

operate (i.e. VLOS and at or below 200 feet above ground level (AGL) with a VO) are 
7 

sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect safety. 

Additionally, the petitioner will utilize geo-fencing around the owner’s property line to ensure 

the Zenith ATX8 remains within defined boundaries. 

ALPA stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from 

the most minimal distance possible. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and 

visual observer communications. 

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and 

explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR-09/55, “Flammability Assessment of 

Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage 

(January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for 

known risks should be addressed. The FAA notes that the referenced study was primarily 

conducted to determine how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned 

airplanes. Given the size of the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA 

concludes that the use of a lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the 

proposed operations. 

ALPA commented that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common 

failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to 

ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s operating documents addressed potential 

hazards related to C2 failure. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated by the petitioner has 

sufficient design features to address these hazards. The FAA also finds that the operating 

documents have incorporated safety procedures to be followed by all operational participants 

should a C2 failure occur. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below. 

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.203, ALPA stated the UAS 

should be certified to the same level of safety under § 91.203 as other commercially operated 

aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). These comments are addressed in the FAA’s 

conditions and limitations below. 

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

argues 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. The National 

Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) also commented on pilot qualification, stating— 

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous training 

curriculum and show that they are fit to operate a commercial aircraft, so 

too must UAS operators. Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS 

operators to similar high standards as commercial aircraft operators and 

ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as commercial operators 
8 

within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the necessary 

visual and mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a 

sustained period of time. 

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training required by holders of both private and 

commercial certificates. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of this issue 

with regards to 14 CFR § 61.113. 

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, ALPA noted the 

petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid requirements in § 91.113 given the 

absence of an onboard pilot. This comment is addressed in detail in the FAA analysis below. 

ALPA expressed concerns on pilot and VO communication noting the petitioner states that 

the pilot and the observer will be able to communicate verbally. ALPA stressed when voice 

communication is used, both the pilot and observer should be able to maintain a visual 

observation of both the aircraft and the area of operation. These comments are addressed in 

the FAA’s analysis and conditions and limitations below. 

ALPA mentioned the aircraft will not have a barometric altimeter as required by 14 CFR § 

91.121, stating the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed, and processes or 

mitigations, such as redundant control capability, fail-safe systems, backups and specific, 

validated procedures for system and equipment failures must be in place. The FAA agrees 

with ALPA and addresses this concern in its analysis of the exemption from 14 CFR § 

91.121, finding that the alternative means of compliance proposed by the petitioner does not 

adversely affect safety. 

Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argued that using batteries as the only 

source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from traditional methods of propulsion, and 

requires further research to determine best safety practices. This comment is addressed in 

detail below. 

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) [sic], and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA 

opposed the petitioner’s “attempt to avoid compliance with established aircraft maintenance 

and record keeping” requirements. ALPA stated the UAS should comply with the same level 

of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. This comment is addressed in 

detail below. 

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

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

in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPAs concern and 

in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires each operator secure a 

COA which covers specific details of the petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that 

UAS integration will generate new NAS access demand and will review and adjust 

accordingly. 
9 

ALPA expressed concern regarding the petitioner’s waiver request for 14 CFR § 91.119. 

ALPA stated all aircraft in the NAS must operate to the same high level of safety, this include 

maintaining a safe altitude for both airplanes and helicopters. These comments are addressed 

in the FAA’s analysis and conditions and limitations below. 

NAAA stated it represents the interests of small business owners and pilots licensed as 

commercial applicators. NAAA explained that its members operate in low-level airspace, and 

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 agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to 

perform their see-and-avoid functions needed to prevent collisions. NAAA stated UA 

operations at low altitudes will increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural 

aircraft. NAAA argued that until adequate see-and-avoid technology is developed, the FAA 

should require UAS operators to post a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 48 to 72 hours before 

operations. NAAA proposes UAS aircraft be painted a highly visible color, be equipped with 

strobe lights, and use Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) or other similar 

location reporting technology. To address these concerns the FAA has incorporated 

associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: a) NOTAMs issued for 

all operations, b) operations conducted within VLOS of the PIC and the VO, and c) the UAS 

PIC must always yield right-of-way to manned aircraft. 

NAAA also proposed a number of operating limitations and requirements for UAS operators. 

NAAA stated UAS operators should have procedures to immediately ground the UAS if 

another low-flying aircraft is within 2 miles; be attending/monitoring UAS at all time and 

attentive to surroundings (no headphones, etc., or other distractions); comply with all 

applicable regulations, policies, and procedures; be equipped with aviation radios set to a 

locally defined frequency; have a separate VO with a second-class medical certificate and 

perform duties for only one UAS at a time; maintain line-of-sight operations; and be wellversed in the UAS operator document. NAAA further stated the UAS should be properly 

maintained, have a registered N-Number on an indestructible and unmovable plate, and be 

required to have an airworthiness certificate and liability insurance. These comments are 

addressed in the FAA’s analysis and conditions and limitations. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has organized its analysis into four sections: (1) UAS, (2) the UAS pilot in 

command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating parameters, and (4) the public interest. 
10 

UAS 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and 

parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates prescribes the procedural requirements for the 

issue of airworthiness certificates. 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, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the 

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

333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any 

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

The petitioner’s UA will weigh less than 19 lbs. with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and 

crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the 

potential for harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or property in the event of 

an incident or accident. 

This exemption does not require an electronic means to monitor and communicate with other 

aircraft, such as transponders or sense and avoid technology. Rather the FAA is mitigating the 

risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand-off distance from clouds, 

permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within VLOS and 

yield right of way to all other manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides that 

the operator will request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the NAS. These 

mitigations address concerns raised by NAAA and ALPA regarding awareness of UAS 

operations occurring in the airspace. 

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight 

contingencies or failures and uses an auto-pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. 

The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, 

predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of 

safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar operation and address ALPAs 

comment on mitigating risk of command and control link failures. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b) Display of marks, the 

petitioner requests this relief under the assumption that marking with the word “limited,” 

"restricted," or “experimental” will be required as a condition of a grant of exemption. 

However, these markings are reserved for aircraft that are issued certificates under 14 CFR §§ 

21.185, 21.189, or 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under §§ 21.185, 

21.189, or 21.191, therefore these markings are not required and exemption from § 45.23(b) is 

not necessary. 

The petitioner has also requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.27(a), Location of marks. Given 

that an exemption from § 45.23(b) is not necessary, an exemption from § 45.27(a) is also not 

necessary. Markings must be as large as practicable per § 45.29(f). 
11 

Regarding the petitioner’s 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)(1) and (a)(2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records, the FAA has 

carefully evaluated the petitioner’s request and determined that cause for granting the 

exemption is warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s Zenith ATX8 UAS operating 

documents contain detailed preflight checks, as well as routine maintenance, preventative 

maintenance, replacement/overhaul of component parts and alterations for the UAS. Also, 

Zenith ATX8 operators are required by Aerialtronics to return the UAS to the manufacturer 

every 60 hours for maintenance purposes. The FAA finds that adherence to the Zenith ATX8 

operations manual and the petitioner’s operating documents, as required by the conditions and 

limitations below are sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. In accordance 

with the petitioner’s UAS maintenance, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements, 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 petitioner states the aircraft will be operated in the field with a minimum of a private pilot 

PIC, a ground-based VO, and a team leader in accordance with its operating documents. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113 Private pilot privileges and 

limitations, the FAA must consider the appropriate level of pilot certification for the 

petitioner’s proposed operations. The petitioner states it would operate its UAS with a private 

pilot holding a third-class airmen medical certificate. Under current regulations, civil 

operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificate per 

14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations in accordance with pertinent parts of 

14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an 

aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to a business or 

employment. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the 

FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would 

not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the 

ground. Additionally, as previously determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the 

requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS 

operations conducted in accordance with Section 333. 

The FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and determined it does not differ 

significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Astraeus). 

Given: 1) the similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of 

Astraeus, 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those 

of commercial requirements, and 3) the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the 

FAA finds that the additional manned airmanship experience of a commercially certificated 

pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for the petitioner’s proposed 

operations. Therefore, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a thirdclass airman medical certificate is appropriate for the proposed operations. 
12 

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, in accordance with the 

petitioner’s operating documents, the PIC must accumulate and log a minimum of 200 flight 

cycles, 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot, and at least ten hours as a UAS pilot 

with a similar UAS type (single blade or multi-rotor). The conditions and limitations below 

stipulate that the petitioner may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC has 

demonstrated through the petitioner’s training and currency requirements that the PIC is able 

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 people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class 

airman medical certificate, and who has completed the petitioner’s UAS training and currency 

requirements, can conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the 

safety of the NAS and persons or property on the ground. Upon consideration of the overall 

safety case presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds 

that granting the requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), is warranted. 

The FAA considers the PIC to be designated for the duration of the flight. Therefore, per the 

conditions and limitations below, the PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot 

transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. 

The petitioner has also indicated it will supplement his proposed operation(s) with a VO. 

The conditions and limitations below stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can 

perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents. Additionally, as discussed in 

Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc., there are no regulatory requirements for visual 

observer medical certificates. Although a medical certificate is not required for a VO, the 

UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual capabilities of the VO, and the VO and 

PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS with the UA at all times. It is the responsibility 

of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit operations of the UA to 

distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the VO will not 

be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the 

FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the VO. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

Although the petitioner did not seek relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness, 

the FAA finds that relief from § 91.7(a) is necessary. While the petitioner’s UAS will not 

require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, the FAA 

considers the petitioner’s compliance with its operating documents to be a sufficient means 

for determining an airworthy condition. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its 

aircraft is in an airworthy condition – based on compliance with the operating documents 

prior to every flight, and as stated in the conditions and limitations below. 
13 

Additionally, in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for 

determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. The FAA finds that the PIC 

can comply with this requirement. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(c) Minimum safe altitudes 

Over other than congested areas, relief is sought because the petitioner states that operations 

will only be conducted within a restricted area where buildings and people will not be 

exposed to operations without their pre-obtained consent. Using the UA’s geo-fencing 

capabilities, the petitioner proposes to operate the UA no more than 200 feet above ground 

level and only over the consenting policy holder’s property. The petitioner further states that 

the UAS will not be operated over any person other than participating personnel at an altitude 

that is hazardous to persons or property on the surface in the event of a UAS failure or 

emergency. 

The petitioner will also display signage notifying the public of UAS operations before 

beginning operations. Signs will be approximately 18" x 24" in size and will be placed in 

locations that will be visible from adjacent roadways at least 5 minutes prior to UAS 

operations. An area will be marked off as the UAS "landing zone." The operating documents 

state that operations will be conducted as far as practicable from non-participating persons 

However, the petitioner failed to provide an explanation for exposing nonparticipating 

persons to increased risk. Therefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to conducting UAS

specific operations, all persons not essential to flight operations (nonparticipating persons) 

must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet 

from all persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. the PIC and VO). The FAA has also 

considered that the UA in this case will weigh 19 pounds or less. If barriers or structures are 

present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from being struck by the UA or 

by debris in the event of an accident then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons 

afforded such protection. 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. The 

primary concern, when considering how to immediately cease operations, is the safety of 

those nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAA finds that operations may be conducted 

closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the land owner/controller grants 

such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

objects. 

Thus, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because all operations will be 

conducted below 200 feet AGL and may be operated closer than 500 feet from persons, 

vessels, vehicles, and structures as described above. Provided adherence to the procedures in 

the operating documents and the additional conditions and limitations outlined below, the 

FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter Settings, the FAA 

believes that an altitude reading is a critical safety component of the petitioner’s proposed 
14 

operation. Although the petitioner will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard the 

aircraft, the FAA finds the petitioner’s intention to operate the UA within VLOS and at or 

below 200 feet AGL, combined with the petitioner’s intention to provide altitude information 

to the UAS pilot via a radio communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from the 

aircraft to the PIC for active monitoring of the flight path, to be a sufficient method for 

ensuring the UAS operations do not adversely affect safety. The altitude information will be 

generated by global positioning system (GPS) equipment installed onboard the aircraft, and a 

static pressure sensor (barometer) which aids in estimating the altitude. Prior to each flight, a 

zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the UAS PIC. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for granting the requested relief to 14 CFR § 

91.121 and this approach satisfies ALPAs concern about the ability of the UAS to accurately 

maintain altitude. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.151 (a) Fuel requirements for flight in 

VFR conditions, prior relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than 

prescribed minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar 

UAS-specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, 

VFR conditions. The petitioner states in the event that the UAS should run out of power, it 

would simply land within the access controlled operating area. Given its weight and 

construction material, the risks are less than contemplated by the current regulation. As stated 

in the UA specifications in the operating documents, the UA batteries provide 35 minutes of 

powered flight on average. The operating documents indicate that at 30% reserve, the UA will 

enter a return and land sequence and at 20% reserve, the UA will land immediately. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined that the PIC will be prohibited from beginning a flight 

unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at a 

normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with not less than 30% 

battery power remaining – limiting flights to a maximum of 24 minutes. Therefore, the FAA 

grants the relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) to the extent necessary to comply with the 

conditions and limitations below. 

Additionally, in evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to 

VLOS and a safe operating perimeter, the FAA considered operations from a moving device 

or vehicle. Since the petitioner did not discuss provisions for these circumstances, the 

conditions and limitations below preclude operations from moving devices or vehicles. 

Regarding an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued COA, the majority of current UAS 

operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated through Air Traffic Control (ATC) by 

the issuance of a COA. This is an existing process that not only makes local ATC facilities 

aware of UAS operations, but also provides ATC the ability to consider airspace issues that 

are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require the operator to request a NOTAM, 

which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities being 

conducted. The conditions and limitations below prescribe the requirement for the petitioner 

to obtain an ATO-issued COA. 
15 

Public Interest 

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. By utilizing UAS 

technology, the operator will reduce exposure of its personnel to hazards related to accessing 

and inspecting roofs and rapidly obtain accurate assessments of the roof while remaining 

safely on the ground. Faster roof damage assessments will also result in faster claims 

processing and repairs for affected policy holders. 

The following table summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding the relief sought by the 

petitioner: 

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, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is 

granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the 

extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS for the purpose of conducting roof 

inspections. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR) 

Part21, Subpart H Relief not necessary 

45.23(b) Relief not necessary 

45.27 Relief not necessary 

61.113(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.119(c) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.151(a) Relief granted from 91.151(a)(1), day, 

with conditions and limitations 

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 
16 

Conditions and Limitations 

Relative to this grant of exemption, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company is hereafter 

referred to as the operator. 

The petition and the following supporting documentation are hereinafter referred to as the 

operating documents: 

1) State Farm UAS Training Course Syllabus 

2) State Farm UAS Operations Manual 

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 is limited to the following aircraft 

described in the operator’s manual, which is a quad rotor aircraft weighing less than 

19 pounds maximum takeoff weight: Aerialtronics Altura Zenith ATX8 Unmanned 

Aircraft System. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition 

or a petition to amend this grant. 

2. UAS operations under this exemption are limited to roof inspection. 

3. The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 39 knots (20m/s). 

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 200 feet above ground level 

(AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents. All 

altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

5. 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. 

6. 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 functions 

prescribed in the operating documents. 

7. The VO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and 

avoiding other air traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not 

permitted to operate the camera or other instruments. 
17 

8. The operating documents and this grant of exemption 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 upon request. The operator must 

also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment. 

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 amendment 

to their exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if 

questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents. 

9. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe 

flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, 

the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been 

performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground 

Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and 

alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records. 

10. 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 in accordance with the operating documents. The PIC who 

conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of 

the flight. The requirements and procedures for a functional test flight and aircraft 

record entry must be added to the operating documents. 

11. The preflight inspection must account for all discrepancies, i.e. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not covered in the relevant preflight inspection 

sections of the operating documents. 

12. The operator must follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, 

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements, with particular attention 

to flight critical components that may not be addressed in the manufacturer’s manuals. 

13. The operator must carry out their maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, 

and alterations must be noted in the aircraft logbook, including total flight hours, 

description of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized UAS technician 

returning the UAS to service. 
18 

14. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer System 

and Safety Bulletins. 

15. The authorized person must make a record entry in the aircraft record of the corrective 

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

16. The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman 

medical certificate. 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. 

17. Prior to operations, the PIC must have completed the operator’s training as prescribed 

in the operating documents. During that training, the PIC must have accumulated and 

logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), the minimum hours prescribe 

in the operating documents as UAS pilot operating the make and model of the UAS to 

be utilized for operations under the exemption. Training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to qualify the 

operator’s PIC(s), VO(s) and other essential personnel as defined in the operating 

documents. However, said training operations may only be conducted during 

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

flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance 

with 14 CFR § 91.119. 

18. Prior to operations, the PIC must have completed the operator’s currency requirements 

as prescribed in the operating documents. The PIC must have completed at least three 

take-offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days as UAS pilot operating the make 

and model of the UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption to maintain 

currency. Take-off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this grant of 

exemption. When establishing or regaining currency, said currency flights may only 

be conducted during dedicated training/currency sessions. During training, 

proficiency, experience-building flights, and dedicated currency flights the PIC is 

required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance with 14 CFR § 

91.119. 

19. Prior to operations, the PIC, VO, and other essential personnel as defined in the 

operating documents, must have met all qualification, training, and currency 

requirements, as outlined in the operating documents. A record of completion of these 

requirements must be documented and made available to the Administrator upon 

request. 

20. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC has demonstrated 

through the operator’s training and currency requirements and logged in a manner 

consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b) that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a 

manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including 
19 

evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, 

vessels, vehicles and structures. 

21. 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. 

22. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the airport reference point of an 

airport as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart. 

23. 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. 

24. 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 and land or be 

recovered in accordance with the operating documents. 

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

accordance with the operating documents. 

26. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and 

forecast weather conditions and assuming normal cruising speed) there is enough 

power to fly to the intended landing point and land the UA with 30% battery power 

remaining. 

27. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of 

exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman 

(NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the 

operation. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements 

in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential 

transponder requirements. 

28. The operator will comply with all national, state, and local laws and regulations which 

may require the operator to provide notice to, and coordinate with, first responders, 

appropriate law enforcement personnel, local municipalities, and other suitable 

agencies prior to conducting operations involving property damage assessments 

associated with natural disasters, or other emergencies. 

29. 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. 
20 

30. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and 

control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements. 

31. The documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 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. 

32. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned aviation 

operations and activities at all times. 

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

34. The UA may not be operated over congested or densely populated areas. 

35. Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons 

(persons other than the PIC or VO), vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating 

persons from UA and potential 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 and/or; 

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the land 

owner/controller has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety 

assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and; 

c. Operations near the PIC or VO do not present an undue hazard to the PIC or 

VO, per § 91.119(a). 

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

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

from the authority will be obtained for each flight to be conducted 
21 

37. 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. 

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2015. 

/s/ 

Michael J. Zenkovich 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service