PSA Announcement for Exemption Holders – Part 91.403(b)

It would appear that even with prior warnings, numerous exemption holders do not have exemptions for all of the regulations needed to comply. Again, these waiver inconsistencies counter the FAA’s safety of the NAS mantra and charge. Sometimes I feel like I’m the only person with his eye on the ball with these FAA waiver issues since the “Amazing” Grogan moved on to greener pastures.

As of the beginning of August, at least 48 exemptions were defective. These exemptions are missing
91.403(b). Some of you want to take advantage of the timely announcement and find a new huckster or
hawker capable of the old cut and paste at one of the drone shows. I’d caution the reader to ensure that the new ‘expert” carries malpractice insurance. No one wants to get the you’re grounded call when the
contracted client has a crop in the field.

And this should not have caught anyone off guard. On May 12, 2021, sUAS News broke the story 

Can You Cut And Paste Your Way To Big Drone Money?   

Just to refresh your memory, “Question 2. Should a company petition for an exemption for 91.405 (a); 91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a)(1); 91.417(a) & (b) also petition for an exemption from 91.403(b)? Answer: Yes. The FAA has determined that 14 CFR Part 91, Sub Part E  (“Maintenance, Preventative Maintenance, and Alterations”) applies to UAS operations conducted under the general operating and flight rules of Part 91. Operators that are unable to comply with the requirements of Sub Part E , including § 91.403(b), should file a petition for exemption asking for relief from applicable requirements and should show why granting the petition is in the public interest and would not adversely affect safety. 

Question 3. If a company failed to obtain an exemption from 91.105(a)(2) and 91.403(b) and performed
maintenance not according to Part 43 or without the services of an FAA certificated Airframe and Powerplant mechanic, would that unmanned aircraft flight under Part 91 be legally compliant? Answer: As
noted above, § 91.105(a)(2) does not apply to UAS operations that occur under Part 91. As a result, relief
from § 91.105(a)(2) is not necessary. As for the applicability of § 91.403(b), operators should petition for
exemption from § 91.403(b) unless they will fulfil all requirements of Sub Part E and Part 43.

The FAA has, however, issued some exemptions that lack this relief but provide relief from various other
provisions in Part 91, Sub Part E , such as the regulations listed in Question 2, above. Section 91.403(b)
specifies that the prohibition applies only to maintenance not performed in accordance with applicable
regulations. 

Maintenance that occurs in accordance with existing exemptions is legally compliant as long as a petitioner complies with all conditions and limitations of the exemption the petitioner holds. For an abundance of clarity, the FAA is now including relief from § 91.403(b) in each exemption that contains relief from any provision of Sub Part E , provided that operations occurring under a grant of such relief remain in the public interest and do not adversely affect safety.”

It’s not just the hayseed bunch, but HSE-UAV, Harris Aerial LLC, Rocoza LLC, Hylio Inc., and Google Research Climate and Energy Group.I guess these companies, consultants, and attorneys were not readers of sUAS News. Well, maybe those folks were too busy reading up on drone selfies? Some were filed by do-it-yourselfers, some consultants, some attorneys. The complete list is down below.

The FAA did put some people on notice of this. Lisa Ellman of Hogan Lovells filed a petition for exemption for BFD Systems LLC and the  FAA granted the exemption  saying, “While the petitioner did not request relief from 14 CFR § 91.403(b), the FAA has determined such relief is necessary as in the Overwatch Aero Grant of Exemption No. 18596.” 

Kelly Neubecker of UASolutions Group Inc. filed the petition for exemption for Dronexum and the  FAA granted the exemption on May 21, 2021which said, “the original petition nor the petition for amendment included a request for relief from said section. However, the FAA has determined that 14 CFR part 91, subpart E (“Maintenance, Preventative Maintenance, and Alterations”) applies to UAS operations conducted under the general operating and flight rules of part 91. This is consistent with FAA’s determination in Exemption 18596, FAA-2018-0857, issued to Overwatch Aero, LLC. Since the petitioner is unable to comply with the requirements of subpart E, including 91.403(b), the relief is necessary.” The FAA clued Dronexum and Neubecker into the need for 91.403(b). 

The dockets down don’t show Neubecker going back and fixing things for her clients down below.

This situation should serve as a teachable Damocles moment for the rest of us bag-holders who can’t afford the cut-and-paste consultants with or without malpractice insurance. The FAA doesn’t appear to be notifying people (yet), so consider this PSA a heads up for the rest of us.
@TheDroneDealer on Twitter