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 13th 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, 2016
i

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:....................................................... 25
ii

6.9 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside

the U.S.: ...................................................................................................................... 25

6.10 Attachments:.............................................................................................................. 26

7. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 26
1

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 a
3

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, speed

and 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 persons

remain 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 Documents2 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 13th 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 or
14

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.4The 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 exemption
15

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 prescribed
17

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 or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(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 that
18

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; or
21

(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 Aeronautic
23

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 reducing

the 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 A
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39