March 26, 2017

 Exemption No. 11239

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0838

Mr. G. Brent Connor

Counsel for Southern Company Services, Inc.

Thompson Hine LLP

1919 M Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036-3537

Dear Mr. Connor:

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 letters dated October 9, 2014 and February 6, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Southern Company Services, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or 

operator) for an exemption. The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate an 

unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct research on the applicability of UAS when 

assessing damage to power lines due to storm events and performing routine power line 

inspection.

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

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.
2

Discussion of Public Comments:

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

(79 FR 67532). Four comments were received. The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) and the 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) supported the petition, and the Air Line Pilots Association, 

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

Also, the petitioner filed comments in response to ALPA’s and NAAA’s comments.

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 Public

Law 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 petitioner’s UAS poses

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

1 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 the altitude of its small UAV operations, and 

the Certificates of Authorization the Sky Ranger has obtained to conduct UAV operations for 

public universities and law enforcement agencies. 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. 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.

 

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 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 authority2 allows 

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

prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. 

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 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 VLOS. The PIC must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA finds that a

visual observer complements the PIC’s 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 people and other objects). The VO provides an additional level of operational 

safety.

The EEI represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies and provides public policy 

leadership, strategic business intelligence, and essential conferences and forums. EEI noted 

small UAS are ideally suited for the petitioner’s requested purposes and allow utility workers 

to conduct inspections without being in close proximity to high-voltage equipment or subject 

to the hazards of working at height. EEI detailed the benefits of utilizing UAS for tasks such 

as power line inspections and surveying and monitoring equipment and structures, arguing 

that it is in the public interest for the FAA to grant the petitioner’s request for exemption. EEI 

noted the requested exemptions satisfy applicable statutory criteria and policies and will 

provide a level of safety at least equal to existing regulations.

EEI stated that given the characteristics of the UA and the petitioner’s proposed operating 

conditions and environment, the FAA should find that it is not necessary to require 

commercial pilot certification, and that an equivalent level of safety will be attained by 

allowing operations with a private pilot certificate.

EEI noted small UAS are more efficient and cost effective than traditional inspection 

methods, due in large part to their small scale. EEI urged the FAA to ensure the scope of 

approved exemptions does not inadvertently exclude larger scale UAS capable of 

lengthier operations.

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

petitioner’s reference to operations conducted below 400 feet above the surface in Class G 

airspace stating, “there must be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the 

 

2 49 USC § 44701(f)
4

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 above ground level (AGL)) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the 

operations will not adversely affect safety. 

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.

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 states 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 

fly-aways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this 

exemption to mitigate the risk associated with such failures.

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 asserts 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.
5

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.

ALPA opposed an exemption from the pre-flight action requirements of § 91.103. 

Although the petitioner did not request relief from 14 CFR § 91.103, there will be no 

approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual as specified in paragraph (b)(1). The FAA 

believes that the petitioner can comply with the other applicable requirements in 

§91.103(b)(2). Therefore, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not 

necessary.

ALPA noted the petitioner must specify a means to meet the “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 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 operations 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 certificate required by this exemption would need to be provided by a certificated 

flight instructor.

 

ALPA commented the aircraft will not have a barometric altimeter as required by § 91.121.

ALPA stated that processes or mitigations must be in place to ensure the UA can accurately 

maintain altitude including engineering processes, software development and control, 

electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and design 

assurance to ensure the aircraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of safety as 

other aircraft operated commercially in the National Airspace System (NAS).

Regarding § 91.151, Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, 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. The 

FAA refers to Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for an explanation of its 

determination to grant relief to § 91.151. 
6

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 also expressed concern regarding the petitioner’s request 

for exemption from § 91.213, noting a need for further understanding of the conditions, 

instruments and equipment that would be exempted. ALPA stated the UAS should comply

with the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. 

The FAA has previously granted relief to §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) . See Exemption No. 11185 (Commonwealth). Relief from § 91.213, 

Inoperative instruments and equipment, is discussed in the FAA’s analysis below.

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-level airspace, and therefore 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 that 

agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions 

to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS operations at low altitudes will increase the 

potential for collision with agricultural aircraft. 

The FAA recognizes these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and 

limitations into this exemption, including: (a) a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for all 

operations; (b) operations conducted within VLOS of the pilot in command (PIC) and the VO; 

and (c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-of-way to manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certification should be a requirement for all unmanned 

aircraft to operate within the NAS. NAAA recommended UAS be equipped with ADS-B or 

similar identification and positioning systems, strobe lights, high-visibility markings and 

registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned 

aircraft. 

The petitioner filed a response and addressed the issues raised by ALPA and NAAA 

comments. The petitioner stated that its petition includes all necessary measures to ensure 

that the proposed operation will be at least as safe as other operations in the NAS. It further 

noted that neither ALPA nor the NAAA appear to be concerned with the specific Aeryon 

SkyRanger operations that the petition proposes inasmuch as small UAS operations as a 

whole. The petitioner also outlined various safety features of the SkyRanger, including flight 

boundary programming capability, a flight termination feature, and see-and-avoid capabilities.
7

FAA Analysis

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.31, Type rating requirements, additional 

training, and authorization requirements. This part applies to persons who act as PIC of large 

aircraft, turbojet-powered airplanes, and other aircraft specified by the Administrator through 

aircraft type certificate procedures, not the Aeryon SkyRanger that weighs about 5 pounds. 

Accordingly, relief from 14 CFR § 61.31 is not necessary.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.3(d), Requirement for certificates, ratings, 

and authorizations, (d) Flight instructor certificate. As noted in the petitioner’s operating 

documents, the training proposed by the petitioner does not require a person who holds a

flight instructor certificate. Therefore, the FAA finds that relief from § 61.3(d) is not 

necessary.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.213, Inoperative instruments and 

equipment. The FAA has added conditions and limitations numbers 7, 9 and 10 below to 

mitigate risk associated with inoperative equipment. 

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a SkyRanger.

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 Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 11109 

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

FAA−2014−0382), 11176 to Chevron UAS, Inc. (Docket No. FAA-2014-0802), 11185 to 

Commonwealth Edison, Co. (Docket No. FAA-2014-0855), and 11213 to Aeryon Lab, Inc. 

(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.
8

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, 11176, 11185 and 11213;

• The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, 11176, 

11185, 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, Southern Company Services, 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, Southern Company Services, Inc. is hereafter referred to as 

the operator.

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 SkyRanger 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 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 
9

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 

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 
10

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 

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.
11

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.

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 
12

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.

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.
13

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 Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service