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, Counsel 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 request 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-2014-0802
2 

(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 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. 
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 Coalition stated the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger 

safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition 

stated that it does not believe that heightened safety measures should be required for the 

petitioner simply because of the commercial nature of its operations. The Coalition urged the 

FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under section 333 of Pub. L. 
5 

112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational 

circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles 

based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The 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 subject to minimal and appropriate regulations. 

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors2 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, restricted access and altitude of its small UAS. 

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

section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security 

of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasized the FAA must evaluate each 

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

The Coalition also commented that the FAA should grant relief from the requirement to hold 

an airman’s certificate, but stated that at a minimum the FAA should provide an exception 

from part 61 and approve training and testing regiments that pertain to UAS commercial 

operations pertinent to the aircraft 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), authorizes the FAA to provide exemption to the 

statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed 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 use the training program it proposed. Finally, 

the FAA does not agree that relying on the pilot certificate for a national security finding 

poses an unnecessary burden because pilots under this exemption, and the exemptions 

granted previously to section 333 requests, are 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 FAA notes that one of the 

determinations for operations under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. As 

 

2

 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112-95 states, in part: “In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary 

shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, 

weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line 

of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national 

security; ...” 
6 

the PIC is determined to be in command of the UA, he must maintain VLOS while operating 

the UA. The FAA also notes that a VO complements the PICs capability to see and avoid 

other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks. 

The VO provides an additional level of operational 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 certification should be a requirement for all unmanned 

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

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

registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a 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 authorizes 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 messaging 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 common 

failures 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 medical certificate should be required. NAAA also 

commented on pilot qualification, stating— 

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous 

training curriculum and show that they are fit to operate a commercial 

aircraft, so too must UAS operators. Holding a commercial certificate 

holds UAS operators to similar high standards as commercial aircraft 

operators and ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as 

commercial operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure 

they have the necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a 

commercial aircraft repeatedly over a sustained period of time. 

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training 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 Authorization (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, given 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 petitioner 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, Normal 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 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 relief from 14 CFR part 21 

and any associated noise certification 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 pilot 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 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 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 safety 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) 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). 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 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 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 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. 

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 has 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 case 
11 

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 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 

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 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. 

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) requires 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. Therefore, 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 requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter Settings, the UAS 

uses a GPS altitude indicator rather than a barometric 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 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 10 pounds, combined 

with the petitioner’s stated intention to terminate flights with 20% remaining battery power 

and petitioner’s statement that these “restriction will be more than adequate to ensure return 
13 

of the UAS to its planned landing zone.” As in exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), the 

FAA finds that these factors provide sufficient 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) 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. 
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 able to use human vision unaided by any device other than 

corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued medical certificate. 

5) 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. 

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 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. 

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 condition that affects the safe operation of the 

UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has 
16 

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. 

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 PIC 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 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. 

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

Bulletins. 

13) The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective 

action taken against discrepancies 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 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. 

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. Training, proficiency, 

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

qualify the operator’s PIC(s) and VO(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. 
17 

16) Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial imaging and monitoring, the 

PIC must have completed the operator’s currency requirements as prescribed in the 

operating documents. The PIC must have completed the 6 month refresher course as 

UAS pilot and completed a flight proficiency assessment, operating the make and 

model of the UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption, to maintain 

currency. Take-off and landing 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. 

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 operate the UAS for the purpose of aerial 

imaging and monitoring 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. This includes 

evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining 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 conducted 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 planned operating area and land, or be 

recovered in accordance with the operating documents. 

23) The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted 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 and land the UA with 20% battery power 

remaining. 

25) 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 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 accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have 

identification (N- Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart 

C. Markings must be as large as practicable. 

27) 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. 

28) 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. 

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 congested 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 vehicles 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, operator trainees, or essential persons do 

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

33) All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

34) 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. 
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