AFS–14–421–E

Exemption No. 11156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

TOTAL SAFETY U.S., INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0610

for an exemption from part 21, Subpart H;

part 27; §§ 45.23(b); 45.27(a); 61.113; 

91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2) and (c); 91.103;

91.109(a); 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 

91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1);

91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a) and (b)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letters dated August 13, 2014, and October 15, 2014, Mark A. Dombroff, McKenna 

Long & Aldridge LLP, Counsel for Total Safety U.S., Inc., 1676 International Drive, 

Penthouse, McLean, VA 22102, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Total Safety U.S., Inc. (Total Safety) for an exemption from part 21, Subpart H (§§

21.171-21.199), part 27, §§ 45.23(b), 45.27(a), 61.113, 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2) and (c), 91.103, 

91.109(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 

and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed 

exemption would allow operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of

conducting flare stack inspections for the oil, natural gas, petro-chemical, and pipeline 

industries.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21, Subpart H prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for

issuing airworthiness certificates.

Part 27 prescribes, in pertinent part, airworthiness standards for the issue of type 

certificates, and changes to those certificates, for normal category rotorcraft.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman 

capital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light- sport 
2

category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also 

display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not 

less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “lightsport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.

Section 45.27(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, the requirement for rotorcraft operators to 

display certain marks on both sides of the cabin, fuselage, boom or tail.

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribe, in pertinent part, that—

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command (PIC) 

of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor 

may that person, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft in connection 

with any business or employment if—

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless there is 

available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, 

approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

Section 91.9(c) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is 

identified in accordance with part 45.

Section 91.103 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before 

beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight, 

to include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and 

forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be

completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been 

advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff

and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 
3

containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and 

landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft 

performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, 

aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Section 91.109(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

(except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft 

has fully functioning dual controls.

Section 91.119 prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may

operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing

without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or

over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest 

obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except 

over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be

operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation 

is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph 

(b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies 

with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; 

and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less 

than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain 

cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure 

airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR

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

fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed,
4

during the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes.

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating a civil aircraft 

unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an 

effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United 

States, the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in 14 CFR 

47.31(c).

Section 91.203(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless the airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under 14 CFR 

91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have

that aircraft inspected as prescribed in Subpart E of the same part and shall, between 

required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft that 

has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has 

been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft 

unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of

an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that—

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records 

of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, 

as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, 

propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the

work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft 

for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:
5

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and 

each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, 

rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which 

are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last 

inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its 

appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety

directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety

directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major

alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, 

and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods 

prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until 

the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is 

performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and 

transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 of this 

chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved 

for return to service.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petition and the following supporting documentation are hereinafter referred to as the operating 

documents: 

1) TotalSafety DJI S1000 sUAS Aircraft Flight Manual

2) TotalSafety U.S., Inc. Global Integrated Industrial Safety Services UAS Operations Manual
6

The FAA has organized the petitioner’s information into four sections: 1) the unmanned aircraft 

system (UAS), 2) the UAS pilot in command (PIC), 3) the UAS operating parameters, and 4) 

the public interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is the DJI Innovations S1000 Multi-rotor Rotorcraft

(hereinafter referred to as “the unmanned aircraft (UA)”). The petitioner states that the UA to 

be operated under this request has eight rotors and eight motors in an octocopter configuration, 

is less than 25 lbs. when fully loaded, and will be operated at low speeds, carrying neither a

pilot nor passenger, explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusively 

within a sterile area as set out in the operating documents. In addition, the manufacturer has 

integrated numerous safety features into the design of the UA, as described in the petitioner’s 

operating documents, to ensure the safety of persons and property within and surrounding the

limited operating area. The petitioner further describes that, in the event the UA loses 

communications or its global positioning system (GPS) signal, the UA will have the capability

to return to a pre-determined location within the sterile area and land. It will also have the

capability to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated 

with the aircraft to be utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H 

Airworthiness Certificates and 14 CFR part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category 

Rotorcraft, subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the

requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112-95). The petitioner further states that UAS

operated without an airworthiness certificate in the restricted sterile environment and under the

conditions and limitations proposed by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a

conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued 

under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H and not subject to the proposed conditions and limitations.

The petitioner states that even though its UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an 

exemption has been requested from 14 CFR § 45.23(b) as the UA will have no entrance to the

cabin, cockpit, or pilot station on which the word “Experimental” can be placed. Given the size

of the UA, the petitioner notes that the two-inch lettering will be impossible. The petitioner

asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be provided by having the UA marked with the

word “Experimental” on the fuselage in compliance with 14 CFR § 45.29(f).

The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements in the pertinent sections of 14 CFR

part 91 are only applicable to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part

43. The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements contained in part 43 and part 91 

should not apply to its UAS because the UAS was never issued an airworthiness certificate. 

The petitioner has stated that it intends to conduct all maintenance in accordance with the 

operating documents.
7

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC)

The petitioner states that while its proposed operation is considered to be a commercial 

operation, the UA will be operated in a very confined and controlled area, within visual line 

of sight (VLOS) of the pilot. Furthermore, the UA will not carry a pilot or passengers on 

board, which considerably reduces the potential for personnel injury. The petitioner suggests 

that by utilizing licensed private pilots as pilot in command (PIC), the proposed operations 

will not adversely affect safety because of the confined and controlled area of operations. The

petitioner also states that the PIC will have additional qualifications and training prior to 

operations conducted under this exemption. In support of its position, the petitioner references 

the exemption granted to Astraeus Aerial [Exemption No. 11062] which permits commercial 

motion picture filming with UAS utilizing private pilots.

Additionally, the petitioner notes that flare stack inspections occur in refineries or other areas 

where access to the public is strictly limited and controlled. Under virtually all circumstances, 

the property and structures surrounding the flare stack is owned by the controlling entity. As a 

result, the operation will have no substantial impact on any third persons not involved in the 

inspection.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states that all flights will be operated within VLOS of a pilot and/or observer, 

and that the UA flights will be limited to a maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL). The petitioner further states that an operator will ensure that only consenting

personnel will be allowed within 100 feet of the UA operation. In addition, the aircraft will 

be operated at a lateral distance of at least 100 feet from any inhabited structures, buildings, 

vehicles, or vessels not associated with the operation or who have not signed a waiver in 

advance of the operation. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety can be

achieved given the size, weight, and speed of the UAS, as well as the controlled location 

where it is operated. The petitioner states that the UAS will be operated within a safe

operating perimeter, the boundaries of which will be determined by operations personnel and 

the UAS PIC based on the specific site. The petitioner argues that, compared to flight 

operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighing far more, and the lack of flammable fuel, any

risk associated with its UAS operations is far less than those with conventional aircraft. The 

petitioner’s operating documents describe a scope of operations that includes inspection of 

any property, structures, materials, or natural landscape features located within a client’s 

physical property. However, Section V of the petition specifically limits the scope as follows, 

“Petitioner seeks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of 14 CFR Parts 21, 45 

and 91 for purposes of conducting Flare Stack inspections using sUASs.”

With respect to preflight actions, the petitioner has requested an exemption from 

14 CFR § 91.103, because it will not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals on board the 

aircraft. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the PIC

taking all preflight actions as set forth in the operating documents, including reviewing weather, 

flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances, and aircraft performance data before
8

initiation of flight. Additionally, the petitioner states that the operating documents will be located 

at the ground station with the operator at all times.

The petitioner notes that it may need an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, as its UAS has a

GPS altitude read out instead of a barometric altimeter. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent 

level of safety will be achieved because the operator will confirm the altitude of the launch site 

shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight. Moreover, the PIC will use the GPS altitude 

indicator to constantly monitor the UA’s height, thus ensuring operation at safe altitudes.

With respect to 14 CFR § 91.151(a), the petitioner notes that the UA has a battery life of 

approximately 15 minutes. The petitioner argues that, given the limitations on the UA’s 

proposed altitude and operational area, a reduced fuel reserve is warranted. The petitioner 

believes that limiting flights to 25% of battery power will provide an acceptable safety margin

for achieving an equivalent level of safety.

Public Interest

The petitioner states that, given the small size of the UA involved and the restricted sterile 

environment within which it will operate, its proposed operation is in compliance with the type 

of operation which Congress envisioned when crafting Public Law 112-95. The petitioner 

states that the proposed operation has a great public benefit because safety inspections will be 

conducted using a UA as opposed to sending a human observer to the top of the flare stack or 

using helicopters to inspect the flare stack, thereby reducing the risk to human life. The 

petitioner further asserts that the use of a UA will reduce the hazards and emissions associated 

with the alternate use of helicopters to conduct similar inspection operations. Due to the size

of the UA and the restricted areas in which the UAS will operate, approval of the application 

presents no national security issue. The petitioner states that, given the clear direction in 

Section 333, the strong equivalent level of safety surrounding the proposed operations, and the

significant public benefit, including enhanced safety, granting the requested exemption is in the

public interest.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2014 (79 FR

52105). Two comments were received. The Small UAV Coalition (hereafter the Coalition) 

supported the petition, whereas the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) opposed 

the petition.

The Coalition believes that Total Safety's petition demonstrates that its small UAS operations can 

be conducted safely on privately owned or controlled property, with a number of voluntary safety 

precautions. With regards to the petitioner’s request for an exemption from the airworthiness 

certification regulation and the certification requirements for normal category rotorcraft, the Coalition 

asserted that the operational limitations proposed by the petitioner should be more than adequate to 

grant an exemption from airworthiness certification. The Coalition noted that similar small UAV 

operations, conducted by hobbyists and modelers, are appropriately permitted without such 
9

certification. The Coalition stated that it does not believe that heightened safety measures should be 

required for Total Safety simply because of the commercial nature of its operations. The Coalition 

noted that Total Safety's operations do not pose a risk to any congested area or populated area. The 

Coalition stated that small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that operate for any purpose, 

commercial or non-commercial, should be judged based upon the precautions taken for safe 

operation, taking into consideration the relevant technical parameters of the UAV and UAS.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), which represents the safety interests of 

over 51,000 professional airline pilots flying for 31 airlines in the United States and Canada,

submitted a comment in opposition to the petition. ALPA’s long-held position is that all aircraft 

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

ALPA commented on the sterile area which the UAS will operate within and states there must 

be a means to ensure that the UAS remains within this area and that non-participating aircraft 

remain clear of the airspace. The FAA has added conditions and limitations to this document to 

help ensure the separation of manned and unmanned aircraft. Furthermore, the FAA will define 

the operational area and will provide additional special provisions via a Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (COA). The special provisions will also discuss requirements for issuance of 

Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) which alert non-participating aircraft of the UAS operations.

ALPA referred to the petitioner’s statement that the aircraft carries no explosive materials or

flammable liquid fuels, however noted that the aircraft carries a lithium polymer battery which 

have numerous associated fire and explosion hazards. ALPA referenced a battery safety study. 

However, the FAA notes that safety 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 the petitioner describes communications between the pilot and observer 

as via voice and/or text. ALPA is concerned that the potential latency associated with text 

messaging does not allow for prompt communications between the pilot and observer. As in 

Astraeus Aerial [Exemption No. 11062], the FAA does not permit text messaging as an 

appropriate means of communication between the PIC and VO. This issue has been addressed in 

the conditions and limitations section of this exemption.

ALPA noted that the petitioner’s aircraft does not have a barometric altimeter which is required 

by 14 CFR § 91.121. ALPA questioned the petitioner’s ability to operate to the same level of 

safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. This comment is addressed in the 

FAA analysis below.

ALPA opposed the petitioners request to operate in the NAS without completing an 

airworthiness certification evaluation. ALPA also commented that it believes all aircraft 

operating in the NAS should operate at the same high level of safety, and believes that UAS 

operated in the NAS must be in an airworthy condition. ALPA noted that appropriate 

mitigations for compliance with 14 CFR § 91.113, Right of Way Rules, must be implemented 

given the significance of this requirement. These comments are addressed in the FAA analysis 
10

below.

ALPA believed that operations for compensation or hire should be conducted by appropriately 

licensed commercial pilots with second class medical certificates. This comment is addressed in 

the FAA’s analysis of 14 CFR § 61.113 below.

ALPA questioned the petitioner’s intent with regard to providing flight instruction because the

petitioner has not requested an exemption to 14 CFR§ 61.195 which defines the requirements 

for flight instructors. Flight instruction is discussed in the FAA’s analysis of 14 CFR § 91.109 

below.

ALPA expressed concern with potential communications and command link failures which may 

result in a loss of control of the aircraft. ALPA suggested that appropriate mitigations should be 

developed to ensure safe operations. The FAA has reviewed the operating documents provided 

by the petitioner in addition to the safety features of the DJI S1000. Given this operational and 

safety information and the controlled area of operations, the FAA believes the risk associated 

with a communications and command link failure is sufficiently mitigated.

ALPA also expressed concern, stating that because the waiver request is not for a specific 

operation but rather for all operations of the same general type, the FAA’s oversight task is 

considerably increased. Per the conditions and limitations below, the FAA has prescribed 

operator, pilot, and notification requirements to ensure that appropriate oversight can occur.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

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

parts, Subpart H, Airworthiness certificates, and 14 CFR part 27, Airworthiness Standards, 

Normal Category Rotorcraft. In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of

PL 112-95 in reference to 49 USC 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, Subpart H, and part 27, and any 

associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36 is not necessary.

Flare stack inspections are hazardous and present unique difficulties for persons conducting 

inspections and maintenance of this infrastructure. The inspections are normally conducted 

utilizing personnel to physically inspect the flare stack. Helicopters are also used to transport 

inspection personnel to the top of the flare stack so that a physical inspection may be 

conducted. The petitioner plans to utilize a UAS to closely photograph the flare stack, which 

reduces the need for inspectors to personally view the flare stack. Manned helicopters

assisting in flare stack inspections can weigh 6,000 lbs. or more and are operated by an onboard 

pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner’s UA will weigh 

less than 25 lbs. with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located 
11

from the aircraft. The limited weight and restricted sterile area significantly reduces the

potential for harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or property in the event of

an incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is 

eliminated with the use of a UA for the inspection operation. In addition, utilizing UAS to 

conduct flare stack inspections will reduce the need for inspection personnel to perform this 

hazardous activity.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident. The 

UA carries no fuel, and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel 

spillage is eliminated.

This exemption does not require an electronic means to monitor and communicate with other 

aircraft, such as transponders or sense and avoid technology. Rather the FAA is mitigating the 

risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring enhanced stand-off distance from 

clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within VLOS 

and yield right of way to all manned operations. Additionally, the operator will be required to

request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the NAS.

The petitioner’s UA has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight 

failures. The UA is also able to respond to a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, predictable, 

automated flight maneuver. The PIC has the ability to terminate the flight operation or initiate

the automated return to home procedure outlined within the operating documents. These safety 

features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a 

similar operation and address ALPAs comment on mitigating risk of command and control link 

failures.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b), Display of marks, the 

petitioner requests this relief under the assumption that marking with the word “experimental” 

will be required as a condition of a grant of exemption. However, this marking is reserved for 

aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under 14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS 

will not be certificated under § 21.191, and therefore the “experimental” marking is not 

required. Since the petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, a grant of 

exemption for § 45.23(b) is not necessary.

The petitioner has also requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.27(a), Location of Marks. Given that 

an exemption from § 45.23(b) is not necessary, an exemption from § 45.27(a) is also not 

necessary. Markings must be as large as practicable per § 45.29(f).

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required, 

91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 

91.409(a)(2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records, the FAA has determined 

that relief from § 91.409(a)(1) is also necessary, because it is an alternate inspection requirement 

of § 91.409(a)(2). As provided in the operating documents, the operator will ensure that the 

UAS is in working order prior to initiating flight, perform required maintenance, and keep a log 
12

of any maintenance performed.

Therefore, the FAA finds that adherence to the petitioner’s operating documents and the 

conditions and limitations below, describing the requirements for maintenance, inspection, and 

recordkeeping, are sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. Accordingly, the 

FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) is warranted.

Pilot In Command (PIC) of the UAS

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113 Private pilot privileges and 

limitations, the FAA must consider the appropriate level of pilot certification for the petitioner’s 

proposed operations. The petitioner states it would operate its UAS with a private pilot holding 

a second-class airmen medical certificate. Under current regulations, civil operations for 

compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificate per 14 CFR part 61. 

Based on the private pilot limitations in accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR § 61.113(a) 

and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for 

compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to a business or employment. However, 

in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC 

with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations 

in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground. Additionally, as 

previously determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the requirement to have an airman 

certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance 

with Section 333.

ALPA stated its opposition to the petitioner’s proposed operation by a non-commercial 

certificated pilot and believes the operation should be conducted by a PIC holding a current 

FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and class rating for the type of 

aircraft being flown and a current second-class airman medical certificate. 

The FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation, considered the comment above, and 

determined it does not differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption 

No. 11062 (Astraeus). The petitioner plans to operate in the NAS over private property while 

also limiting access to the property during UA operations. Given: 1) the similar nature of the 

petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus, 2) the parallel nature of private 

pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial requirements, and 3) the 

airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the FAA finds that the additional manned 

airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship 

skills necessary for the petitioner’s proposed operations. Therefore, the FAA finds that a PIC 

holding a private pilot certificate and a second-class airman medical certificate is appropriate for 

the proposed operations.

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the petitioner has proposed a

training program consisting of five hours operating the UAS to be used for the purpose of 

conducting the operations described in the operating documents. In accordance with the 
13

operating documents, the PIC must maintain an understanding of all operational features and 

normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures of the UAS. The petitioner also proposes that the 

PIC maintain currency by requiring three take-off and three landing operations of the UA within 

the previous 90 days. These requirements are included in the conditions and limitations below.

Additionally, the conditions and limitations below stipulate that the petitioner may not permit 

any PIC to operate unless that PIC has demonstrated through the petitioner’s training and 

currency requirements that the PIC is able 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 people, vessels, vehicles, and structures.

The petitioner indicates it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual observer (VO)

possessing a current second-class airman medical certificate and other knowledge and currency 

requirements prescribed in its operating documents. The conditions and limitations below 

stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the 

operating documents. It is the responsibility of the PIC to limit operations of the UA to 

distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. 

Operating parameters of the UAS

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness, 

the petitioner’s request is based on the fact that no airworthiness certificate will be issued for the

UAS and that no FAA regulatory standard exists for determining airworthiness. While the 

petitioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 

14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, the FAA considers the petitioner’s compliance with its operating 

documents to be a sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief 

from § 91.7(a) is granted. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its aircraft is in an 

airworthy condition – based on compliance with the operating documents prior to every flight, 

and as stated in the conditions and limitations below.

Additionally, in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for 

determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. The FAA finds that the PIC can 

comply with this requirement, therefore relief from §91.7(b) is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, 

marking, and placard requirements and 14 CFR § 91.203(a) and (b) Civil aircraft: 

Certifications required, the FAA has previously determined that relief from these sections is 

not necessary. Relevant materials may be kept in a location accessible to the PIC in 

compliance with the regulations.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.103, Preflight Action, the 

petitioner’s operating documents require the PIC to take certain actions before flight to ensure 

the safety of the flight. Although there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

available, the FAA believes that the petitioner can comply with the other applicable 

requirements in 14 CFR § 91.103(b)(2). The procedures outlined in the operating documents 
14

address the FAA’s concerns regarding compliance with § 91.103(b). The PIC will take all 

actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landing, and takeoff 

distances/conditions, and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. The FAA has 

imposed stricter requirements with regard to visibility and distance from clouds; this is to both 

keep the UA from departing VLOS and to preclude the UA from conflicting with other aircraft 

operating in the NAS. The FAA also notes the risks associated with sun glare; the FAA believes 

that the PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, combined with the PIC’s ability to 

initiate a return-to-home sequence, are sufficient mitigations in this respect. The PIC will also 

account for all relevant site-specific conditions in his or her preflight procedures. Therefore, the 

FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight tests, the petitioner did not describe training scenarios in 

which a dual set of controls would be utilized or required, i.e. dual flight instruction, provided by 

a flight instructor or other company-designated individual, that would require that individual to 

have fully functioning dual controls. Rather, the petitioner intends to accomplish training as

referenced in the operating documents. Furthermore, the FAA is requiring that the petitioner’s 

PICs possess at least a private pilot’s certificate. Also, this exemption will require that training 

operations only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. The FAA finds that safety will 

not be adversely impacted if the petitioner follows the training outlined in the operating 

documents. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner can conduct its operations without the 

requested relief from § 91.109.

As stated above, the training proposed by the petitioner does not require a person who holds a 

flight instructor certificate. Therefore, with regard to ALPA’s comment on providing flight 

instruction, the FAA finds that the suggested relief from 14 CFR § 61.195 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes, the 

petitioner did not specify the paragraph(s) in 14 CFR § 91.119 from which it requires relief.

Relief from § 91.119(a), which requires operating at an altitude that allows a safe emergency 

landing if a power unit fails, is not granted. The FAA expects the petitioner to be able to perform 

an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface if a power unit 

fails. Relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not granted because 

the petitioner did not provide sufficient information necessary for the FAA to determine 

whether the operation poses an adverse impact to safety were it to operate over congested areas.

The petitioner proposes to maintain a 100-foot buffer from personnel not associated with its 

operations unless appropriate waivers have been obtained. The petitioner also proposes to 

operate no closer than 100 feet from buildings. With regard to persons not directly involved in 

the flight operation, the petitioner did not provide an explanation for exposing those persons to 

increased risk than what is provided for in the rule. Therefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to 

conducting UAS specific operations, all persons not essential to flight operations 

(nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this requires the 

UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. the PIC, VO, 

and the Sensor Operator). The FAA has also considered that the UA in this case will weigh 25
15

pounds or less. If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating 

persons from debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to 

persons afforded such protection. 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. When 

considering how to immediately cease operations, the primary concern is the safety of those 

nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAA finds that operations may be conducted closer 

than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the land owner/controller grants such 

permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

objects.

Thus, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because all operations will be 

conducted below 400 feet AGL and may be operated closer than 500 feet from persons, vessels, 

vehicles, and structures as described above. Provided adherence to the procedures in the 

operating documents and the additional conditions and limitations outlined below, the FAA 

finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted. Because of the conditions and limitations below, 

relief from § 91.119(d) is not applicable.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter Settings, the UAS 

uses a GPS altitude indicator rather than a barometric altimeter. As stated in the conditions and 

limitations below, the FAA requires any altitude reported to Air Traffic Control (ATC) to be in 

feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the GPS altitude indicator to zero feet AGL rather 

than local barometric pressure or field altitude before flight. Considering the limited altitude of 

the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 is granted to the extent necessary to 

comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in 

VFR conditions, relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the minimums 

prescribed in 14 CFR § 91.151(a), including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In 

addition, similar UAS-specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 

10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The petitioner states that its UAS operations will be

conducted in a controlled sterile environment, with UA under 25 pounds, and within VLOS. 

These factors, combined with the petitioner’s stated intention to terminate flights with 25%

remaining battery power, provides the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the requested relief 

from 14 CFR § 91.151(a). In accordance with the conditions and limitations below, the PIC is 

prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) 

there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the 

UA with 25% battery power remaining.

Additionally, in evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to 

VLOS and a safe operating perimeter, the FAA considered operations from a moving device or

vehicle. Since the petitioner did not discuss provisions for these circumstances, the conditions 

and limitations below preclude operations from moving devices or vehicles.

As stated in Section V of the petition, the scope of the petitioner’s proposed operation is the 
16

conduct of flare stack inspections using UAS. Although the petitioner’s operating documents 

describe a broader scope of operations including inspection of any property, structures, 

materials, or natural landscape features located within a client’s physical property, the 

petitioner did not provide information, descriptions, or data in support of these use cases. 

Therefore the FAAs analysis was limited to use of UAS for the inspection of flare stacks and 

the conditions and limitations below restrict the UAS operation to this purpose only.

Regarding an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization 

(COA), the majority of current UAS operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated 

through ATC by the issuance of a COA. This is an existing process that not only makes local 

ATC facilities aware of UAS operations, but also provides ATC the ability to consider airspace 

issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require the operator to request a 

NOTAM, which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities 

being conducted. The conditions and limitations below prescribe the requirement for the 

petitioner to obtain an ATO-issued COA.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety and 

reduced emissions achieved using a UAS 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.

The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding regulatory relief:

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)

Part 21, Subpart H Relief not necessary

Part 27 Relief not necessary

45.23(b) Relief not necessary

45.27(a) Relief not necessary

61.113(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.9(b)(2) and (c) Relief not necessary

91.103 Relief not necessary

91.109(a) Relief not necessary

91.119

Paragraphs (a) and (b) relief are not granted; paragraph 

(c) granted with conditions and limitations; paragraph 

(d) relief is not warranted
17

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.151(a) 91.151(a)(1), day, granted with conditions and limitations

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.407(a)(1) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.417(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

The FAA’s 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, Total Safety U.S., Inc. is granted an exemption from

14 CFR §§ 61.113(a) and (b); 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 unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of conducting 

sterile area flare stack inspections for the oil, natural gas, petro-chemical, and pipeline 

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

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Total Safety U.S., Inc. is hereafter referred to as the operator.

The petition and the following supporting documentation are hereinafter referred to as the 

operating documents: 

1) TotalSafety DJI S1000 sUAS Aircraft Flight Manual

2) TotalSafety U.S., Inc. Global Integrated Industrial Safety Services UAS Operations 

Manual

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.

The following conditions and limitations are subject to all flights utilizing this exemption:

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

described in the operating documents which has eight rotors and eight motors in an 

octocopter configuration weighing less than 25 pounds: DJI Innovations S1000 Multirotor Rotorcraft. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or 

a petition to amend this grant.
18

2. UAS operations under this exemption are limited to conducting sterile area flare stack 

inspections for the oil, natural gas, petro-chemical, and pipeline industries.

3. The UA may not be flown at a ground speed exceeding 50 knots.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents. All altitudes 

reported to ATC must be 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 medical certificate.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). 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 functions prescribed in the operating documents.

7. The VO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and 

avoiding other air traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not 

permitted to operate the camera or other instruments.

8. The operating documents and this grant of exemption 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 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 

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.

9. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe 

flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the 

aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed 

and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station 

must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be

properly documented in the aircraft records.
19

10. 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. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry

of the flight in the UAS aircraft records.

11. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the 

operating documents.

12. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, 

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

13. The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, 

alterations, and status of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the 

aircraft records, including total time in service, description of work accomplished, and 

the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service.

14. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety 

Bulletins.

15. The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action 

taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections.

16. The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current secondclass medical certificate. 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.

17. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of flare stack inspection the PIC must have

completed the operator’s training as prescribed in the operating documents. During that 

training, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR 61.51(b), a minimum of five hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model 

of the UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption. Training, proficiency, and 

experience-building flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to qualify the 

operator’s PIC(s), VO(s), and Sensor Operator(s). However, said training operations may 

only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and 

experience-building flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate 

distances in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

18. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of flare stack inspection the PIC must have 

completed the operator’s currency requirements as prescribed in the operating 

documents. The PIC must have completed at least three take-offs and three landings in 

the preceding 90 days as UAS pilot operating the make and model of the UAS to be 

utilized for operations under the exemption to maintain currency. Take-off and landing 
20

currency flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption. When establishing or 

regaining currency, said currency flights may only be conducted during dedicated 

training/currency sessions. During training, proficiency, experience-building flights, and 

dedicated currency flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate 

distances in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

19. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of flare stack inspection the PIC, VO, and 

Sensor Operator must have met all qualification, training, and currency requirements, as 

outlined in the operating documents. A record of completion of these requirements must 

be documented and made available to the Administrator upon request.

20. The operator may not permit the PIC to operate the UAS for the purpose of flare stack 

inspection unless the PIC has demonstrated and logged in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR 61.51(b), 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 people, vessels, vehicles, and 

structures.

21. 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.

22. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the airport reference point as denoted 

on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart.

23. 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.

24. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in 

accordance with the operating documents.

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

accordance with the operating documents.

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

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the 

intended landing point and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining.

27. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver 

or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of 

exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman 

(NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the 

operation. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in 
21

the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder 

requirements.

28. 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.

29. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and 

control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or

other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

30. The 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 UAS is operating. These

documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement 

official upon request.

31. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned operations and 

activities at all times.

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

33. The UA may not be operated over congested or densely populated areas.

34. 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 and/or;

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the 

owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles, or structures has granted permission 

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, and;

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, Sensor Operator, operator trainees or essential 

persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

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

permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from 

land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be 
22

conducted.

36. 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. 

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 January 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service