### BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Prairie State Generating Company,

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2016-_____

PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING COMPANY’S PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS TO OPERATE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012

Lisa Ellman Patrick Rizzi Matthew Clark Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 13 th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-637-6934 Fax: 202-637-5910 lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com matt.clark@hoganlovells.com Counsel for Prairie State Generating Company

DATE: January 7, 2016i TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SMALL UAS OPERATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND OF PETITIONER .......................................................................................... 1
3. RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY................................................................................. 2
4. PSGC’S PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 333 OF FMRA .................................................................... 3
4.1 Approval is warranted based on the UAS's size, weight, speed, and operational capability............................................................................ 3
4.2 Proposed conditions and limitations regarding the UAS ..................................... 3
4.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations................................................................................................................... 4
4.4 Conditions and limitations regarding the PIC and other crewmember qualifications and training ................................................................ 8 4.5 Conditions and limitations regarding PSGC manuals related to UAS operations ..................................................................................................... 9 5. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA ................................ 10
6. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION.................................................................................................. 10 6.1 Contact information: ................................................................................................. 10
6.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which PSGC seeks an exemption: ...................................................................................... 11
6.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:................................. 12 6.4 Exemption request catch-all provision ................................................................... 23 6.5 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest:....................................................................................................................... 23 6.6 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought:................................................................................................. 24
6.7 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought: ..................................... 25 6.8 Additional information that supports request:....................................................... 25ii 6.9 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.: ...................................................................................................................... 25
6.10 Attachments:.............................................................................................................. 26
7. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 261

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SMALL UAS OPERATIONS Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14 C.F.R. (“FAR”) Part 11, Prairie State Generating Company (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “PSGC”) hereby applies for a Summary Grant of Exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FAR”) identified below, to allow commercial operation of small unmanned aircraft systems ( i.e., “small unmanned aircraft” or “UAS”) for the purpose of conducting aerial data collection, including aerial mapping, exploration, surveying and monitoring of coal stockpiles. PSGC only seeks to operate UAS that the FAA has previously designated for operations under an exemption to Section 333 of FMRA. PSGC respectfully submits that there is no practical value in requiring an exemption holder to seek an amendment to its exemption (and have the FAA evaluate that request) every time it wants to operate a UAS that the FAA has already found merits a waiver from the statutory requirement that the aircraft have an airworthiness certificate under Section 333. To the extent that the FAA determines that each UAS model must be listed in the exemption, PSGC requests that it be allowed to operate the previously approved vehicles identified in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the Amended Measure Exemption (and attached to this Petition as Appendix
A). See, e.g., Exemption No. 12646A (November 19, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1602) (“Amended Measure Exemption”).
2. BACKGROUND OF PETITIONER The Prairie State Generating Company is the operating company of the Prairie State Energy Campus (hereinafter referred to as “PSEC” or “the Campus”). Located in Washington County, Illinois, the PSEC is a technologically advanced electric generation facility that includes two coal-fired power generating units and an adjacent underground coal mine. PSEC’s coal mine is the sole power source for its state-of-the-art power plant, utilizing conveyors to transport the coal, rather than transporting the coal from elsewhere like the typical U.S. coal plant. Ninety-five percent of PSEC’s owners are community-owned, non-2

profit utilities and electric cooperatives that are committed to providing clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to 2.5 million families across eight Midwestern states. PSGC's operating permits come from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources among other federal, state and local agencies. PSGC’s operation and success is dependent upon its meeting and exceeding these permit requirements. Among other requirements, PSGC is required to actively monitor and quantify its coal inventory stockpiles. Traditional methods for monitoring and quantifying coal inventories require using a manned helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft to capture aerial images of stockpiles. New UAS technologies have tremendous potential in the mining and utility power generation industry. Among their many benefits, UAS provide a versatile platform for aerial imaging, mapping, exploration, surveying and monitoring of coal stockpiles. Consistent with PSGC's history of visionary thinking and dedication to harnessing the power of new technologies to provide millions of Americans with affordable, reliable and clean power, PSGC seeks an exemption to allow commercial operation of UAS for the purpose of aerial data collection.
3. RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY This Petition for Exemption is submitted pursuant to Section 333(a) through (c) of FMRA. Congress has directed the FAA "to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system." Pursuant to Section 333 of FMRA, the FAA Administrator is to permit unmanned aircraft systems to operate in the NAS where it is safe to do so based on the following considerations:

 The UAS's size, weight, speed and operational capability;

 Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

 Operation of the UAS within the visual line of sight of the operator. Additionally, the FAA Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from the agency's safety regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a3

requested exemption is in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (defining the authority of the Administrator); 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (permitting exemptions from §§ 44701(a), (b) and §§ 44702 – 44716, et seq. ). A party requesting an exemption must explain the reasons why the exemption: (1) would benefit the public as a whole, and (2) would not adversely affect safety (or how it would provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rules). See FAR § 11.81 (petitions for exemption).
4. PSGC’S PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 333 OF FMRA PSGC’s proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption qualify for expedited approval via the summary grant process pursuant to Section 333 of FMRA, as each of the statutory criteria and relevant factors is satisfied and the FAA has previously issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this Petition for Exemption. See Exemption No. 11290 (April 8, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0474) (“Amazon Exemption”); Exemption No. 12958 (September 22, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-2717) (“Aeronautic Imagery Exemption”); Exemption No. 11692 (May 26, 2015; Docket FAA-2015- 0220) (“OpenSky Exemption”).
4.1 Approval is warranted based on the UAS's size, weight, speed, and operational capability The FAA is familiar with and has already determined that all of the UAS vehicles chosen by PSGC meet the requirements of Section 333 of FMRA due to their weight, speedand operational capabilities. PSGC intends to operate a variety of small, lightweight, batteryoperated UAS under the requested exemption, all of which have been designated for operations in previously granted exemptions and are set out in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the Amended Measure Exemption (and attached to this Petition as Appendix A ).
4.2 Proposed conditions and limitations regarding the UAS The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions and limitations. As noted above, these conditions and limitations are the same conditions and limitations as those contained in previously granted Section 333 exemptions,4

including recent summary grant exemptions. Collectively, these conditions and limitations ensure that the proposed UAS operations will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of safety to the rules from which exemption is sought. Each UAS operated under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:
4.2.1 Operations authorized by the grant of exemption will be limited to the UAS

approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation under Section 333 (Appendix A) when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other UAS will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption. [Amended Measure Exemption No. 1.] 1
4.2.2 The UA will not be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA

operating speed recommended by the UA manufacturer, and in no event will it be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The operator may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 3; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 3.]
4.2.3 The UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the FAA in

accordance with FAR Part 47. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 22; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 22.]
4.2.4 The UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part 45,

with the markings being as large as practicable. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 22; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 22.] 4.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

1 Alternatively, should the FAA agree with PSGC that there is no practical value in requiring an exemption holder to seek to amend its exemption every time it wants to operate a UAS that the FAA has already found merits a waiver from the statutory requirement that the aircraft have an airworthiness certificate under Section 333, PSGC proposes the following condition and limitation: “Operations under the exemption will be limited to small UAS that the FAA has previously approved or subsequently approves for operations under an exemption to Section 333 of FMRA. The UA will have a gross weight of not more than 55 pounds, including energy sources, equipment, and payload. Proposed operations of any other UAS will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.”5 4.3.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”)-

issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). All UAS operations will be conducted in accordance with the airspace requirements in the ATO-issued COA. Should PSGC want to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the blanket COA accompanying this exemption, PSGC will apply for a new or amended COA. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 21; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 21.]
4.3.2 Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television

filming are not permitted. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 2; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 2.]
4.3.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport’s reference

point (“ARP”) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory, or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a letter agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or such an operation is otherwise permitted by a COA issued to PSGC. PSGC will make the letter agreement available to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 16; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 16.]
4.3.4 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer (“VO”). The PIC will 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 for the VO. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 6; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
4.3.5 The UA will be operated within the visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the PIC

and VO at all times. The PIC will maintain VLOS with human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitations No. 5, 6; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitations No. 5, 6.]
4.3.6 The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC

always maintains VLOS capability. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 6; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
4.3.7 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO will be able to

communicate verbally with each other at all times. Electronic messaging or texting by the PIC and the VO shall not be permitted during UAS flight operations. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 6; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
4.3.8 The PIC will be prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering

wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power recommended by the UA manufacturer. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 20; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 20.]6 4.3.9 Prior to each UA flight, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection and

determine that the UAS (including the Ground Control Station) is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection will account for all potential discrepancies, e.g., non-functioning components, items or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the UA is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and documented, and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 10; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 10.]
4.3.10 The operator shall be responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS

to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 9; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 9.]
4.3.11 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet above

ground level (“AGL”). [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 4; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 4.]
4.3.12 Altitude reports made to ATC or other persons shall be reported in feet

AGL. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 4; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 4.]
4.3.13 All UAS operations will be conducted over properties owned or controlled

by PSGC as well as other private or controlled-access property with permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. For properties not owned or controlled by PSGC, permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 27; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 27.]
4.3.14 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons,

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: (a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. PSGC must ensure that non-participating personsremain under such protection; and if a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of non-participating persons; and/or (b) The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has

granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard. The PIC, VO operator trainees, and essential persons are not considered non-participating persons under this exemption. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 26; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 26]7 4.3.15 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological conditions

(“VMC”) only. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 15; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 15.]
4.3.16 PSGC will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight Rules

(“SVFR”). [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 15; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 15.]
4.3.17 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS operations

will not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 15; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 15.]
4.3.18 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and yield

right-of-way to, all manned aviation operations and activities at all times. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 24; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 24.]
4.3.19 The UA will 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. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 17; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 17.]
4.3.20 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or

vehicle. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 25; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 25.]
4.3.21 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the

UAS operation or UA flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight critical component) shall undergo a functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test flights will only be conducted by a PIC with a VO, and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight will be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 8; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 8.]
4.3.22 If the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal during any operation,

the UA will return to a pre-determined location within the private or controlled-access property. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 18; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 18.]
4.3.23 The PIC will abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 19; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 19.]
4.3.24 The documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight

of the UAS and any documents required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 will be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS at any time the UA is operating, and will be made available to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 23; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 23.]8 4.3.25 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or

vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents will be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on the NTSB website: www.ntsb.gov. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 28; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

4.4 Conditions and limitations regarding the PIC and other crewmember qualifications and training
The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operation under the requested exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

4.4.1 The PIC must hold (i) either an ATP, commercial, private, recreational or sport pilot certificate; and (ii) a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid driver’s license issued by a State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory/possession, or the Federal Government. The PIC must satisfy the flight review requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 13; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 13.]
4.4.2 PSGC will not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless the PIC

demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training PSGC’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption will be permitted under the terms of this exemption. These training operations, however, may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 14; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 14.]
4.4.3 During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not

essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC shall operate the UA with appropriate distance from non-participants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 14; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 14.]9 4.5 Conditions and limitations regarding PSGC manuals related to UAS operations PSGC will have the manufacturer’s manuals for any UAS operated under the requested exemption (collectively, the “Manuals”). The Manuals will be subject to the following limitations and conditions:

4.5.1 The Operating Documents 2 must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in the exemption and the procedures outlined in the other Operating Documents, the conditions and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, PSGC must follow the procedures as outlined in the Operating Documents. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 7; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
4.5.2 PSGC may update or revise its Operating Documents, and it is PSGC’s

responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised Operating Documents to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. PSGC must also present updated and revised Operating Documents if it petitions for an extension or amendment of the exemption. If PSGC determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the requested exemption, then PSGC must petition for an amendment to the exemption. PSGC will contact the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the Operating Documents. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 7; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
4.5.3 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all manufacturer

safety bulletins. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 12; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 12.]
4.5.4 PSGC will follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the UAS and UAS components. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 11; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 11.] In sum, PSGC’s operations under this exemption will be subject to the same conditions and limitations imposed in previously granted exemptions. No new precedent will be set, and, as previously determined by the FAA, these conditions and limitations will ensure a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rules from which exemption is sought.

2 “Operating Documents” means this exemption, the Manuals, and all other documents needed by PSGC to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 7; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 7.]10

5. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA In accordance with FMRA Section 333, PSGC requests that the Secretary of Transportation determine that its proposed small UAS operations (i) do not create a hazard to users of the National Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat to national security. PSGC further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine – as it did in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption – that relief from FAR Part 21 and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of FAR Part 36 is not necessary for the UAS operations proposed in this Petition. 3
6. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION As required by FAR § 11.81, PSGC provides the following information in support of this Petition: 6.1 Contact information:

Name: PSGC submits this Petition for Exemption, through counsel, Lisa Ellman, Patrick Rizzi and Matthew Clark.

_____________ Mailing address: Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi Counsel for Prairie State Generating Company Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 13 th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone number: 202-637-6934 (Ellman)

202-637-5659 (Rizzi) 703-610-6154 (Clark) Facsimile number: 202-637-5910 E-mail addresses: lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com matt.clark@hoganlovells.com

3 Aeronautic Imagery Exemption, at 2; OpenSky Drones Exemption, at 2. If the FAA concludes that the UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21 and/or 36, then PSGC requests that the FAA include that relief in the exemption.11 6.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which PSGC seeks an exemption:

FAR Description

§ 61.23(a) and (c) Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.
§ 61.101(e)(4) and (5) Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

§ 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

§ 61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3) What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?
§ 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness.
§ 91.119(c), (d) Minimum safe altitudes: General.
§ 91.121 Altimeter settings.

§ 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required.

§ 91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and inspections.
§ 91.409(a)(1) and (2) Inspections.
91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records.12 6.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought: PSGC intends to conduct aerial data collection by operating the small UAS models described herein. If granted, the proposed operations would allow PSGC to conduct aerial data collection, including aerial mapping, exploration, surveying and monitoring of coal stockpiles. PSGC petitions the FAA, pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption from the following FAR for the reasons noted: FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) -– Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.
FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations. The regulation states, in relevant part: (e) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft— (4) For compensation or hire; (5) In furtherance of a business; . . . . FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. The regulation states, in relevant part: (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command 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. (c) ****. FAR § 61.315(a) and (c)(2), (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my sport pilot certificate? The regulation states, in relevant part: (a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. . . .

. . . .13 (2) For compensation or hire. (3) In furtherance of a business. . . . PSGC requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent necessary to permit PSGC to conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold (i) an FAA private pilot, recreational pilot, or a sport pilot certificate, and (ii) an FAA airman medical certificate or a state driver’s license. While PSGC recognizes that the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is compensation either to the pilot or for the operation, PSGC requests that the FAA exempt PSGC and its PICs from this requirement since the use of at least a sport pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations under this exemption will be more safe than the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft operations. Unlike conventional aircraft, PSGC’s UAS are lightweight, remotely controlled, battery-powered (not fuel/gas), and carry no crew or passengers. The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a sport, recreational or private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are involved. The differences between the aeronautical knowledge and aeronautical experience requirements for sport pilots and for commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of manned aircraft. However, no aspect of this incremental additional knowledge or aeronautical experience is significant for the daytime, VMC, low-altitude, VLOS, small UAS operations over private or controlled access properties with property owner/controller permission as proposed in this Petition. Put another way, there are stark and fundamental differences between the type of experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a commercial manned aircraft with passengers and property should have, versus the type of experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. In PSGC’s case, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be PSGC’s property. While the PIC will be compensated, all risk of damage to the property (in fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by PSGC. There is no expectation or need for the PIC of the small UA to have the type of experience or14

aeronautical knowledge that a commercial pilot for a manned aircraft would have. Similarly, the differences between the flight proficiency requirements for sport pilots and commercial pilots are not substantively significant here where the operations will be conducted strictly during daylight VMC conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no higher than 400 feet AGL. Accordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS PIC to have more aeronautical knowledge, experience, and flight proficiency than that required for a sport pilot certificate. Given that PSGC plans to operate its UAS over private or controlled-access property and at low altitudes during daytime in VMC, the parallel nature of sport pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary to operate this small UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the proposed UAS operations here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exemption should only be required to hold, at most, a sport pilot certificate. Such a condition would be consistent with the certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption. For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, PSGC requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit PSGC to use as PIC of its proposed UAS operations pilots who hold at least a sport pilot certificate and either an FAA third-class airman medical certificate or a state driver’s license, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, including the PIC qualification and training requirements. FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness. The regulation states in relevant part: (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. . . . To the extent necessary for the proposed operations in this Petition, PSGC requests an exemption from this provision. 4 The UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate

4 PSGC requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble Exemption, at 16, 21. However, PSGC notes that the FAA determined that no such exemption15

under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus relief is requested from this regulation. See Exemption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”), at 16. An exemption is warranted because PSGC understands that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with [PSGC’s Manuals] to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that PSGC must still determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption, at 16. FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General. The regulation states: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

... (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface— (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

... PSGC requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit it to conduct UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since the ability to operate at those altitudes is one of the key benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at these low altitudes, PSGC’s UAS operations will be conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that which would be achieved if larger manned aircraft were to be used at the altitudes required by FAR § 91.119.

was needed in Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0352) (“Astraeus Exemption”) at 19, 22.16 With respect to paragraph (a), PSGC intends to comply with this requirement to the same extent as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA must operate at an altitude such that the loss of a single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an emergency landing “without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” PSGC agrees with the FAA’s reasoning on this issue in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and therefore does not believe that relief is required from paragraph (a). Regarding paragraph (b), PSGC plans to operate these small UAS over properties that PSGC owns or controls and other private or controlled-access properties (with owner/controller permission) in areas that are not congested or densely populated. Accordingly, PSGC does not believe that an exemption is necessary from this paragraph (b) covering “congested areas”. Finally, with respect to paragraph (c), PSGC requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “ other than congested

” areas. PSGC’s UAS operations require lower-level flying, but have a number of self-imposed restrictions to ensure at least an equivalent level of safety. Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations by manned aircraft that comply with this paragraph. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size, speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk relative to the use of a small UA, with a much smaller size and lighter weight, operating at much slower speeds, with batteries rather than a significant fuel load, at all times within VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide view. Accordingly, as the FAA determined in the Trimble Exemption, at 17-18, relief is warranted here provided that PSGC adheres to its Manuals and the conditions and limitations proposed herein. For these reasons, PSGC requests relief from the entirety of paragraph (c), as was recently granted in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption, at 2, and the OpenSky Drones Exemption, at 2. To the extent necessary, PSGC also requests relief from paragraph (d)(1), which applies only to helicopters and allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed17

helicopter route. Flying a manned helicopter would pose a significantly greater risk than using a small UA for the proposed operations, even if the helicopter is on a specific route or at a specific low altitude prescribed by the FAA. A manned helicopter is much heavier, larger, and faster than a small UA. Moreover, unlike PSGC’s small UA, the helicopter has people on-board and a fuel load. The operation of a small UA at all times within the VLOS of the PIC on the ground would be at least as safe as a manned helicopter operation operating in conformity with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1), and therefore an exemption from Section 91.119(d)(1) is warranted. FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings. The regulation states, in relevant part: (a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating— (1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to— (ii) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft; (ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or (iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or ( 2 ) At o r a b o ve 1 8 , 0 0 0 fe et M S L , to 2 9

. 9 2 ′′ H g

. (b) * * * *. To the extent necessary to conduct the proposed operations, PSGC requests an exemption from the altimeter setting requirements of FAR § 91.121. PSGC recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UA it operates maintains altitude to an accurate reference point. The PIC will check the UA altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will effectively zero the UA’s altitude at the point of takeoff, to ensure that measurements of the UA’s altitude are as accurate as possible relative to the local elevation. To the extent that18

this methodology does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, PSGC requests an exemption to permit UAS operations using this methodology. FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. The regulation states: (a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed— (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. (b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes. PSGC requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151’s fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. Technological and durational limitations on UAS battery power means that no meaningful flight operations can be conducted while still maintaining a 30-minute battery reserve. An exemption from the fuel requirements of FAR § 91.151 is therefore required. The FAA has previously granted relief from the fuel requirements of § 91.151(a) for flight in daytime VFR conditions in circumstances similar to those presented in this Petition for Exemption. See e.g., Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 20 and OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 20. In the OpenSky Drones Exemption, the FAA determined that a requirement prohibiting the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there was enough available power for UAS to operate for the intended operational time and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer, if greater, would ensure an equivalent level of safety to the fuel requirements of FAR § 91.151. PSGC will adhere to the same reserve power condition and limitation and an exemption from FAR § 91.151’s fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions is therefore appropriate.19 FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required. The regulation states, in relevant part: Each owner or operator of an aircraft— (a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter; (b) ****. PSGC requests an exemption from the maintenance and inspection requirements of FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and that the achievement of an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. PSGC has proposed in Section 4 of this Petition several conditions and limitations related to maintenance and inspections which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.405(a). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption, PSGC requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit PSGC to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and limitations proposed above, without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). PSGC does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is required, since PSGC will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative instrument or item of equipment for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph (c), and appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative instruments or equipment in compliance with paragraph (d). FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration. The regulation states:20 (a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless— (1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and (2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

. . . . PSGC requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to allow the proposed operations without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1), subject to certain conditions and limitations. PSGC has proposed in this Petition maintenance-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption, PSGC requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit PSGC to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. PSGC does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is required, since PSGC will require that maintenance record entries are made as required, in compliance with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried following maintenance performed on the UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot. FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections. The regulation states, in relevant part: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had— (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or21 (2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records. (b)  . PSGC requests an exemption from the inspection requirements of FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). In the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. PSGC has proposed in this Petition maintenance and inspection-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption, PSGC requests an exemption to permit PSGC to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and limitations outlined herein, without having to comply with the inspection requirements in FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records. The regulation states, in relevant part: (a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, 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.22 (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 which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. (iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. (vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. (b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods

______ prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed. (2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. (3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service. (c) ** **. PSGC requests an exemption from the maintenance record requirements in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). The FAA determined in the Astraeus Exemption that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. PSGC has proposed in this Petition maintenance, inspection, and records-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeronautic23

Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption, PSGC requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to allow the proposed operations, subject to the conditions and limitations outlined herein, without having to keep the records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b).
6.4 Exemption request catch-all provision This Petition does not seek exemption from certain regulations based on the reasoning and analysis in prior FAA grants of exemption. To the extent that the FAA concludes that an exemption from one or more other provisions of the FAR would be required to allow the proposed operations in this Petition, PSGC also seeks an exemption from those FAR provisions. 6.5 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest: The public interest will be served in several ways by granting PSGC’s Petition. First, Congress has established a national policy that favors early integration of UAS into the National Airspace System in controlled, safe working environments such as those proposed in this Petition. Granting this Petition helps fulfill Congress’ goal in passing Section 333(a) through (c) of the FMRA; namely, the FAA Administrator's assessment of whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS before completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the FMRA. PSGC is dedicated to protecting the environment and the proposed UAS operations are another example of that commitment. Most of PSGC’s small UAS are battery powered and create no harmful emissions, as compared to much faster, larger, and fuel-powered manned aircraft. The proposed operations also improve safety and reduce risk by reducingthe public’s exposure to danger associated with aerial data collection activities utilizing fullsize fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft. Any accident involving PSGC’s lightweight UAS would present significantly less danger to the pilot and other individuals on the ground than one involving a full-size helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft.24 6.6 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought: Throughout this Petition, PSGC has discussed how it will ensure the safety of other manned aircraft and persons and property on the ground if the FAA grants the requested exemption. Consistent with the FAA’s findings in previously granted exemptions, the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, coupled with the operational protocols for the selected UAS platforms, ensure a level of safety that is equal to or better than that provided by the rules from which exemption is sought. In general, the risks of any small UAS operation proposed in this Petition interfering with a manned aircraft would be minimized by numerous factors, including but not limited to:

 the low altitude at which the UAS would operate;

 the locations at which the UAS would operate (e.g., remote areas; private or controlled access property; away from airports);

 the small size, light weight, and relatively slow speed of PSGC’s UAS;

 the restriction on UAS operations to VMC and daytime conditions; and

 the requirement for the UA to be operated within VLOS of the PIC and VO at all times. Moreover, PSGC’s UAS have the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight contingencies or failures, and they use an auto-pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. The UAS are also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar operation and mitigate the risk of command and control link failures. The risks to persons or property on the ground would be substantially mitigated – if not eliminated – by these same factors, as well as the 500-foot set-off from non-participating persons, vehicles, and structures absent additional safeguards. Per the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, (i) the PIC will suspend/abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the Manuals;25

and (ii) PSGC will coordinate extensively, as warranted, with the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all UAS operations under the exemption are at least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations used for similar purposes. The conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition (which have been found by the FAA to be acceptable for other summary grant exemptions) and the operational safety features of the selected UAS platforms ensure that the proposed operations will not interfere with manned aircraft and will ensure the safety of persons and property on the ground. For these reasons, granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would not adversely affect safety, and would provide a level of safety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.
6.7 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought: PSGC proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:
Docket No. : FAA-2016-______ Petitioner: Prairie State Generating Company Sections of 14 CFR: 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3), 91.7(a), 91.119(c) and (d)(1), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b). Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to conduct small UAS operations for aerial data collection.
6.8 Additional information that supports request: PSGC is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find helpful, or to answer questions in response to any FAA requests. 6.9 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.: PSGC does not request to exercise the privileges of this exemption outside the United States.26 6.10 Attachments: A list of previously approved vehicles from Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of the Amended Measure Exemption that PSGC may operate under the requested exemption is
attached as Appendix A

. 7. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, PSGC respectfully requests that the FAA grant this Petition for Exemption. Should you have any questions, or if you need additional information to support the PSGC’s Petition for Exemption, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Ellman Patrick Rizzi Matthew J. Clark5 Hogan Lovells US LLP Counsel for Prairie State Generating Company

5 Matthew Clark is only licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and his practice is limited consistent with Rule 49(c) of the D.C. Court of Appeals.27 Appendix A282930313233343536373839