Met P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 1

January 14, 2016

Via Electronic Filing Attn: Docket Operations U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington DC 20590

Re: Eligibility for “Summary Grant” Process Exemption Petition of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company and its affiliates pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter shall serve as a petition for a Section 333 Exemption for my client Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates (“Met P&C” or the “Petitioner”) pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Act”), Pub. L. No. 112- 95, 126 Stat. 11 (2012) (“Section 333”), and certain sections of Part 11 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As discussed below, this Petition qualifies for the FAA’s “summary grant” procedures, and to the extent necessary, Petitioner respectfully requests that the FAA process the instant Petition using the summary grant procedures

. 1 Petitioner also respectfully requests that this Petition be processed in a manner and on a timetable consistent with those applied to certain of Met P&C’s competitor in Docket No. FAA-2015-3254 (Exemption No. 13303; 89 days from petition filing to grant). Pursuant to Section 11.81 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Met P&C offers the following information in support of this Petition:

Introduction, Operations, Justification, Public Interest

Met P&C is a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., a publicly-traded leading provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs, serving some 90 million customers worldwide, including throughout the United States. With a history that spans more than 150 years, Petitioner wishes, through the instant Petition, to continue to build on its long history of providing unique solutions for its customers by launching new and innovative products. Met P&C currently holds

1 Because the instant Petition qualifies for “summary treatment,” a summary of Petitioner’s request is not being provided for publication in the Federal Register, as the FAA’s summary process for Section 333 obviates the need to publish any summary of the Petition in the Federal Register

.Met P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 2

an A+ rating from A.M. Best Company and is similarly rated highly by other nationally recognized independent rating agencies.

Contact information for Petitioner:

Andrew O’Mara Director, MetLife Innovation Program Met P&C 700 Quaker Lane Warwick, Rhode Island 02886 Stephen Hartzell, Esq. Outside Legal Counsel Brooks Pierce PO Box 1800 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Met P&C seeks an exemption pursuant to Section 333 to use the UAS identified below for aerial data collection in support of the various services performed for clients and customers in the execution of Petitioner’s insurance business. Exhibit 1 of this Petition lists the most common types of aerial data collection Petitioner intends to engage in using UAS, but Petitioner requests authority to engage in any and all activities that qualify as “aerial data collection” as that term has been interpreted by the FAA in previous exemption cases.

The operations proposed in this Petition are well-known to the FAA. The FAA has previously issued grants of exemption to use similar UAS for aerial data collection in support of similar inspection, survey and aerial imaging activities, including Exemption No. 11273 in Docket No. FAA-2014-0913 (UAS operations for insurance underwriting and inspection activities); and Exemption No. 11293 in Docket No. FAA-2014-0692 (UAS operations for insurance underwriting and claims adjustment). The activities proposed herein by Met P&C are low risk, and they are entirely consistent with categories of aerial data collection that have been subject to FAA approval including, but not limited to, the cases specified above.

In order to ensure that Met P&C may continue to serve its customers and clients competitively and with the high standards to which they are accustomed, Petitioner wishes to begin to incorporate sUAS into its own operations and services. In so doing, Petitioner will remain competitive and have the opportunity to employ current technologies into its business model and serve clients more efficiently and effectively. As the FAA is aware, sUAS operations possess tremendous potential for aerial data collection, and the use of sUAS technology for these types of services is already well underway, including by several of Met P&C’s principal competitors.

While aerial data collection—including the type of inspection, photographic, videographic, and monitoring activities contemplated by Petitioner—often involves persons who are essential or ancillary to a project or claim, Petitioner understands and acknowledges that the FAA’s practice in issuing Section 333 Exemption grants has been to limit UAS flight operations to

be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:Met P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 3

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect

nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and

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.

Petitioner agrees to abide by these limitations unless and until the FAA makes a determination in any similar Section 333 Exemption case that UAS flight operations may vary from these restrictions and operate in closer proximity to persons and objects. Petitioner’s proposed sUAS operations will allow for aerial data collection activities where use of manned aircraft is infeasible, impossible, or unsafe. Petitioner’s proposed use of sUAS will, thus, serve as both a safer alternative to the use of manned aircraft and also as a tool for enhancement of Met P&C’s aerial data collection activities, in support of its insurance and claim services.

Petitioner uses a variety of tools for its aerial data collection services, and by this Petition wishes to add sUAS devices to its “toolbox” in furtherance of those services, which are critical parts of the insurance underwriting and claims processes. Without a grant of the instant Petition, Petitioner will be unable to bring the benefits of UAS technology to its insurance customers and clients and use these service enhancements to serve the public, especially during times of catastrophic conditions and the claims process. Without a timely grant of the instant Petition, Petitioner will be forced to wait until the FAA’s current sUAS rulemaking proceeding concludes with the adoption of new, final rules, which, upon information and belief, could take upwards of 1-2 more years. In addition to the other reasons discussed in this Petition, grant of the instant Petition would serve the public interest by allowing for economic growth and the safe introduction by Petitioner of sUAS operations into the marketplace prior to the conclusion of the sUAS rulemaking proceeding, which, as discussed below will further certain Congressional goals and policies as embodied in the Act.

Accordingly, Petitioner seeks authority to use UAS to engage in photography/videography, inspections, and monitoring (and any other similar functions)—each of which falls under the general umbrella category of “aerial data collection.” For convenience, Petitioner’s intended uses are identified in more detail in the attached Exhibit 1.

As noted, the above activities may be generally classified as multiple variations of aerial data collection, which fall squarely within the categories of use that have been granted in nearly 3,000 Section 333 Exemption cases. Petitioner seeks authority to use the following UAS for theMet P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 4

above-referenced purposes, each of which, as specified below, has already been the subject of one or more grants of Section 333 Exemption petitions:

UAS Description Prior FAA Section 333 Exemption Grant No. DJI Inspire 1 Nos. 12646, 11804, 11733, 11693 DJI Inspire 2 No. 12646 SenseFly eBee Nos. 11136, 11797, 11754 DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ No. 12646 Aerialtronics Altura Zenith ATX8 No. 12646 Detroit Aircraft Indago plus No. 12646 Trimble ZX5 No. 12646 Trimble UX5 Nos. 11806, 11666, 11110A, 12646 Walkera Voyager 3 No. 13559 Microdrone md4-1000 No. 12646

Grant of this Petition would serve the public interest in a variety of ways. First, by allowing for the safe introduction by Petitioner of sUAS services into the marketplace prior to the conclusion of the sUAS rulemaking proceeding. In addition, the public interest will be served by granting the Petition because Congress has established a national policy that favors early integration of UAS into the NAS in controlled, safe working environments such as those proposed in this Petition. Thus, by granting this Petition, the FAA will further Congressional goals as embodied in Section 333(a) through (c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

### , namely the FAA Administrator’s assessment of whether and which unmanned aircraft and UAS operators may undertake safe operations prior to adoption of UAS rules of general applicability as required by law.

Moreover, Met P&C’s proposed UAS operations stands to reduce risk and improve safety by reducing the public’s exposure to certain risks associated with traditional aerial data collection methods, in particular the use of full size fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft. As set forth in this Petition, the unmanned aircraft for which Petitioner seeks authority to operate are lightweight and battery powered, and they generate no toxic or flammable emissions; thus, in the unlikely event that one of Petitioner’s unmanned aircraft were to crash, there is no fuel to ignite or explode. Accordingly, any accident involving Petitioner’s small lightweight UAS would present significantly less danger to the individuals on the ground (including both those individuals involved in the UAS operations and members of the general public) than one involving a full size helicopter or other manned aircraft.

Finally, by allowing Petitioner to incorporate and use UAS as part of its insurance investigation and claims processes, the public will benefit by virtue of the potential to increase the speed and quality of such services as well as a reduction in cost in the provision of such services. In other words, because UAS will be used in connection with Petitioner’s service to its clients and customers, the public will directly benefit from Met P&C’s addition of UAS to its claims and investigations toolbox.Met P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 5

In light of the information above, pursuant to Section 333, Petitioner seeks exemption from those certain Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) discussed below. Petitioner believes that the instant Petition is substantially similar to other Section 333 Exemption Petitions previously filed with and granted by the FAA—including, for example, the Petitions in Grant of Exemption Nos. 13303, 12646, 11293, 11109, 11112, and 11213—such that this Petition qualifies for “summary grant” treatment under the FAA’s policy announced and implemented in early April 2015 and without need for the FAA to solicit public comment on this proposal. Moreover, each of the specific unmanned aircraft systems proposed to be used by Petitioner pursuant to a grant of the instant Petition has been the subject of Section 333 Exemption Petitions either currently pending or previously granted by the FAA as set forth above.

In support of this Petition, as a commitment to air safety, Petitioner shows the following:

Proposed Conditions and Limitations

This Petition seeks authority to operate each of Petitioner’s UAS subject to the following conditions (and any other conditions and restrictions imposed on Petitioner by the FAA):

* Each of Petitioner’s operators will be familiar with the respective manufacturer’s user manual and will maintain a copy of the user manual at the location of all flights.

* None of Petitioner’s unmanned aircraft (“UA”), including payload, camera, gimbal, etc. will exceed 55 lbs.

* Petitioner will not operate any UA at a speed exceeding 100 mph (87 knots).

* Petitioner will operate its UAs only at altitudes that will not exceed 400 feet AGL. To the extent that Petitioner’s operations at any time and any location rely on the FAA’s “blanket COA” for Section 333 sUAS operations, Petitioner will operate its respective UA only at altitudes that do not exceed 200 feet AGL.

* Petitioner’s operations of its UA will be such that each UA remains within the VLOS of the pilot-in-command (“PIC”) at all times.

* Petitioner’s sUAS will be operated only by a PIC who holds at least a sport pilot, recreational pilot, or private pilot airman certificate and either a corresponding airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license.

* Petitioner’s sUAS operations will employ a visual observer (“VO”), who will be able to communicate orally with the PIC at all times during operations.

* Petitioner’s sUAS will be maintained and inspected to ensure its condition furthers safe operation. Petitioner’s inspection process will include a pre-flight inspection.Met P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 6

* Petitioner will not operate at night.

* Petitioner will operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport only with specific authority to do so.

* Petitioner’s sUAS are designed to return to a pre-determined location if a device loses communications or its GPS signal.

* Petitioner’s sUAS operations will be conducted only over private or controlledaccess property (including public property) with permission from the property owner or other authorized representative.

Petitioner respectfully submits that their operation of sUAS under these conditions will be at least as safe and controlled as the operations authorized in prior Section 333 Exemption grants, and Petitioner is committed to safety and to not posing a hazard or threat to other aircraft (manned or unmanned), public safety, or national security. Petitioner is, after all, an insurance company where risk management and safety are, literally, the principal guiding factors for conducting business and a way of life.

Discussion of Specific FARs

Consistent with the growing number of Section 333 Exemption grants for aerial data collection and other sUAS activities similar to those requested by Petitioner, here is a list of the FAR sections from which Petitioner seeks exemption:

14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) & (c) 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5) 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1) 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) & (2) 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)(1) 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) & (b) 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a)

In addition to the above-referenced FAR provisions, Petitioner understands that the FAA is likely to impose additional conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements on Petitioner’s sUAS operations pursuant to several other FARs, including, for example, certain of Parts 21 2 and 27 of

2 With respect to the airworthiness requirements of Part 21 of the FAR, the FAA has previously acknowledged that relief is not necessary for the sUAS referenced in this Petition. As set forth above, all of the sUAS proposed for use by Petitioner has been the subject of prior Section 333 Exemption grants, with respect to which the FAA has consistently stated as follows:

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds thatMet P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 7

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; FAR Section 45.23(b); FAR Section 27(a); FAR Section 91.103(b)(2); FAR Section 91.109; and FAR Section 91.203(a) & (b). However, because none of the Section 333 Exemption grants previously issued by the FAA appear to have “waived,” as a legal matter, these additional FAR provisions, the instant Petition does not seek waiver of and does not discuss these additional FARs. Because the instant Petition seeks to invoke the FAA’s “summary process” for Section 333 Exemption grants based on the fact that it is substantially similar to hundreds of previously-issued Section 333 Exemption grants, discussion of these additional provisions should not be necessary. Nevertheless, should the FAA Staff determine that an exposition by Petitioner is necessary with respect to these additional FARs, Petitioner respectfully requests that the FAA Staff contact the undersigned as soon as possible so that Petitioner has an opportunity to promptly provide such further information.

14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) and (c) This FAR requires that persons holding certain airman certificates also hold a certain class of medical certificate. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner requests that the person operating Petitioner’s sUAS be permitted to hold a valid driver’s license issued by one of the fifty United States or the District of Columbia or the corresponding medical certificate required by the airman certificate held by such operator.

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.101(e)(4) & (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) These FARs, respectively, limit holders of recreational pilot certificates, private pilot certificates, and sport pilot certificates to noncommercial operations. The prohibition on commercial activities for operators holding these airman certificates are logical for manned aircraft. For unmanned aircraft, however, the safety issues inherent in commercial activities are vastly different, as there are no passengers, there is no cargo, and the environment is controlled in an appropriate manner. Thus, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner requests that persons operating Petitioner’s sUAS be permitted to use the sUAS for the purpose of engaging in activities that either are noncommercial or are not noncommercial.

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) This FAR prohibits the operation of an aircraft “unless it is in an airworthy condition.” Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner seeks permission to operate its unmanned aircraft without an airworthiness certificate, and Petitioner will continue to engage in pre-flight inspections to ensure safe operation is possible each time Petitioner wishes to engage in UAS operations.

relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts,

Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

See, e.g., Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-036, Exemption No. 11110A (Trimble Navigation Ltd.).Met P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 8

14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) This FAR requires that a flight manual be maintained in the aircraft. Compliance with this FAR is impracticable in the context of sUAS as there is no “cabin” or cockpit. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner seeks permission to maintain the manufacturer’s manual on the ground with the operator.

14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) This FAR prohibits the operation of aircraft below altitudes of 500 feet above the surface (except over open water or sparsely populated areas) other than during takeoff or landing. Petitioner proposes to operate sUAS at altitudes of less than 400 feet above the surface, and requests permission to so, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants. Moreover, as indicated above, Petitioner envisions that many, if not most, of its operations will occur pursuant to the blanket COA at altitudes not to exceed 200 feet above the surface. (Should the Petitioner determine that it will have a need to operate at altitudes higher than 200 feet above the surface and, thus, outside of the blanket COA, Petitioner will file for a COA after receiving grant of the instant Petition.)

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 This FAR requires the use of an altimeter during flight for purposes of maintaining the cruising altitude or flight level of the aircraft. Petitioner will not make use of an altimeter in connection with its sUAS operations. Instead, Petitioner’s sUAS will either rely on the use of GPS, internal gyroscope, or operator adjustments to maintain the unmanned aircraft’s altitude or flight level. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner seeks a waiver of the requirement relating to altimeter use or, in the alternative, a declaration that use of GPS would satisfy the altimeter requirements.

14 C.F.R. § 151(a)(1) This FAR restricts persons from beginning a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless there is a certain amount of fuel in the aircraft. This FAR is inapplicable to Petitioner’s proposed operations insofar as Petitioner’s sUAS will not use “fuel” per se but instead rely on electrical power generated by small, protected batteries or battery packs. Accordingly, Petitioner proposes to deviate from this FAR insofar as Petitioner, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, will not begin a flight unless there is sufficient power available for the sUAS operation to continue at least 5 minutes beyond the intended duration of the flight.

14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417(a) & (b) These FARs govern, inter alia, certain aircraft inspections, the return of aircraft to service after maintenance, and certain maintenance record keeping and retention. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner proposes to achieve an equivalent level of safety by engaging in pre-flight inspections of sUAS and any maintenance that is recommended by the manufacturer of the sUAS.Met P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 9

Conclusion

Through this Petition, filed pursuant to Section 333, Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following FARs: 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) and (c); 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a); 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c); 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) and (b).

Grant of this Petition and Section 333 Exemption, including waiver of the above-referenced FARs, will permit Petitioner to operate sUAS in furtherance of its aerial data collection missions and goals, including aerial photography, inspections, monitoring, and other related insurance underwriting and claims activities. The grant will result in a reduction of risk and concomitant enhancement of safety as compared to the use of manned aircraft (such as a helicopter) for such activities; moreover, for many such activities, use of manned aircraft is not possible or practicable. Unlike manned aircraft, Petitioner’s UAS operations will not use combustible fuel, and Petitioner’s unmanned aircraft are smaller, quieter, lighter, safer, and more cost-effective than manned aircraft employed for similar purposes. Moreover, Petitioner’s sUAS operations will be in controlled airspace and at least 500 feet away from nonparticipating people. Accordingly, it is believed that such sUAS operations will be at least as safe (and likely safer) than manned aircraft operations used for the same purposes.

We respectfully request that the FAA grant this Section 333 Exemption Petition using the “summary grant” procedure.

Should any questions arise during the course of your consideration of this Petition, kindly contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Hartzell Counsel to Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company and its affiliatesMet P&C

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 January 14, 2016 Page 10

EXHIBIT 1

Type of UAS Activity / Aerial Data Collection Public Interest Benefit

Exterior Inspection Improved customer service, efficiency, adjuster safety, scope accuracy and image capture. Catastrophe Response Improved customer service, efficiency, adjuster safety, scope accuracy and image capture.

Catastrophe Response Property Inspection Expand business knowledge / intelligence, support customer service, improve associate/customer safety, staff planning, communication and improve logistics. Enhancing the productivity of risk engineers Significantly reduces the cost and turnaround time for completing risk-assessment reports. Improving the customer experience during catastrophes Accelerating claims adjudication by managing the customer experience and settling claims in a timely

manner. Agriculture Assessment and documentation of all collateral held on a loan including buildings and equipment.

Vehicle Assessment Accelerating claims adjudication by managing the customer experience and settling claims in a timely

manner.