AFS-15-045-E Exemption No. 11176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated October 2, 2014, 1 which included supplemental proprietary information submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under separate cover, Mr. Gregory Kunkle, Keller and Heckman, LLP, C ounsel for Chevron USA, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator), 1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001 petitioned the FAA for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103(b), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 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 exemption would allow the petitioner to operate the Skycatch unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of controlled access oil and gas facilities.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes 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.

1 By email dated January 22, 2015, the petitioner also responded to a reque st for information. In the matter of the petition of

CHEVRON USA, INC.

for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103(b), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-08022

(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 91.103(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each PIC shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This

information must include—

(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 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 91.119(c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(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.

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 visual flight rules (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, (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

Section 91.405(a) requires, in per tinent part, that an aircraft operator or owne r shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in s ubpart E of the same pa rt 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.3

Section 91.407(a)(1) prescribes that no person may operate any 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 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:

(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 that 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.4

(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) 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 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 petitioner proposes to operate the Skycatch UAS to conduct aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of controlled access oil and gas facilities. See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA.

The petitioner has provided the following information to support its request for an exemption, which includes proprietary supporting documents:

Skycatch, Inc. Flight Manual for Skycatch Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

Discussion of Public Comments

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014 (79 FR 67533). Three comments were received from the Small UAV Coalition (hereafter the Coalition), the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA).

In support of the petition, the Co alition stated the petiti oner has proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than hobby and modeler gr oups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition

stated that it does not believe that heightened safety measur es should be required for the petitioner simply because of the commercial natu re of its operations. The Coalition urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under se ction 333 of Pub. L.5

112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artificia l distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the particular proposed UAS operations by distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. The Coalition asserted that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subj ect to minimal and appropriate regulations.

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors 2 in section 333 as a minimum. The Coalition stated the petition shows the FAA should consider factors other than those specified in section 333, such as the location, re stricted access and altitude of its small UAS.

The Coalition maintained that th e petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the seven factors in

section 333 and include several a dditional mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security of the proposed UAS operations . The Coalition emphasized the FAA must evaluate each

factor within the context of th e petitioner’s proposed UAS operations.

The Coalition also commented that the FAA shoul d grant relief from the requirement to hold an airman’s certificate, but stated that at a minimum the FAA should provide an exception from part 61 and approve trai ning and testing regiments that pertain to UAS commercial operations pertinent to the airc raft and operation proposed. The Coalition also asserted that Congress intended the section 333 national security criterion to focus on the operation rather than on the pilot and that shifting that focus imposes an unnecessary burden.

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (Exemption No. 11110), neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its regulations found in 49 USC § 44701(f), authoriz es the FAA to provide exemption to the statutory requirement to hold an airman ce rtificate as prescrib ed in 49 USC § 44711. The FAA notes that under this exemption the petitioner proposed to use pilots holding private certificates and it will be able to us e the training program it proposed. Finally, the FAA does not agree that relying on the p ilot certificate for a national security finding poses an unnecessary burden because pilots under this exemption, and the exemptions granted previously to section 333 requests, ar e already required to hold a pilot certificate to satisfy 49 USC § 44711.

The Coalition commented that a VO should not be required for all small UAS operation. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may allow the UAS to be operated beyond VLOS of the PIC and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the UA within

VLOS of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted. The F AA notes that one of the determinations for operations unde r section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. As

2 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112-95 states, in part: “In maki ng the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanne d aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proxi mity to airports and populated areas , and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national ai rspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; ...”6

the PIC is determined to be in command of th e UA, he must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA also notes that a VO comple ments the PICs capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be mo mentarily attending to other flying tasks. The VO provides an additional level of opera tional safety.

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-level airspace, and therefore clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators. NAAA stated that seeing and avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for agricultural safety, and that agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS operations at low altitudes will increase the potential for collision with agricultural aircraft. The FAA recognizes these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: a) a Notice to Airman (NOTAMs) issued for all operations, b) operations conducted within VLOS of the pilot in command (PIC) and the VO, and c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-of-way to

manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certificati on 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 andregistration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistan ce of a visual observer (VO) and well clear of any low-flying manned aircraft. As discussed in greater detail below, Section 333 of the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 author izes the Secretary of Transportation to determine, considering a number of factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certificate is not necessary for certain operations. The Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft operated by the petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA.

ALPA expresses concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA notes the petitioner’s reference to operations conducted within “limited or predetermined” sterile areas is not defined, nor does the petitioner detail procedures for controlling the airspace or area of operation. Specifically, ALPA states “there must be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.” The FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or below 400 feet AGL) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect safety.

Regarding the petitioner’s statement that the PIC and observer will be able to communicate by voice or text, ALPA notes that text me ssaging could have an unknown latency extending to several minutes. ALPA also states that the pilot and observer should be able to maintain a

visual observation of the aircraft and area of operation when using voice communication. NAAA states UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the most minimal distance possible. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and VO

communications.7

ALPA asserts the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR-09/55, “Flammability Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage (January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to determine how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Given the size of the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA concludes that the use of a lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed operations.

ALPA comments that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most commonfailures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s operating documents addressed potential hazards related to C2 failure. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated by the petitioner has sufficient design features to address these hazards. The FAA also finds that the operating documents have incorporated safety procedures to be followed by all operational participants should a C2 failure occur. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

ALPA also notes that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or hire,” and argues the pilot must hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA

asserts a current second-class airman medi cal certificate should be required. NAAA also commented on pilot qualification, stating—

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous training curriculum and show that they are fit to operate a commercial aircraft, so too must UAS operators. Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS operators to similar high standards as commercial aircraft operators and ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as commercial operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a sustained period of time.

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and trai ning required by holders of both private and commercial certificates. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of this issue with regards to 14 CFR § 61.113.

ALPA opposes an exemption from the pre-flight action requirements of § 91.103. In addition, although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, ALPA notes the petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid requirements in § 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. This comment is addressed in detail in the FAA analysis below.8

ALPA mentioned the aircraft will not have a barometric altimeter as required by 14 CFR § 91.121, stating the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed, and processes or mitigations, such as redundant control capability, fail-safe systems, backups and specific, validated procedures for system and equipment failures must be in place.

Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argues that using batteries as the only source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from traditional methods of propulsion, and requires further research to determine best safety practices. This comment is addressed in

detail below.

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA opposes the petitioner’s attempt to avoid compliance with established aircraft maintenance and recordkeeping requirements. ALPA states the UAS should comply with the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. This comment is addressed in

detail below.

ALPA also expresses concern that the petitioner’s waiver request is not for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA states that this results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPAs concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires each operator secure a Certificate of Waiver or Au thorization (COA) which covers specific details of the petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

ALPA stated that the petition seeks an exemption from the aircraft airworthiness process, 14 CFR 21 and 14 CFR § 91.203. The petitioner has not requested such exemptions. The FAA does, however, discuss aspects of 14 CFR 21 with respect to the petitioner’s request,

below.

ALPA repeated its position that all aircraft in the NAS must operate to the same high level of safety with respect to minimum safe altitudes, as directed in 14 CFR § 91.119. The petitioner is proposing to operate no higher than 400 feet AGL, below the 500 foot general minimum altitude for civil aircraft. The FAA addresses this concern, below.

ALPA expressed concern on whether the petitioner’s UAS can comply with the aircraft light requirements for night operations in § 91.209, gi ven its limited electric power. The petitioner has not requested to fly its UAS at night.

Concerns raised in this comment section are addressed in the FAA’s analysis below and where necessary appropriate risk mitigations are implemented through the conditions and limitations on the operations.9

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

Although the pe titioner did not request relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts , Subpart H, Airworthiness certificates , and 14 CFR part 27, Airworthiness Standards, No rmal Category Rotorcraft , the FAA notes that 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 lim ited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the S ecretary of Transportation has de termined that this aircraft

meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds th at relief from 14 CFR part 21 and any associated noise certif ication and testing requirements of part 36 is not necessary.

Manned aircraft conducting aerial imaging 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 10 lbs. with no onboard p ilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight 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 aerial filming operation.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident. The Skycatch UA carries no fuel, and therefore the ri sk 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 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 other manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides that the operator will request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the NAS. These mitigations address concerns raised by NAAA and ALPA regarding awareness of UAS operations occurring in the airspace.

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight contingencies or failures and uses an auto-pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuvers. These sa fety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar operation and address ALPA’s comment on mitigating the risk of command and control link failures.

The petitioner’s UA must be identified by serial number, be registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification number (N-number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. The markings must be as large as practicable per, § 45.29(f).10

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

, 91.407(a)(1) O peration 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). The FAA has carefully evaluated the petitioner’s request and determined that cause for granting the exemption is warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s UAS operating documents contains daily, preflight, monthly and yearly checks for the UAS. The FAA finds that adherence to the operating documents as required by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. In accordance with the petitioner’s UAS maintenance, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements, 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 subject to the conditions and

limitations below.

Pilot in Command (PIC)

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

limitations , the FAA must consider the appropriat e level of pilot certification for the petitioner’s proposed operations. The petitioner states it would ope rate its UAS with a pilot holding at least a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman 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 fo r 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.

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, Chevron has proposed adhering to a 100 hour training program and 6 month currency requirements, as listed in the operating documents. The conditions and limitations below stipulate that Chevron may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC ha s demonstrated through Chevron’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.

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical certificate, and who has completed the petitioner’s flight time requirements, can conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the safety of the NAS and persons or property on the ground. Upon consideration of the overall safety case11

presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds that granting the requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), is warranted.

The petitioner has indicated it will conduct its proposed operation(s) with a minimum crew consisting of the trained PIC, who will keep the UAS in his visual line of sight (VLOS) at all times, and one VO. There are no regulatory requirements for visual observer medical certificates. Although a medical certificate is not required for a VO, the UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual capabilities of the VO, and the VO and PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS with the UA at all times. It is the responsibility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit operations of the UA to distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11109, the FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the VO.

UAS Operating Parameters

Regarding the petitioner’s reque sted relief from 14 CFR § 91.103, Preflight Action , the petitioner’s operating documents require the PIC to ta ke certain actions before flight to ensure the safety of the flight. Alt hough there will be no approved Airp lane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual available, the FAA believes that the pe titioner can comply with the other applicable requirements in 14 CFR § 91.103(b)(2). The proc edures outlined in th e operating documents address the FAA’s concerns regarding complia nce with § 91.103(b). Th e PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances/conditions, and aircraft performance da ta before initiation of flight. The PIC will

also account for all relevant s ite-specific conditions in his or her preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA finds that exemp tion from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary.

While the petitioner did not specifically request relief from § 91.119(c), Minimum safe

altitude , the FAA finds that relief is necessary because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes below 400 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: 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. The petitioner states that it will operate pursuant to the following:

 All operations will be conducted within a confined “sterile area” as defined in the operating documents.

 A “security perimeter” will be established around the operating area.

 Operations will be limited to Chevron properties where third party access is

controlled.

 Notification will be made to Chevron manned aerial patrol flights and to personnel at the operations site will be made prior to flight.12

The petitioner did not describe specific minimum stand-off distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. Section 91.119(c) requi res that aircraft operate no closer than 500 feet to these persons or objects. As discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA 2014-0507), operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require that the UA be operated closer than 500 feet to essential persons, or objects that would not be possible without additional relief. Th erefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to conducting UAS 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. PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons).

The FAA has also considered that the UA will weigh about 10 pounds. If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must also 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 and determines that it does not present an undue hazard. Thus, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted provided adherence to the procedures in the operating

documents and the FAA’s additional conditions and limitations outlined below.

The petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.119(d) is not necessary because of the relief granted to § 91.119(c).

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

uses a GPS altitude indicator rather than a baro metric altimeter. However, as stated in the conditions and limitations below, the FAA requires any altitude reported to ATC to be in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the GPS altitude indicat or to zero feet AGL rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude before flight. Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relie f 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 request ed relief from 14 CFR 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions , relief has been granted for manned airc raft 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-s pecific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The pe titioner states that its UAS operations

will be conducted in a controlled, sterile environment, with UA under 10 pounds, combined with the petitioner’s stated intention to termin ate flights with 20% remaining battery power and petitioner’s statement that these “restriction will be more than adequate to ensure return13

of the UAS to its planned landing zone.” As in exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), the FAA finds that these factors provide suffici ent reason to grant the relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations below following the manufacturer’s recommendation. Thus, 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 20% battery power remaining.

Regarding an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) i ssued Certificate of Wai ver 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 al so provides ATC the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS opera tions. 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 conduc ted. 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. Th e 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 fla mmable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.14

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

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)
Part 21 Relief not necessary
61.113(a) and (b) Relief granted
91.103 Relief not necessary

91.119 Relief granted for paragraph (c) with
conditions and limitations; paragraph
(d) relief is not necessary

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and

limitations

91.151(a) Relief granted for § 91.151(a)(1), day,

with conditions and limitations

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, Chevron USA Inc. is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.113 (a) and (b), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow petitioner to operate a UAS for the purpose of aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of controlled access oil and gas facilities. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Chevron USA Inc. is hereafter referred to as the operator.

The petition and the following supporting documentation are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents: Skycatch, Inc. Flight Manual for Skycatch Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)15

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1) Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents which has four rotors in a quadrotor configuration weighing less than 10 pounds: Skycatch Quadrotor UAS. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this

grant.

2) UAS operations under this exemption are limited to conducting aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of controlled access oil and gas facilities.

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

4) The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be ab le to use human vision unaide d by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued medical certificate.

5) All operations must utilize a visual observe r (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 duri ng 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 ensu re that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents. 6) 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 ope rating 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 opera ting documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions a nd 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 th at any update or re vision 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 re garding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

7) 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 cond ition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has16

been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for sa fe flight. The Ground

Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly docum ented in the aircraft records.

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. The PI C who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry of the flight in the UAS aircraft records.

9) 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.

10) The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

11) The operator must carry out its maintena nce, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in accordance with th e operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations, and status of re placement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the aircraft records, including total time in service, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the au thorized person returning the UAS to

service.

12) Each UAS operated under this exemption mu st comply with all manufacturer Safety

Bulletins.

13) The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against discrepancie s discovered between inspections.

14) The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current thirdclass medical certificate. The PIC must al so 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.

15) Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial imaging and monitoring 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 with14 CFR § 61.51(b), a 100 hour course on the make and model of the UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption. Trai ning, proficiency, and experience-building flights can be condu cted under this grant of exemption to qualify the operator’s PIC(s) and VO(s). Howe ver, said training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights the PIC is requi red to operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.17

16) Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial imaging and monitoring, the PIC must have completed the operator’s cu rrency requirements as prescribed in the operating documents. The PIC must have completed the 6 month refresher course as UAS pilot and completed a flight profic iency assessment, operating the make and model of the UAS to be utilized for ope rations under the exemption, to maintain currency. Take-off and landing currency flig hts can be conducted under this grant of exemption. When establishing or regaining currency, said currency flights may only be conducted during dedicated training/c urrency 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.

17) The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s qualification criteria, completes the operator’s UAS training, and 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. The VO is also required to complete the operator’s training requirements. A record of training must be documented and made available upon request by the Administrator. Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building), are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions.

18) The operator may not permit the PIC to ope rate the UAS for the purpose of aerial imaging and monitoring unless the PIC has demonstrated and lo gged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b) , the ability to safely ope rate the UAS in a manner

consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption. This includes evasive and emergency maneuvers and ma intaining appropriate distances from people, vehicles, and structures.

19) UAS operations may not be conducted during night time, as defined in 14 CFR §1.1. All operations must be cond ucted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not

authorized.

20) The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator

upon request.18

21) 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.

22) If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a pre-determined location within the pl anned operating area and land, or be recovered in accordance with the operating documents.

23) The PIC must abort the flight in th e event of unpredict ed obstacles or emergencies, in accordance with the operating documents.

24) 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 an d land the UA with 20% battery power remaining.

25) The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Or ganization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any oper ations 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 acc ordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder requirements.

26) All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accord ance 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.

27) Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectru m used for operation and control of the UA must comply with th e Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

28) The documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 mu st be available to

the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the UAS is operating.

These documents must be made availa ble to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

29) The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned operations

and activities at all times.

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

31) The UA may not be operated over co ngested or densely populated areas.19

32) Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, 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 ve hicles or structures where the

owner/controller of such 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, ope rator trainees, or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

33) All operations shall be co nducted over private or cont rolled-access property with permission from the property owner/cont roller or authorized representative. Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

34) Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as define d 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 Tr ansportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.20

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 February 28, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2015.

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service