Month 24

, 2015

Exemption No. 11225 Regulatory Docket No. FAA− 2014

− 0638

Mr. Malcolm L. Benge Counsel for Oceaneering International, Inc.

Zu c kert, Scoutt, and Rasenberger LLP

888 17th Street NW

. , Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006

- 3304

Dear Mr. Benge :

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 August 26, 2014 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalf of Oceaneering International, Inc. ( hereinafter petitioner or operator ) for an exemption

. The exemption would all ow the petitioner to operate an unmanned ai rcraft system (UAS) to conduct safety inspecti ons and aerial surveying

.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operation and the regulations that the petitioner seeks and exemption.2

Discussion of Public Comments:

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

, (79 FR 58851). Six comments were received . Four commenters , including the Small UAV Coalition (Coali tion), Congressman Ted Poe, and two individuals supported the petitio n. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it.

I n supp o r t of the p e tition, the C o a lition stated the p e tition e r h a s p r opos e d to a bide b y st r o n g e r

s a fe t y m e a su re s th a n hob b y a nd mod e l e r g r oups op e r a ting simil a r a i r c raf t. The C o a lition

stated th a t it do e s not b e li e ve th a t h e i g ht e n e d s a f e t y m ea su r e s should be re qui re d f or the

p e tition e r simp l y b eca use o f the c omm e rc i a l n a tu r e of its op e ra tions. The C o a lition u r g e d the

F AA to a dopt a n e v a l u a tion fra m e w o r k f or U AS op era tions und e r s e c t ion 333 of P ublic Law

112

– 95 th a t w e i g hs the r e l a tive s a f e t y issu e s a nd r isks of UAS b y c l a ss a nd op era tion al

c i rc umst a n c e s, ra th e r th a n a dopting a r ti f i c i a l distin c tions a mong unm a n n e d aer i a l v e h i c l e s b a s e d on c omm erc i a l a nd no n c omm erc i a l op e r a tions. The p e tition er’ s UAS pose

c onsid e ra b l y l e ss s afe t y r isk th a n l ar g e r U AS. The C o a lition a ss er t e d th a t b e ca use UAS

op era tions like the p e tition er’ s pose minim a l r isk to s afe t y , th e y should be subj ec t to minim a l

a nd a pp r op r i a te r e g ul a tions.

The C o a lition not e d the F AA is to c onsid e r t h e s e v e n fac t ors 1 in s ec tion 333 a s a minimum.

The C o a lition st a t e d the p e tit i on shows the F AA shou l d c onsid e r f a c to r s oth e r t h a n those

sp ec i f i e d in s ec tion 333, su c h a s lo ca t ion, a ltitude of its UA S , pilot e x p er i e n c e, and proven experience of the UAS in other countries . The C o a lition m a int a in e d th a t the p e tition er’ s

p r opos e d op era tions s a tis f y the s e v e n fac t o r s in s ec tion 333 a nd in c lude s e v e ra l a ddition a l

miti g a ting f a c t o r s to e nsu r e the s afe t y a n d s ec u r i t y of the p r opos e d UAS op e r a tions. The

C o a lition e mph a si z e d the F AA must e v a l u a te e a c h f a c tor within the c ont e x t of the p e tition er’ s

p r opo s e d UAS op e r a tions.

The Coalition also commented that the FAA should grant relief from the requirement to hold an airman’s 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 requirem ents 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.

1 Section 3 33(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 F AA 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 2 allows the

FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711.

The C o a lition c omm e nt e d th a t a visu a l obs er v e r ( VO) should not be re qui r e d f or a ll sm a ll UAS op era tion. The C o a lition f u r th e r a s s er t e d th a t the p re s e n c e of one o r mo r e VOs m a y

a llow the UAS to be op era t e d b e y o nd V L OS of the P I C. The F AA n ot e s th a t one of the

d e t er min a tions f or op e ra t ions und e r s ec tion 333 is op era tion within visu a l line of si g ht. T h e
P I C must m a int a in V L OS w hile op era ti n g the UA. The F AA finds th a t a VO c o mpl e m e nts
the P I C’ s ca p a bili t y to s e e a nd a void oth e r a i r cr a f t, in c luding wh e n t h e P I C m a y b e

mom e nt ar i l y a tt e ndi n g to oth e r f l y

i n g t a sks. The VO p r ovid e s a n a ddition a l l e v e l of

op e ra tion a l s a f e t y

.

In support of the petition, two individual s cited the potential to eliminate human injury. Congressman Ted Poe stated that when inspections of pipelines, oil platforms, and commercial properties are performed with consent of the property owner, privacy concerns are alleviated, and potentially dangerous inspections are made safer for those involved.

A L P A ex pressed c on c er n r e g ar di n g s e v e r a l a sp ec t s of the p e tition. A L P A noted the

p e tition er’ s ref e re n c e to op e r a tions c ondu c t e d below 400 feet AGL in Class G airspace.

A L P A stated “ th er e must be m e a ns b oth to e nsu r e th a t the s U AS re m a ins within the d ef in e d

a i r s p ac e a nd to e nsu r e th a t the h a z ar d o f o th e r a i r c raf t int r udi n g on the op era tion is

miti g a t e d.” The F AA b e li e v e s the limit a tions und e r whi c h the p e tition e r will op era te ( i. e
., V L OS a nd a t or b e low 4 00 fee t A G L ) a r e su ff i c i e nt miti g a tions to this r isk so th a t the

op era tions will not a dv er s e l y a f fec t s afe t y

.

ALPA noted that the petitioner does not state how the pilot and the observer will be able to
communicate with each other. ALPA stated that text messaging, either by mobile phone or

other means, could have an unknown latency and extend to several minutes. 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.

A L P A asserted the UA S ’ s lithium po l y m e r b a tt er i e s h a ve num er ous a sso c i a t e d f i r e a nd

e x plosion h a z ar ds a s outlin e d in DOT/ F AA/A R

− 09/55, “ F l a mm a bili t y As s e ssm e nt of

L

ithium

- I on a nd L ithium

- I on P o l y m e r B a t t e r y C e ll D e si g n e d f or Ai rcr a f t P ow e r U s a g e ( J a n u a r y 2010 ) ,” a nd th a t the s af e ca r r i a g e of t h e b a tt er i e s a nd the mitig a tions in pl ac e f or kn o wn r i s ks should be a dd re ss e d. T h e r e fe r e n ce d stu d y w a s p r im ar i l y c o ndu c t e d to

d e t er mine h o w cer t a in b a tt e r y c e lls reac t in a f i r e situ a tion a b o ar d m a nn e d a i r pl a n e s. Giv e n the si z e of the b a t t e r y a nd the o p era ti n g c onditions of the UA S , the F AA c on c lud e s t h a t the

2 49 USC § 44701(f)4

use of a lithium po l y m e r b a tt e r y will not pose a n undue s a f e t y r isk f or t he p r opos e d

op e ra tions.

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 fly

aways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption
to mitigate the risk associated with such failures.

Regarding the petitioner’s re qu e st for e x e mption fr om p ar t 21, § 91.7, and § 91.203, A L P A stated they oppose the attempt to avoid certifying the airworthiness of the sUAS, and that all aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) must operate to the same high level of safety.

A L P A a lso noted th a t the p e tition er’ s p r opos e d o p era tions a r e f or “c omp e n s a tion or hi re ,”

a nd therefore contends the pilot must hold a t l ea st a c u rre nt F AA c omm erc i a l pilot cer ti f i c a te
with a n a pp r o p r i a te ca t e g o r y a nd c l a ss r a ting f or the t y pe of a i rc r af t b e ing f lown, a s w e ll a s

sp e c i f ic a nd a d e qu a te t ra ining on the U AS m a ke a nd mod e l int e nd e d to be us e d. S imil ar l y
, A L P A asserted a c u rr e nt s ec ond

- c l a ss a i r m a n m e d i ca l cer ti f i c a te should be re qui re d. N AAA

a lso c o mm e nt e d on pilot qu a li f i ca tion, st a tin g

—

J ust a s m a nn e d a i rcraf t p i lots ar e re qui r e d to und e r g o a r i g o r ous

t ra ini n g c u rr i c ulum a nd show th a t th e y ar e f it to op era te a

c omm erc i a l a i r c raf t, so too must UAS op era to r s. Holding a

c omm erc i a l c er ti f i ca te holds UAS op era to r s to simil a r hi g h st a nd ar ds

a s c omm e rc i a l a i rc r af t op e r a to r s a nd e nsu re s th e y a r e a w a r e of th e ir

re sponsibiliti e s a s c omm erc i a l op e r a to r s within the NA S . M e di c a l

re qui re m e nts e nsu r e th e y h a v e the n e ce ss a r y visu a l a nd m e nt a l ac ui t y to op era te a c omm erc i a l a i rc r af t re p ea t e d l y ov e r a sust a in e d p er iod

of tim e

.

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

and commercial certificate s and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot

certificat e, 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.

Althou g h the p e tition e r did not re qu e st a n e x e mption fr om § 91.113, A L P A noted the

p e tition e r must sp ec i f y a m ea ns to m ee t s e e a nd a void re qu i re m e nts in § 91.113 g i v e n the

a bs e n c e of a n onbo ar d pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be operated within VLOS

of the PIC and VO.

A L P A commented the a i r craf t will not h a ve a b ar o m e t r ic a ltim e t e r a s r e qui r e d b y 14 C F R § 91.121 . ALPA stated that p r o ce ss e s o r miti g a tions, must be in place to ensure the UA can5

accurately maintain altitude including re dun d a nt c ont r o l ca p a bili t y
, f a il

- s a f e s y st e ms, b ac kups a nd sp ec i f i c , v a lid a t e d p r o ce du re s f or s y st e m a nd e q u ipm e nt fa ilu re s must be in pl ace . The F A A a g ree s with A L P A a nd finds th a t the a lt er n a tive m ea ns of c ompli a n c e

p r opo s e d b y t h e p e tition e r do e s not a dv er s e l y af f

ec t s afe t y

.

R e g a r di n g the f u e l re qui r e m e nts of § 91.151, A L P A a r g u e d th a t usi n g b a tt e r i e s a s the on l y

sou r c e of a n a i r cr a f t ’ s pow e r is a subst a nti a l shi f t fr om t ra dition a l m e thods of p r opulsion, a nd

re qui re s f u r th e r r e s e a rc h to d e t e r mine b e st s afe t y p r ac ti c e s. This c omm e nt is a dd r e ss e d in

d e t a il b e low.

ALPA also expressed concern that the petition makes no reference to compliance with, or a request for waiver from, 14 CFR 61.195, Flight instructor limitations and qualifications

, which defines the requirements for flight instructors. A certificated flight instructor is authorized to provide the instruction required for the certificates or ratings or currency listed in 14 CFR § 61.193. A person instructing on how to operate the UAS under the petitioner’s training program would not need to be a certificated flight instructor because the instruction is not being provided for a certificate or rating listed in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS

o perations proposed by the petitioner require such flight instruction because § 61.31( l ) allows for operation of the UAS by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.56 without a category and class rating. Instruction provided toward obtaining the pilot cer tificate required by this exemption would need to be provided by a certificated flight instructor.

A L P A a lso expressed c o n cer n th a t the p e tition er ’ s w a iv e r r e qu e st is not f o r a sin g l e sp ec i f i c

op era tion or lo c a tion, but f or a ll op e r a tions of the s a me g e n e ra l t y p e

. A L P A stated this

re sults in a c onsid e r a ble in c r ea se i n the F A A ’ s ov er s i g ht t a sks. The F AA no t e s A L P As

c on cer n a nd in o r d e r to minimi z e pot e nt i a l imp ac t to the NA S , the F AA r e qui re s eac h

o p e r a tor s ec u r e a C er ti f i ca te of Autho r i z a tion or C OA whi c h c o v er s sp ec i f ic d e t a ils of the

p e tition er s op era tion. The F A A r e c o g ni z e s th a t UAS int e g r a tion will g e n era te n e w NAS

a cce ss d e m a nd a nd will re vi e w a nd a djust a c c o r d in g l y

.

NAAA stated it re p re s e n t s the int ere sts of sm a ll busin e ss own er s a nd pilots li ce ns e d a s

c omm erc i a l a ppli ca to r s. NAAA explained th a t its m e mb er s op e r a te in low

- l e v e l a i r s p ace
,

a nd c l ea r lo w

- l e v e l a i r s p ac e i s vit a l to the s afe t y o f th e se op era to r s.

NAAA stated th a t s e e i n g a nd a voiding ot h e r a i r cr a f t a nd h a z ar dous obst r u c t ions is the

b ac kbone f or a g r i c ultu r a l s a f e t y
, a n d a g r i c ultu ra l pilots d e p e nd on pilots of oth e r a i rc r af t to

p erf o r m th e ir s ee

- a n d

- a void f u n c tions n ee d e d to p r e v e nt c ollisions. NAAA believed U A

op era tions a t low a ltitud e s will in crea se the pot e nti a l of c ollision h azar ds with a g r i c ultu r a l

a i r craf t. NAAA proposed UAS a i r c raf t b e p a int e d a h i g h l y visible c olo r , be e quipp e d with

st r obe li g hts, a nd use Autom a tic D e p e n d e nt S u r v e ill a n ce

– B r o a d ca st (A D S

– B ) or oth e r simil a r lo ca tion re po r ti n g t ec hnolo g y . To a dd r e ss th e se c on c er ns the F AA h a s in c o r po ra t e d

a sso c i a t e d c onditions a nd limit a tions i n to this e x e mption, in c ludin g : a ) NO T AMs issu e d f or

a ll op e r a t ions, b) op era tions c ondu c t e d within V L OS of the P I C a nd the VO, a nd c ) the UAS

P I C must a lw a y s y i e ld r i g ht

- o f

- w a y to m a nn e d a i r c r af t.6

NAAA a lso proposed a n umb e r of op e r a ting limit a tions a nd re qui re m e nts f or UAS op era t o r s. NAAA stated U AS op er a to r s should h a ve p r o c e d u re s to imm e di a t e l y g r ou n d the UAS if an agricultural aircraft is within 2 mil e s; be a tt e ntive a nd fr e e fr om dist r a c tions; b e e quipp e d with

a vi a tion ra dios s e t to a dedicated nationwide f r e qu e n c y ; h a ve a s e p a r a te VO; and m a int a in

lin e

- o f

- si g ht o p era tions. NAAA f u r th e r stated U AS should be proven to be airworthy and operate autonomously without software glitches, a nd b e r e qui re d to h a ve a n a i r wo r thin e ss

c er ti f i ca t e a nd li a bili t y insu ra n c e . Th e se c omm e nts a r e a d d re ss e d in the c onditions a nd

limit a tions.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner are the Wookong DJI S800 and Aeronavics X4 Titanium

.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, C ertification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H

— Airworthiness Certificates . In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of P ublic 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 g rants 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 rev iewed 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.7

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, Oceaneering International, Inc. is granted an exemption

from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.10 1(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, Oceaneering International, Inc. is hereafter referred to as

the operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limita tions 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 Wookong DJI

S800 and Aeronavics X4 Titanium 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 exemption

.

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 de termine 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 fee t 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 u sed 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.8

Electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must be designate d 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 operation s 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 re quest. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the Administrator or any law enfor cement 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.

Functiona l 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 responsi ble 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 p erformed 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.9

12. Each UAS operated un der 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 a ircraft 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 exempti on, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with

14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and 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 nonparticipa nts, 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 meteorologi cal 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 no t denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA

published aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when visibil ity 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 pre

determined location within the private or controlled

- access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpred icted obstacles or emergencies.10

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 fiv e 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 (N

Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These

doc uments 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 an d/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 mu st 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 ove r private or controlled

- access property with permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative.11

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 Na tional 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 condit ions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) as documented in this grant of exemption.

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 f ollowing:

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 ser ial 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 o f 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 91.12

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

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service