March 24, 2015

 Exemption No. 11227

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0678

Mr. Warren R. Coalson

President

EnviroMINE, Inc.

3511 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 403

San Diego, CA 92108

Dear Mr. Coalson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 4, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of EnviroMINE, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an exemption. The 

exemption would allow the petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to 

conduct operations over areas of California and western Arizona suitable for, or in use by, 

surface mining.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2014, (79 

FR 58853). Three comments were received. The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) supported 

the petition, while the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and the National 

Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it.
2

In support of the petition, the Coalition stated the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger 

safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition 

stated 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 noncommercial 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 factors1 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 location, altitude of its UAS, pilot training and experience, 

the proven experience of the eBee Ag UAV in operating for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, New Mexico State University, and the approvals SenseFly has obtained from the 

national aviation authorities in nine countries. 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 airmans certificate. The Coalition further stated that if an airman certificate is required 

then, at a minimum the, FAA should provide an exception from the training and testing 

requirements in part 61 in favor of requirements pertinent to the aircraft and operation 

proposed. The Coalition also asserted that in section 333 Congress intended for the FAA to 

consider national security with respect to the operation as opposed to addressing it through 

pilot certification.

The FAA notes that, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. 

(Exemption No. 11110), neither section 333, nor the FAA’s exemption authority allows the 

FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as 

prescribed in 49 USC § 44711.

 

1 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112-95 states, in part: “In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary 

shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, 

weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line 

of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national 

security; ...”
3

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

UAS operations. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs 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. The PIC must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA 

finds that a VO complements the PIC’s capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including 

when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks. The VO provides an 

additional level of operational safety.

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA noted 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 stated “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 400 feet AGL) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that 

the operations will not adversely affect safety.

Regarding the petitioner’s statement that the PIC and observer will be able to communicate by 

voice or text, ALPA noted that text messaging could have an unknown latency extending to 

several minutes. ALPA also stated that voice communication with the pilot is a limited 

mitigation. NAAA stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the 

operator from the most minimal distance possible. The conditions and limitations regarding 

PIC and VO communications address those concerns.

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 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 has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption 

to mitigate the risk associated with such failures.
4

Regarding the petitioner’s request for exemption from part 21, § 91.7, and § 91.203, ALPA 

stated they oppose the attempt to avoid certifying the airworthiness of the sUAS, and that all 

aircraft in the National Airpsace System (NAS) must operate to the same high level of safety.

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

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

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

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

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

commented on pilot qualification, stating—

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 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 requirements of sport, recreational, private 

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

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

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

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

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. The FAA notes that all flights must be operated within VLOS of 

the PIC and VO.

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 finds 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. 

ALPA stated that the petitioner did not specify requirements for flight instructors. The FAA 

has found that the petitioner’s training program and the condition requiring that the pilot have 
5

the skills after completing the training program to operate safely under this exemption will 

provide an acceptable level of preparation.

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA opposed 

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

recordkeeping requirements. ALPA stated the UAS should comply with the same level of 

safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. 

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 

Certificate of Authorization or 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.

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 believed UA 

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

aircraft. NAAA proposed 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 an 

agricultural aircraft is within 2 miles; be attentive and free from distractions; be equipped with 

aviation radios set to a dedicated nationwide frequency; have a separate VO; and maintain 

line-of-sight operations. NAAA further stated UAS should be proven to be airworthy and 

operate autonomously without software glitches, and be required to have an airworthiness 

certificate and liability insurance. These comments are addressed in the conditions and 

limitations.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a senseFly eBee.
6

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

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 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 Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection. The FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. 

In Grants of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Lab, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

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

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

by this exemption is in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

• The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation you present; and 

• A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our 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, EnviroMINE, Inc. is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 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), 91.407(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 to perform aerial data collection.

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

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, EnviroMINE, Inc. is hereafter referred to as the operator.
7

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

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft 

described in the operating documents which is a senseFly when weighing less than 55 

pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new 

petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are not 

permitted. 

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine 

compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at 

airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the 

aircraft manufacturer.

4. 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.

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 or 

U.S. driver’s license.

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 duties 

required of the VO.

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

operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of 

exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating 

documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the 

Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and 

limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, 

the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. 

Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating 

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the 
8

operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised 

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

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

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

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

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

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

revisions to the operating documents.

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

or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo 

a functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. 

Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at 

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such 

a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is 

in a condition for safe operation.

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

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

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

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is 

prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the 

UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

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

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft 

components.

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

bulletins.

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

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

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a 

state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal 

government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 

CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the 

ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC 
9

qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated 

under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for 

flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA 

with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

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

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

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

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

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not 

denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption 

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available 

to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet 

horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

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

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

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

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

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

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

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

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

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

operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA.

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

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

as large as practicable.
10

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

any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 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.

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

activities at all times. 

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

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

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

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

that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises 

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety 

of nonparticipating persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 

for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety 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 not considered 

nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

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

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted.

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

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

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

reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.

If this exemption closed-set motion picture and television filming and production, the 

following additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) 

as documented in this grant of exemption.
11

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day 

notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities 

must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted 

under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of 

the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N-Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners 

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those 

who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, 

town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes 

essential to accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons 

consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the 

exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

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

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service