March 26, 2017

Exemption No. 1 1239 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0838

Mr. G. Brent Connor

Counsel for Southern Company Services, Inc. Thompson Hin e 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 letter s 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 ai rcraft system (UAS) to conduct research on the applicability of UAS when assessing damage to power lines due to storm events an d 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 wa s 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 (A LPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it. Also, the petitioner filed comments in response to ALPA’s and NAAA’s comments.

I n supp o r t of the p e tition, the C o a lition st a t e d 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 f e 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

st a t e d 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 l ition 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 mon g 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 s

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 o r s 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 the location and the altitude of its small UAV operations, and

the Certificates of Authoriza tion the Sky Ranger has obtained to conduct UAV operations for public universities and law enforcement agencies . The C o a lition m a int a in e d th a t t he

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 with in 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 C o a lition a lso c omm e nt e d th a t the F AA should g r a nt re li e f fr om the r e qui re m e nt to hold

a n a i r m a n ’ s c er ti f i ca t e. The Coalition further stated that if an airman certificate is required

then, a t a minimum

, the F AA should p r ovi d e a n e x ce ption fr om the t ra ini n g a nd t e sting

r e quirements in part 61 in favor of requirements p er tin e nt to the a i r c raf t a nd op era tion

p r opos e d. The C o a lition a lso a ss er t e d th a t in s ec tion 333 Congress intended for the FAA to

consider n a tion a l s ec u r i t y 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 mi nimum

-- (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 nati onal airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; ...”3

The FAA notes that

, a s dis c uss e d in the g r a nt of e x e mption to T r imble N a vig a tion L td.
(Exemption No. 1111 0 ) , n e ith e r s ec tion 333, nor th e F A A ’ s exemption authority 2 allows

the F AA to e x e mpt pilots from the st a tuto r y r e qui r e m e nt to hold a n a i r m a n c e r ti f i ca te a s

p re s cr ib e d in 49 U S C § 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 t ion s . 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 visual line of sight ( V L OS ) of the pilot in command ( P I C) a nd th a t the p e tition er’ s p r o p os a l to op era te the UA within V L OS of the P I C and/or V O

should b e p er mitt e d.

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 VLOS . 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
visu a l obs er v e r 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 (e

. g ., m a n e u v er i n g the

a i rcr a f t c lose to people a nd oth e r obj ec ts ) . 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

.

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 co nduct 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 stru ctures, 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 existi ng regulations.

EEI state d 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 o f 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.

A L P A e x p re ss e d 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 not e d 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 above t he surface in Class G airspace stating

, “ 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

2 49 USC § 44701(f)4

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 FAA believes the limitations unde r 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 commu nicate 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 a ss er ted 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 a r 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 sh ould be a dd re ss e d. The FAA states 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 rpl 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 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.

A L P A c omm e nted th a t c o mm a nd a nd c ont r ol ( C 2) link fa ilu re s a r e one of th e most c ommon fa ilu re s on a UA S

, a nd t h a t lost link mi t i g a tions should re qu i r e s a f e mod e s t o p re v e nt
f l y

- a w a ys or oth e r s ce n ar ios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption to mitigate the risk associated with such failures.

A L P A a lso not e d 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 a ss er ts a c u r r 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

.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 pro perty on the ground. Additional discussion of the FAA’s review is found in the FAA’s Analysis section of this exemption.

A L P A oppos e d a n e x e mption fr om the p re

- f l i g ht a c tion re qui re m e nts of § 9 1.103. Although the petitioner did not request relief from 14 CFR § 91.103, there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Fligh t 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 exemptio n from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not

necessary.

A L P A not ed the p e tition e r must sp ec i f y a m ea ns to m ee t the “ 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.

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 certif icated 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 operatio n 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.

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 § 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 con trol, 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).

R e g a r di n g § 91.151, Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, 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. The

FAA refers to Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for an explanation of its determination to grant relief to § 91.151

.6

R e g a r di n g §§ 91.405 ( a )

, 91.407 (a)( 1 ) , 91.409 ( a )( 2 )

, a nd 91.417 ( a ) a nd ( b )

, A L P A oppos e d

t h e p e tition er’ s a tt e mpt to a v oid c ompli a n c e with e st a blish e d a i rcr a f t m a int e n a n c e a nd

r ec o r dk ee pi n g re qui re m e nts. ALPA also expressed concern regarding the petitioner’s request for exemption from § 91.213, noting a need for further understanding of the conditions,

instru ments and equipment that would be exempted. A L P A st a t e d the UAS should c omply

with the s a me l e v e l of s afe t y a s oth e r a i rc r af t op e r a t e d c omm e r c i a l l y in the N A S

.

The FAA has previously granted relief to §§ 91.405 ( a )

, 91.407 (a)( 1 ) , 91.409 ( a )( 2 )

, a nd

91.417 ( a ) a nd ( b )

. See Exemption N o. 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

- avoi d 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 airw orthiness 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 num bers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line

- of

sight 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 N AAA

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 wit h 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 terminatio n 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, tu rbojet

- 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 reques ted 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 an d 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, C ertification procedures for products and parts, Sub part 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

air craft 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 requi rements 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 s

. 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

Commonweal th 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

passeng ers 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 Gran t of Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, 11176, 11185 and 11213 ;

• The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11 062, 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 foreg oing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Therefor e, 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 lim itations 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 exem ption will be

grou nds 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 hold er 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. Th e 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 hu man vision unaided by any device other than9

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 lon g 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 n ot 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 dur ing 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 pre cedence 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 u pdated 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 regardi ng 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 pri or 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 pos e 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

U AS 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 i s10

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 requir ements 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 m eet the flight revi ew 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 l ogged 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 p ersons 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 1 4 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 FAA

published aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtaine d 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 b elow 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 pre

determined 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 con duct 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 con ducted 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 ensur e 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 Ad ministrator 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 operati ons 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 ensuri ng 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 of12

the risk of operating closer to those object s 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 tran sgresses 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 operato r 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 flight s; 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 altit udes 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 otherw ise 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 , unles s sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service