HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 035202/000003 - 7134041 v4

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Arizona Public Service Company,

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-0488

FAA Exemption No. 12161

PETITION OF ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ADD CERTAIN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

TO ITS EXEMPTION NO. 12161

E. Tazewell Ellett

Patrick R. Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-637-8644 / -5659

Fax: 202-637-5910

tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

COUNSEL FOR ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

DATE: December 23, 2015
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 035202/000003 - 7134041 v4

1. BACKGROUND AND EXEMPTION REQUEST

On February 24, 2015, Arizona Public Service Company (“APSC”) petitioned the Federal

Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act

of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, for an exemption from certain sections of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (“FAR”) so that APSC could commercially operate one or more small

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) for aerial data collection purposes such as visual inspections of

energy infrastructure. After receiving APSC’s responses to follow-up information requests, the FAA

granted Exemption No. 12161 to APSC on July 27, 2015, thereby authorizing APSC to conduct

commercial UAS operations for aerial data collection using the Microdrone MD4-1000 UAS (“the

Exemption”).

Limitation No. 1 in the Exemption provides, in relevant part, that “[o]perations authorized by

this grant of exemption are limited to the Microdrone, MD4-1000” and “[p]roposed operations of any

other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.” APSC seeks the

flexibility to use certain other UAS models under the Exemption. Accordingly, APSC respectfully

requests an amendment to the Exemption so that APSC can also operate the DJI Phantom 2 Vision

Plus, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI S1000 models, each of which has been a UAS model

designated to be used in previously granted exemptions. See, e.g., Exemption No. 12646A

(November 19, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1602) (“Measure Amended Exemption”).

Specifically, APSC requests that Limitation No. 1 in the Exemption be revised to the following

(requested additions underlined):

“1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the Microdrone, MD4-

1000, DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI S1000, when

weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft

will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.”
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 035202/000003 - 7134041 v4

Granting this requested amendment to the Exemption would not create a hazard to users of

the National Airspace System or the public, nor would it pose a threat to national security.

Moreover, it would not adversely affect safety, but rather would provide at least an equivalent level of

safety to that provided by the regulations from which exemption is sought.

2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED.

These additional UAS models are similar in certain respects to the Microdrone MD4-1000,

which the Exemption already covers. They are small UAS, powered by batteries (not combustible

fuel), with maximum airspeeds less than 87 miles per hour (100 knots). Depending on the

make/model, these additional UAS models have various safety features, such as lost-link

procedures, return-to-home, auto-landing, and others. APSC will use these additional UAS models

for the same purposes – aerial data collection, including but not limited to visual inspections of

energy infrastructure – for which the FAA has already authorized APSC to operate the Microdrone

MD4-1000 under the Exemption.

The only amendment being sought in this Petition is to add certain UAS models, which the

FAA has previously designated as acceptable UAS models in other exemptions, to Limitation No. 1

and the list of UAS models which APSC can operate under its Exemption. Importantly, APSC’s

operations with these additional UAS models will be conducted under the same conditions and

limitations set forth in the Exemption and according to the Manuals of the respective UAS models

used. As with the Microdrone MD4-1000 under the Exemption, these conditions and limitations

collectively ensure that these additional UAS model operations under the Exemption will not

adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of safety to that provided by large

manned aircraft operations performing the same functions and by the regulations from which the

Exemption granted relief.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 035202/000003 - 7134041 v4

There has been no change in the conditions and limitations contained in the Exemption or in

the public interest and safety reasons that were the basis for granting the original Exemption.

Accordingly, to the extent necessary, APSC refers the FAA to, and incorporates herein, the relevant

portions of its original petition for exemption filed in February 2015 in this docket for a listing of the

regulations from which the petition sought an exemption, as well as the demonstrations of the public

interest and equivalent level of safety justifying the original Exemption.

Notably, the requested amendment to add UAS models to the Exemption is fully consistent

with other amended exemptions granted by the FAA to add new or additional UAS models. See,

e.g., Exemption No. 11153A (April 29, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0519) (adding the DJI S1000 and

DJI Inspire UAS models) (“Burnz Eye View Amended Exemption”); Exemption No. 11110A (May 7,

2015; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (adding, in part, a new UAS model – the Trimble UX-5 hp) (“Trimble

Amended Exemption”); and Exemption No. 11238A (May 7, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0719) (adding

four new UAS models) (“San Diego Gas & Electric Amended Exemption”). The rationales for the

issuance of those amendments apply equally to this Petition for an amendment to add certain UAS

models to an existing exemption.

3. PUBLICATION NOTICE OF THIS PETITION FOR AMENDMENT IS NOT NECESSARY.

The requested amendment to add other UAS models to a current exemption would not set

any new precedent because (i) the FAA has previously granted exemptions for these same types of

operations (including to APSC itself) and (ii) the proposed additional UAS models have previously

been designated as the UAS models to be used in other Section 333 exemptions. For that reason,

there is no need for the FAA to issue a public notice of, or receive public comment on, this Petition,

and any such public notice and comment would delay the processing of this Petition and negatively

impact APSC’s operations and ability to meet its changing operational needs. Therefore, good

cause exists for the FAA to not publish a summary of this Petition in the Federal Register, as the
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 035202/000003 - 7134041 v4

FAA previously determined in the Burnz Eye View Amended Exemption, the Trimble Amended

Exemption, and the San Diego Gas & Electric Amended Exemption.

4. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, APSC respectfully requests that the FAA refrain from publishing a

summary of this Petition in the Federal Register, and grant this Petition for an Amendment to the

Exemption without delay.

Respectfully submitted,

E. Tazewell Ellett

Patrick R. Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

COUNSEL FOR ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY