vv

Jonathan B. Hill

+1 202 776 2725

jhill@cooley.com

via regulations.gov

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

August 24, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: FAA-Docket 2015-0513 Amendment-Exemption 11857

Dear Sir or Madam:

On June 19, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) granted Liberty Mutual 

Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) Exemption No. 11857 (the “Exemption”) pursuant to 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. 

Part 11. (FAA Docket 20125-0513) That exemption authorized the operation of several 

designated aircraft, as described in the exemption, in commercial service for the conduct of 

aerial photography for home and business roof inspection and large structure/fire site 

inspection. The Exemption contained the FAA standard restrictions for operating closer than 

500 feet to a structure, Condition 26. This request for an amendment addresses those 

restrictions, requesting a reduction in the restriction to allow operation of commercial UAS within 

500 feet of nonparticipating person, vehicles and structure under the conditions proposed 

herein.

1

 Liberty Mutual proposes that it be allowed under the conditions proposed to operate its 

Liberty 4 UAS, weighing less than 4.4 lbs. and flying at no more than 5 mph, within a 25 foot 

perimeter of a building to be inspected and no higher than 100 AGL.

The requirements of Condition 26 go beyond the need for safety when one considers the 

use of UASs of less than 4.4 lbs. The UAS that will be used by Liberty Mutual weighs less than 

2 kgs., will be programmed to fly at speeds of no more than 5 mph, has nylon rotors and will be 

operated at an altitude of no more than 100 AGL. These diminutive aircraft, operated under the 

conditions proposed, pose much less of a safety issue than a 55 lbs. UAS operating at speeds 

up to 100 mph and at altitude of 400 feet. Because the safety requirements needed to protect 

persons, property and vehicles are significantly less with a UAS of the size described above, it 

is respectfully suggested that the requirements of Condition 26 can and should be changed

when a UAS, as described, is used, under the conditions set forth in this request for an 

amended exemption.

The issue that is presented by the Exemption’s condition, operating 500 feet from a 

structure, can be illustrated by reviewing the diagrams set out in Exhibit A. As can be seen from 

 1 To the extent that Condition 27 of the Exemption is involved, Liberty Mutual will obtain the permission 

of the property owner for whose property Liberty Mutual provides insurance coverage before undertaking 

any inspection with a sUAS. Liberty Mutual will also need to obtain, to the extent required by local 

regulatory requirements, the approval of the local government before any such flight.
August 24, 2015

Page Two

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

randomly selected neighborhoods in the five municipalities: Amarillo, Texas; Brooklyn, New 

York; Denver, Colorado; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; St. Louis, Missouri; and Winchester 

Massachusetts, the number of approvals needed from persons, vehicles and structures to allow 

operation of any small UAS, would be the same whether it weighs 55 lbs or less than 4.4 lbs.

This requirement is not related to the safety risks presented, especially when the aircraft to be 

used is restricted as to weight, speed and altitude. The 500 foot radius far exceeds that needed 

to provide an equivalent level of safety under the current air regulations with the smaller, slower 

aircraft. 

A radius of 500 feet is excessive given the mass and speed of a UAS weighing less than 

4.4lbs. The current “buffer zone” of 500 feet results in a vastly expanded number of permissions 

needed to operate, and in fact it makes the use of any UAS, no matter the size, impractical in 

any urban or suburban environment. It also extends protection to those who are not reasonably 

exposed to safety risks. In an urban environment such as Brooklyn, New York the requirement 

could reach to over 137 individual consents just from the home owners within that radius. The 

number of vehicles for which consents would be needed is unknowable. As can be seen the 

number of consents decreases as the area to be inspected moves from a dense urban area to a 

more rural or suburban area, such as Winchester or Amarillo, but the current limitations are not 

necessary to protect people or structures from possible harm from the small UAS, Liberty 4, as 

approved for use in the Exemption. 

These realities of urban/suburban geography are such that requiring consent from all 

homeowners within the 500 foot radius is well beyond the safety needs that could or would be 

imposed on an equivalent level of safety basis under the current regulations or the current 

requirements contained in the standard exemption for small UASs particularly in the case of a 

UAS the size proposed in this request. If, as proposed herein, all flight operations were

conducted within an area that extends 25 feet out from the perimeter of the building to be 

inspected, at the weight and speed proposed, that 25 foot buffer would provide protection to 

those who reasonably would be exposed and would not impose unworkable restrictions on 

operators for remote, if none existent, safety concerns. To comply with the current exemption 

an operator would have to ensure that all persons within the marked 500-foot area, some as 

much as three or four blocks away, are either under cover or behind a barrier sufficient to 

protect from them from a UAS that is operating several blocks away. Given the proposed 

restrictions on the aircraft size, weight, speed and altitude, there simply is no credible risk to all 

the people, structures or vehicles within that entire 500-foot radius. Under the terms of the 

current Exemption one owner of a building or automobile, if that person can be found, three 

blocks away from the proposed inspection, could stop the flight by withholding approval. A 

person walking on the sidewalk three or four blocks away would require termination of the flight.

Neither the building owner nor a pedestrian would reasonably be exposed to a safety risk where 

the small UASs, as proposed herein, are in use.

Liberty Mutual, recognizes that roof or structure inspections may pose some minimal 

level of risk to persons, structures or vehicles, given the size and speed restrictions contained in 

the standard exemption. Liberty Mutual, therefore, proposes that the FAA grant Liberty Mutual 

an amended exemption allowing roof inspections via aerial photography with the following 

conditions:
August 24, 2015

Page Three

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

1. Roof inspection will only be conducted with an aircraft that weighs less than 4.4 

lbs. (2 kilograms).

2. Roof inspections would be conducted within a safety zone that extends 25 feet 

from and around the perimeter of the building to be inspected.

3. Roof inspection will not be conducted at an altitude higher than 100 feet above 

the ground.

4. Roof inspection will not be conducted at more than indicated airspeed of 5 mph 

(restricted by software in the UAS).

5. Roof inspections will be terminated should any unauthorized person breach the 

25 foot safety zone around the building being inspected.

6. Roof inspections will be conducted with the permission of the property 

owner/controller or authorized representative for the property over which the 

aircraft will fly. 

7. Roof inspection will only use aircraft that have nylon propellers to minimize debris 

and potential damage to persons or property.

8. Roof inspection will be conducted with aircraft that have a return to home 

function should an issue arise and a “kill switch” built into the UAS. Such a 

switch, located at the controls available to the operator, will terminate all power to 

the aircraft, causing it land immediately should such capability be needed.

9. For each flight the PIC shall conduct a “safety assessment” as described in the 

Amended FOM submitted in this Docket on a confidential basis. If such 

assessment does not establish that the flight can be undertaken with adequate 

safety, no flight will be commenced. If during any such flight conditions should 

change or alter such an assessment, the flight will be immediately terminated.

For the purposes of operating under this proposed amended exemption Liberty Mutual 

will operate an aircraft, Liberty 4, as described in the confidential manuals submitted in this 

Docket.

Confidential Exhibit 1, the amended Flight Operations Manual (AFOM), submitted 

confidentially in this docket, sets forth in Appendix 1, Section 17, “Onsite Safety Assessment” 

the procedure to be followed by the PIC prior to any flight within the reduced 25-foot perimeter. 

Specific reference is made to the Section 17.10 “Operations within the 25’ safety Zone”. The 

manual restricts the size of the aircraft to 4.4 lbs.; requires all operations to be conducted within 

the 25 foot safety zone of the structure and at a speed not to exceed 5 mph Confidential Exhibit 

2, the Aircraft Flight Manual for Liberty 4, has been amended from that originally submitted in 

this docket to incorporate the conditions imposed by the Exemption already granted and insert a 

new section entitled “25 foot Perimeter Flight Team Procedures” at page 33-34.

The name and address of the applicant is:

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

157 Berkeley Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02116

Attn: Brendan Picha

Special Projects Manager, Strategy & Innovation_
August 24, 2015

Page Four

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

Ph: 857.224.6999

Regulations from which the exemption is requested:

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c)

14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4) and (5)

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)

14 C.F.R. 61.315(a)

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) 

14 C.F.R. 91.119(c)

14 C.F.R. 91.121

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a)(1)

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a)

14 C.F.R. 407(a)(1)

14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2)

14 C.F.R. 417(a) and (b)

This amended exemption application, as was true for Liberty Mutual’s original exemption 

request, is expressly submitted to fulfill Congress’ goal in passing Section 333(a) through (c) of 

the Reform Act. This law directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider whether certain 

unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) before 

completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the Reform Act. In making this 

determination, the Secretary is required to determine which types of UASs do not create a 

hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security in light of the 

following:

• The UAS’s size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

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

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

Reform Act § 333 (a). Lastly, if the Secretary determines that such vehicles “may operate safely 

in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe 

operation of such aircraft in the national airspace system.” Id. § 333(c) (emphasis added)2.

The Federal Aviation Act, in addition to the authority granted by Section 333 of the 

Reform Act, expressly grants the FAA the authority to issue exemptions. This statutory 

authority by its terms includes exempting civil aircraft, as defined under § 40101 of the Act, that 

includes sUASs, from the requirement that all civil aircraft must have a current airworthiness 

certificate.

 2 Applicant interprets this provision to place a duty on the Administrator to not only process applications 

for exemptions under section 333, but for the Administrator to craft conditions for the safe operation of the 

UAS, if it should be determined that the conditions set forth herein do not fulfill the statutory requirements 

for approval.
August 24, 2015

Page Five

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

The Administrator may grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation prescribed 

under subsection (a) or (b) of section 40101 or any sections 44702-44716 of the Transportation 

Act if the Administrator finds the exemption in the public interest. 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f). See 

also 49 U.S.C. § 44711(a); 49 U.S.C. § 44704; 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a)(1). 

Liberty Mutual’s business and its proposed uses for the aircraft are described in its 

original exemption application in this docket, which is incorporated herein. They will operate 

only within the areas as described in the AFOM and amended Aircraft Flight Manuals (“AFMs”) 

attached as Exhibits 1 and 2.

3

 Operations in compliance with these manuals will ensure that the 

UAS will “not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public”

4 and that 

the aircraft will operate in compliance with the conditions set forth in this application.

Given the greatly reduced size of the UASs, weighting less than 4.4 lbs., and the 

restricted environment and speed envelope within which they will operate, the applicant falls 

squarely within that zone of safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which Congress envisioned 

that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operations of UASs to commence 

immediately. Also due to the diminutive size of the UASs, the restricted areas in which the 

relevant micro UASs will operate and the individualized safety assessment that will be 

performed before each flight, the risk to people and structures from the operation of these very 

small and slow moving aircraft, operating at very low altitudes, pose no safety risk and approval 

of the application presents no national security issue. 

Given the clear direction in Section 333 of the Reform Act, the authority contained in the 

Federal Aviation Act, as amended; the strong equivalent level of safety surrounding the 

proposed operations, and the significant public benefit, including enhanced safety, reduced

environmental impacts, such as reduced emissions associated with allowing battery powered 

UASs for these functions instead of turbine or gas power aircraft/rotorcraft and operations with 

pilots having at least an FAA issued pilot license, the grant of the requested exemptions is in the 

public interest. 

Given the height and speed restriction contained in this proposal as well as the built in 

operational ability to terminate a flight with a “kill switch”, the applicant respectfully requests that 

the FAA grant the requested exemption and this amendment without delay.

Attached hereto and made a part of this submission, as Exhibit B, is an analysis of the 

regulations involved and an equivalent level of safety

*********

 3 Applicant submits that the amended Confidential AFOM and Amended AFM for each aircraft, along 

with the manuals already submitted in this docket, all marked “CONFIDENTIAL”, contain propriety 

business information that should not be released to the public and is protected under the Freedom of 

Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) C.F.R. part 11.

4 Reform Act Section 333(b).
August 24, 2015

Page Six

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

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

Federal Register, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Applicant seeks an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a) and (c ), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 

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

91.417(a) and (b) to operate commercially a small unmanned vehicle (4.4 lbs. or less) in aerial 

data collection, for the inspection of residential roofs and commercial structures within a 50 foot 

radius of such structure. 

Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of small UASs weighing less 

than 4.4 lbs., for the requested purposes will enhance safety by reducing risk. Keeping 

employees and contractors off structures and away from property that is damaged as the result 

of manmade or natural disasters will reduce injuries and save lives also reducing costs. 

Conventional operations, using jet or piston powered aircraft, operating at extremely low 

altitudes in extreme proximity to people and structures present risks associated with vehicles 

that weigh in the neighborhood of 6,000 lbs., carrying large amounts of jet A or other fuel (140 

gallons for jet helicopters). Such aircraft must fly to and from the project location. In contrast, a 

UAS weighing fewer than 4.4 lbs. (with nylon rotor blades) and powered by batteries eliminates 

virtually all of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. 

The UAS is carried to the target area and not flown. The UAS will carry no passengers or crew 

and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights.

The operation of small UASs, weighing less than 4.4 lbs., conducted in the strict 

conditions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the 

exemptions requested herein. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, less than 5 

mph, close to the ground, and in areas that are under the control of the policy holder requesting 

an inspection and therefore are far safer than conventional operations conducted with turbine 

helicopters operating in close proximity to the ground and people or the use of people to climb 

the structures being inspected. 
August 24, 2015

Page Seven

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act --size, weight, 

speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas and operation within 

visual line of sight and national security – provide more than adequate justification for the grant 

of the requested amendment to the Exemption allowing commercial operation of applicant’s 

UASs for the inspection of roofs, as limited and described herein.

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Hill

M. Anne Swanson

Cooley, LLP

Counsel for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

John McGraw

John McGraw Aerospace Consulting, LLC

Agent for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

cc: William Crozier

Robert Pappas

Jake Troutman

Dean Griffith

Thuy H. Cooper
Exhibit A





EXHIBIT B

AIRCRAFT AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

The FAA has granted exemptions to the following regulations in the listed exemptions;

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e) (4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 

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

to allow aerial data collection (See, FAA Exemptions 11309,11460 and 11490)

14 C.F.R. Part 61: Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command

Sections 61.113(a) and (b) limit private pilots to non-commercial operations. Because 

the UAS will not carry a pilot or passengers, the proposed operations can achieve the 

equivalent level of safety of current operations by requiring the PIC operating the aircraft to hold 

a certificate issued by the FAA authorizing operation of any aircraft (ATP, Commercial, Private, 

Recreational or Sport). Unlike a conventional aircraft that carries the pilot and passengers, the 

sUAS is remotely controlled with no living thing on board. The area of operation is controlled 

and restricted, and all flights are planned and coordinated in advance as set forth in the Manual. 

The level of safety provided by the requirements included in the Manual exceeds that provided 

by a single individual holding a commercial pilot’s certificate operating a conventional aircraft. 

The risks associated with the operation of the sUAS are so diminished from the level of risk 

associated with commercial operations contemplated by Part 61 when drafted, that allowing 

operations of the sUAS as requested with any certificate issued by the FAA as the PIC exceeds 

the present level of safety achieved by 14 C.F.R. Part 61. The FAA has granted exemptions for 

private pilots to conduct similar operations in Exemptions 11062, 11213, 11360 and 11447.

14 C.F.R. § 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

Section 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. Section 91.119(d) 

allows helicopters to be operated at less than the minimums prescribed, provided the person 

operating the helicopter complies with any route or altitudes prescribed for helicopters by the 

FAA. As this exemption is for a sUAS that are helicopters and the amended exemption 

requests authority to operate at altitudes up to 100 AGL, or 50 feet above the height of the 

building to be inspected. As set forth herein, except for the limited conditions stated in the 

Manual, the UAS will never operate at higher than 400 AGL. 

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, speed of the UAS 

as well as the location where it is operated. No flight will be taken without the permission of the 

property owner, facility owner and local officials. Because of the advance notice to the property 

owner and participants all affected individuals will be aware of the planned flight operations as 

set forth in the Manual. Compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighting far 

more than the maximum 55lbs. proposed herein and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk 

associated with these operations is far less than those presently presented with conventional 

aircraft operating at or below 500 AGL in the aerial photography industry. In addition, the lowaltitude operations of the sUAS will ensure separation between these small-UAS operations and 

the operations of conventional aircraft that must comply with Section 91.119. 
14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings

This regulation requires 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.” As each sUAS model in at least one operating 

mode will not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a GPS altitude read out, an exemption 

will be needed. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator, pursuant to the 

Manual and Safety Check list, confirming the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS 

altitude indicator before flight. The FAA has granted exemptions to conduct similar operations 

in Exemptions 11062, 11213, 11360 and 11447.

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

Section 91.151(a) prohibits an individual from beginning “a flight in an airplane under 

VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel 

to fly to the first point of intended landing, and, assuming normal cruising speed – (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.” 

The battery powering the sUAS provides approximately 40 minutes of powered flight. To 

meet the 30 minute reserve requirement in 14 C.F.R. § 91.151, sUAS flights would be limited to 

approximately 10 minutes in length. Given the limitations on the UAS’s proposed flight area and 

the location of its proposed operations within a predetermined area, a longer time frame for 

flight in daylight or night VFR conditions is reasonable.

Applicant believes that an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) falls within the scope of 

prior exemptions. See Exemption 10673 (allowing Lockheed Martin Corporation to operate 

without compliance with FAR 91.151 (a)). Operating the small UAS, in a tightly controlled area 

where only people and property owners or official representatives who have signed waivers will 

be allowed, with less than 30 minutes of reserve fuel, does not engender the type of risks that 

Section 91.151(a) was intended to alleviate given the size and speed of the small UAS.

Applicant believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to 

5 minutes of reserve time on the batteries. This restriction would be more than adequate to 

return the sUAS to its planned landing zone from anywhere in its limited operating area.

Similar exemptions have been granted to other operations, including Exemptions 2689F, 

5745, 10673, 10808 and Exemptions 11062, 11213, 11360 and 11447.

14 C.F.R. Part 91: Maintenance Inspections

These regulations require that an aircraft operator or owner “shall have that aircraft 

inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except 

as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 

43 of this chapter...,” and others shall inspect or maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43.

Given that these section and Part 43 apply only to aircraft with an airworthiness 

certificate, these sections will not apply to the applicant. Maintenance will be accomplished by 
the operator pursuant to the flight manual and operating handbook as referenced in the FOP 

attached as confidential See Exhibit 1. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved because 

these small UASs are very limited in size and will carry a small payload and operate only in 

areas for limited periods of time. If mechanical issues arise the UAS can land immediately and 

will be operating from no higher than 400 feet AGL. As provided in the FOP the operator will 

ensure that the UAS is in working order prior to initiating flight, perform required maintenance, 

and keep a log of any maintenance performed. Moreover, the operator is the person most 

familiar with the aircraft and best suited to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition to 

provide the equivalent level of safety. The FAA has granted exemptions for similar operations in 

Exemptions 11062, 11213, 11360 and 11447.
EXHIBIT 1

(Filed as Confidential)
EXHIBIT 2

(Filed as Confidential)