**Power**

**T ransmission and Distribution, Inc.**  Three Penn Center W

est, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, P

A 15276 Telephone: 412.787.1 170 Fax: 412.787.2270 April 4, 2016 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave S.E. Washington, D. C. 20590 Re: Request for Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations from Certain Provisions of 14 C.F.R.


## AMENDMENT
Dear Sir or Madam: Power Transmission and Distribut ion, Inc. (PT&D) requests to amend its petition to include two parts:
I. Part A of its amended petition requests that the FAA grant PT&D's request to use small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS ) under Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA

- 2007

- 3330. II. Part B of its amended petition requests that the FAA grant PT&D's request to operate sUAS to provide security for critical electrical infrastructure. This part of PT&D's request may be considered a s different enough from previous petitions as to be novel, yet the operations would be constrained so much as to be safe.
PT&D requests that the FAA consider these two parts separately such that any delay in granting one part would not delay granting of the other.

PT&D Petition
– Part A The original petition submitted by PT&D requested an exemption to use sUAS” and for one purpose. Since the petitioner filed, new information has come to lightabout the potential for the petitioner to use other models o f sUAS and for

additional purposes. This AMEMDMENT requests broadening the sUAS such that PT&D can operate any aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA

- 2007

- 3330. PT&D requests t his instead of its request to operate just the one sUAS named in PT&D's original petition

. This AMENDMENT also requests broadening the proposed operations that PT&D can perform to include any operations described in petitions granted previously by the FAA that, having been previously granted to other petitioners, subject to the same restrictions, would not set a precedent. PT&D requests this instead of just the one operation PT&D named in its original petition.
Among operations the FAA has already allowed, PT&D has good and valuable services that it can provide immediately upon the FAA granting its petition using aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA

- 2007

- 3330.PT&D Petition
– Part B

As stated in its original petition, PT&D would like to offer monitoring services for security purposes, specifically to enhance the security of critical electrical infrastructure in the United States. Many of these facilities operate i n remote areas and are unmanned. It is impractical to operate sUAS at these facilities using on

- site pilots and operators. There are too many sites to protect with manned security, especially in remote locations, that the expense would be prohibitive if staffing for such positions were even possible. Currently, such facilities are monitored using fixed cameras. However, because these cameras are fixed, they have limitations. The mobility of a drone

-mounted camera offers significant, obvious advantages over fixed cameras.
There are several reasons why such operations would be safe for use at electrical substations, for example: 1. The sUAS flight can be limited to the boundaries of the substations, which are mostly unmanned. On the rare occasions that ut ility personnel are inside the fence of a substation, workers wear hardhats. 2. The sUAS flying over a substation need fly only high enough to clear the equipment. For security, optimal altitude is lower than 200 feet above ground level. 3. At substations, all of the equipment on the ground belongs to the operator of the equipment. On the off

- chance that a sUAS used for surveillance were to fall, it would fall on equipment owned by the operator. 4. For substation security, smaller sUAS make more sense than larger ones, and multi

- copter aircraft would make more sense than fixed

-wing aircraft because of the relatively small area over which the sUAS would operate.
Several current restrictions prevent using sUAS for remote, unmannedoperations because the restriction s are designed to apply much more broadly than

the example above where sUAS can enhance substation monitoring services.
PT&D asks that the FAA grant its petition allowing these things for remote, unmanned security at electrical substations:

1. The Pilot In Command (PIC) and operator may be considered as being the hardware and software systems operated by the electric utility that owns the critical infrastructure that the sUAS is monitoring, or 2. The PIC and operator may be considered present by way of remot e communications so the electric utility may operate the sUAS from a remote, off

- site security center. 3. The Visual Line of Sight could be considered as the live video from the sUAS that will be transmitted to the owner of the critical infrastructure, even i f the owner is viewing the video from a remote location, or 4. The Visual Line of Sight requirement could be considered as inapplicable for monitoring remote, unmanned facilities because the sUAS will only operate at low altitudes and over facilities void of people or, on rare occasions, containing few people wearing hardhats. 5. Also, considering that most damage is done to electrical facilities between midnight and 3 AM, and for the same reasons stated in the previous point, the restriction against flying sUAS at night should not apply.
The operation could be limited to covering a pre

- determined area on the ground (above and around an electrical substation, for example) in Class G airspace below 200 feet. (For security purposes, even lower altitude is usuall y better as long as flights would clear the height of the electrical equipment.)Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the

Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. files this petitio n to operate Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS ”) in order to enhance electric utility efforts to protect critical infrastructure facilities. 1 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued Reliability Standard CIP

- 014

- 1 to enhance physical security measures for the most critical Bulk Power System facilities and thereby lessen the overall vulnerability of the Bulk

-Power System facilities against physical attacks. One of the requirements of owners or operators of critical facilities is to develop and implement a security plan designed to protect against attacks to those facilities identified as critical. Specifically, petitioner seeks an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed in Appendices A and B to allow commercial operation of its sUAS, so long as such operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA in a grant of this petition. Approval of the exemption for petitioner will allow commercial operation of small quad copters similar to those made by DJI, 3D Robotics, Yuneec, Ascending Technologies and many others in Class G airspace nationwide unless otherwise prescribed by an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). The sUAS operations contemplated by this petition are in the public interest because they will provide information to owners of critical facilities about potential threats beyond what is practical using alternative technologies such as fixed cameras and perimeter sensors. The sUAS covered by this petition are small battery

-powered craft weighing under 55 lbs. inclusive of battery and payload. Operation of the sUAS under the strict conditions proposed below will provide an equivalent level of safety, as Congress in tended, while still

1 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on November 20, 2014 issued Physical Security Reliability Standard Docket No. RM14

- 15

-000 ORDER NO. 802 pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FP A), the Commission Reliability Standard CIP

-014

- 1 (Physical Security). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission

-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted Reliability Standard CIP

-014

- 1 for Commission approval in response to a Commission order issued on March 7, 2014.allowing commercial operations. Operations using these sUAS are practical for

monitoring facilities in remote locations whereas conventional operations conducted with manned helicopters and fixed

-wing aircraft would be impractical and c ost prohibitive. The seven factors the FAA considers before granting exemptions to Section 333 are size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports, proximity to populated areas, and operation within the visual line of sight. The petitio ner's request satisfies all of these considerations or the spirit of these considerations for this request, which is intended for the development of systems to monitor critical facilities.

Additional Considerations The petitioner requests that the FAA c onsider this Part B of its petition as in the interest of national security. Electricity service is essential to life, health, and the economy, and it is in the national interest to protect this country's electrical facilities using the best, cost effecti ve methods available. Small UAS offers a great opportunity to enhance security by giving the operators of such facilities the ability to see beyond what they can currently using conventional methods. Petitioner PT&D would like to work with the FAA, FERC, Homeland Security and any other agency necessary to develop operating guidelines and restrictions that make it possible to accommodate the sUAS operations requested in this petition.**B -** **I. Publishable Summary**

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register, should it be determined that publication is needed: **B -** **II.** Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules: 14 C.F.R 21(h); 14 C.F.R. 43.7; 14 C.F.R. 43.11; 14 C.F.R. 45.11; 14 C.F.R. 45.27 ; 14 C.F.R. 45.29; 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. 91.9(c); 14 C.F.R. 91.103(b)(2); 14 C.F.R. 91.105; 14 C.F.R. 91.109; 14 C.F.R. 91.11 3(b); 14 C.F.R. 91.119 (c); 14 C.F.R. 91.121; 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. 215; 14 C.F.R. 91.403; 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2); and 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b) to operate commercial ly small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) (55 lbs. or less). Approval of the exemption requested by petitioner will allow commercial operation of small quadcopters for the purpose of gathering aerial data, aerial photography and videography, and will al low petitioner to operate in Class G airspace nationwide, unless otherwise prescribed by an ATO

- issued COA. The requested exemption should be granted because operation of small UAS is safer than manned operations performing the same functions, making the s UAS operations contemplated by this petition to be in the public interest. The aircraft are small and will operate at slow speeds, and close to the ground. The substantial increase of safety and decrease of risk to human life, coupled with the low risk use of sUAS to conduct these operations, weigh heavily in favor of granting the exemption. **Petitioner** ’ s Contact Information Alexander Galatic Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. Three Penn Center W

est, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, P

A 15276 Telephone: 412.78 7.1 170 Fax: 412.787.2270 **Counsel for**

**Petitioner:**

**B -** **III. Petitioner** Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvaniaand provides services primarily to the electric power industry.

**B -** **IV . Pr** **oposed Operations a. The sU** **AS** The petitioner intends to work with manufacturers and consultants to develop sUAS

based security

systems, and has not yet identified specific models of sUAS that the petitioner will be using to develop such systems. The sUAS industry is immature, and innovation is rapidly evolving the technology

. The petitioner does not request a blanket exemption to use any technology

available. Rather, the petitioner suggests that any sUAS that has been approved for use by a petitioner seeking exemption from Section 333 should be allowable to subsequent petitioners, so long as the petitioner intends to use the sUAS in a manner consistent with that of the exempted petitioners. In the case of Power T

ransmission and Distribution, Inc., the intent is to ascend to a fixed altitude and then scan the area. The sUAS will fly over the critical facility

where no people are likely

to be other than the owners of such facilities or their employees and contractors wearing hardhats, so the sUAS presents no danger to people or equipment.

**b. The Cr** **ew** The crew will consist of a pilot in command (PIC) and a visual observer (VO) to set up the programmed flight pattern that subsequently can be initiated using either manually or using automated systems controlled by the electric utilit y owner. If granted by the FAA, PT&D requests to automate such crew functions after the initial setup and testing. **c. Flight Conditions** The sUAS will be used to inspect areas around utility facilities in Class G airspace (unless otherwise prescribed by an ATO

- issued COA) under 400 feet above ground level (“AGL”) and under controlled conditions over restricted property. Petitioner will work with the local FSDO as required when planning operations, however, petitioner defers to the FAA and FERC for guida nce considering that the locations of critical infrastructure issensitive and deserving of protection from public dissemination that could

diminish the security of such facilities rather than enhance it.
**d. Flight Operations** The purpose of the sUAS fl ights for which exemption is requested will be to conduct area inspections in and around utility facilities.

**e. Aircraft and Equivalent Level of Safety**  Petitioner proposes that the exemption apply to sUAS that have the characteristics and that operate with the limitations proposed herein. These limitations provide for a level of safety at least equivalent to or higher than manned aircraft operations under the current regulatory structure. Approval of the commercial operations outlined in this petition improves national security by enhancing protection of equipment used to deliver electricity, a service essential to life, health and the economy. Petitioner plans to implement flight constraints that will ensure that no security threat is present.
**f. P ro** **posed Conditions of the Exemption** 1. The sUAS, including battery and technical payload will weigh no more than approximately 55 lbs. 2. sUAS operations under this exemption will be limited to conducting operations for the purpose of inspecting areas around ut ility facilities in Class G airspace nationwide, unless otherwise prescribed by an ATO issued COA. 3. Flights will be operated within line of sight of a PIC and VO initially, but if the FAA permits, such functions will be automated. 4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet AGL, as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents. All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.5. The sUAS will not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 50 knots.

6. Minimum flight c rew for each operation will consist of the sUAS PIC and a VO for the initial setup. If the FAA permits, the crew functions will be automated because automation is crucial to viability of the service. 8. The sUAS will be operated within visual line of sight ( VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times during the programming phase. If the FAA permits, allowing remote operations by the utility, the VLOS requirement will cease after the original setup of the automated flight pattern. 16. The PIC will not begin a flight unl ess (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and prepare to land with at least 25% battery power remaining. If the FAA permits, allowing remote operations, batte ry life determinations will be automated and the automated system will operate under the same constraint. 17. Actual total flight time for each operational flight will result in no less than a 25% battery reserve. 18. The sUAS will be programmed so that if it los es communications or loses its GPS signal, it will return to a pre

- determined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the operating documents 19. If the sUAS and its radio control link disconnect during flight, t he system’s failsafe protection will be triggered and the sUAS will return to home and land automatically, rather than flying off uncontrollably or landing at an unknown location. 20. Petitioner will obtain all required permissions and permits from territoria l, state, county or city jurisdictions, including local law enforcement, fire, or other appropriate governmental agencies. 21. UA operations will not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. unless the FAA and other government agencies allow suc h flightsfor the purposes of enhancing security of the electrical system.

26. The sUAS will not be operated within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted on a current FAA

-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that a irport’s management has been obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. Any letter of agreement with the airport management will be made available to the Administrator upon request. 27. All operation s shall be conducted in Class G airspace or as otherwise prescribed in an ATO issued COA. 28. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption will be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable. 29. Before conducting operations, petitioner will ensure that the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the sUAS complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements. 30. The sUAS will remain clear of all manned aviation operations and activities at all times because it will be flying low over an electrical substation where no manned aircraft will be. 31. The sUAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle. 32. Petitioner will report any accidents to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.
**g. Pri vacy**  In order to protect critical facilities, the area surrounding the facilities must be monitored in order to detect potential threats. Further,to protect such critical facilities, it is imperative to protect their

identity and location. Their existen ce is not secret, but the fact that the facilities are critical to national and local security is secret, and such secrecy must be maintained. This petition requests exemption in order to develop systems that will be able to detect potential threats and n otify security personnel in as timely manner as possible so protective actions might be taken. All data collected will be for private use only and will not be distributed through public channels. No attempt will be made to identify any individuals filmed during the flights except in cases where they are trespassing upon or damaging customer property, or interfering with the petitioner’s or its customers’ operations.

**h. Public Inter est and Safety**  The planned sUAS use will enhance the security of that n ation's power grid. This type of data collection has previously been done by fixed cameras with much more limited range. Using manned aerial vehicles is impractical in many respects including logistics and expenses. The enhanced safety and reduced environmental impact achieved using a sUAS and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the sUAS operation enabled by thi s exemption is in the public interest. Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012

– size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas and national security

– provide more than adequ ate justification for the grant of the requested exemption allowing commercial operation of petitioner’s sUAS in the utility security industries.**IX. Regulations fr** **om Which Exemption is Requested**

**FA R**  **Pr ovision**  **Applicable**

**condition(s) in**  **Section 5**  **of petit** **ion FA** **A Exemption Decision** 

21(h) 1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 16, 25, 28, 29 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066,

11067, 11080, 11109, 11111, 11110, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 1 1184, 11185, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195

43.7 13, 14 No. 11208

43.11 12 No. 11208

45.11 29 No. 11208

45.27 29 No. 11188

45.29 29 Nos. 11136, 11157, 11170, 11185, 11193
61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)( 4) and (5), 7 See Appendix A for argument regarding why petitioner should be exempted from the private pilot license requirement61.113(a),

61 .315(a),

91.7(a) 12 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 111 58, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204

91.9(b)(2) 22 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11174, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11189, 11192, 11193, 11195
91.9(c) 30 Nos. 11136, 11170, 11171 , 11174, 11185

91.103(b)( 2) 3, 9, 15,

16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066,

11067, 11080, 11109, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11158, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11171, 11172, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 1 1191, 11192, 11193,11195, 11204

91.105 6 No. 11185

91.109 7, 8 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11174, 11177, 11184, 11185, 11189, 1119 1, 11192, 11193, 11194, 11195, 11206, 11208
91.113(b) 3, 31 No. 11238

91.119(c ) 4, 33 Nos. 11162, 11163, 11164, 11165, 11166, 111080, 111109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11160 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 1 1172, 11174, 11176, 11178, 11185, 11188, 11189, 11190, 11193

91.121 4 Nos. 11162, 11163, 11164, 11165, 11166, 111080, 111109, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11160 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11174, 11176, 11178, 11185, 11188, 11189, 11190, 1 1193

91.151(a) 16, 17 Nos. 11110, 11153, 11156, 11161; 111109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11160 11161, 11166, 11167,11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11178, 11185, 11188, 11189, 11190, 11193

91.203 (a) and (b) 22 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195

91.215 25, 26 No. 111 85, 11195

91.403 12, 13, 14 No. 11185

91.405(a) 12, 13, 14 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11 174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204

91.407(a)( 1) 14 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 111 60, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171,11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204

91.409(a)( 1) 12, 13, 14 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 111 14, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204

91.409(a)( 2) 12, 13, 14 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 110 65, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204

91.417(a) 12, 13, 14 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 111 88, 11188, 11189,11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204

91.417(b) 12, 13, 14 Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204**Appendix A:**  **Burns &**  **McDonnell** ’ s **argument for**  **e xemption**  **fr om**  **14 CFR**  **§§ 61.23(a)**  **and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.1 13(a), 61.315(a).**  Burns & McDonnell requests an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), so that the PIC of the sUAS will not be required to possess any pilot license (sports, recreational, private or commercial). As the FAA and numerous oth er national airspace regulators have recognized, sUAS operations conducted by persons who do not hold a pilot’s license can still achieve the equivalent level of safety of current operations by manned aircraft with pilots holding any level of pilot’s licen se. Although it recognizes that a pilot’s license is unnecessary for safe sUAS operation, the FAA has to date declined to allow grant exemptions under Section 333 that would permit individuals who possess any pilot license (sports, recreational, private or commercial) to conduct commercial sUAS operations. It has specified two reasons for declining to do so. First, it has stated that it does not possess the authority under Section 333 to exempt individuals from the requirement under 49 U.S.C. §44711 to ho ld an airman certificate authorizing the airman to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued. Exemption No. 11110 at 14. Second, the FAA has concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) security screening required of all certif ied airmen meets the statutory requirement in Section 333 that operations not pose a threat to national security. Exemption No. 11110 at 15. Burns & McDonnell respectfully requests that the FAA reconsider its position. There is no dispute that it is unne cessary for an operator of a sUAS to go through the rigorous process of becoming a certified pilot in order to safely operate a UA. In addition, the FAA does have the authority to exempt sUAS operators from the requirement in 49 U.S.C. §44711to hold an airman certificate for “serv[ing] in the capacity for which the certificatewas issued.” Indeed, it has exercised that authority repeatedly in the

Section 333 process. Finally, the FAA’s security concerns can be addressed by a variety of methods involving ope rator background checks to be conducted by government agencies.

**1. The F AA**  **and for eign r** **egulators re** **cognize that**  **obtaining a manned air craft**  **pilot license is unnecessary for** 

**safe operation of a UA.** The FAA, like the other national airspace regulators t hat have considered the issue, has concluded that sUAS operations conducted by persons who do not hold a pilot’s license can still achieve the equivalent level of safety of current operations by manned aircraft with pilots holding any level of pilot’s lice nse. In its recent sUAS NPRM, the FAA stated:

“While these airman certification requirements are necessary for manned aircraft operations, they impose an unnecessary burden for many small sUAS operations. This is because a person typically obtains a priva te or commercial pilot certificate by learning how to operate a manned aircraft. Much of that knowledge would not be applicable to small sUAS operations because a small sUAS is operated differently than manned aircraft. In addition, the knowledge currently necessary to obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate would not equip the certificate holder with the tools necessary to safely operate a small sUAS... Thus, requiring persons wishing to operate a small sUAS to obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate imposes the cost of certification on those persons, but does not result in a significant safety benefit because the process of obtaining the certificate does not equip those persons with the tools necessary to mitigate the public risk posed by small sUAS operations.” Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft, 80 Fed. Reg. 9543 at 9550 (proposed Feb. 23, 2015 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. Parts 21, 43, 45, et al.).The FAA’s conclusion that manned aircraft flying experience is unn ecessary

for the operation of a sUAS is supported by research by the FAA and the Army Research Laboratory. They demonstrate that sUAS, even those much larger than the sUAS proposed by Burns & McDonnell, can be safely flown by non

- certificated pilots with a small amount of training. For example, one Army Research Laboratory study concluded: "[T]he specific motor skills needed to control the radio

- controlled UAV would have to be learned by aviators independently of the motor skills learned in flying an aircr aft. In particular, the somatic and visual cues that pilots use during aircraft landings would not be useful (and perhaps even counter

productive) for the different skill sets and perceptual viewpoint necessary for radio

- controlled landings.” 2

Additiona l research reports lend further support for the exclusion requested. For example, a report sponsored by the FAA concluded that "We know that certain systems, like the U.S. Army Hunter and Shadow systems, are successfully flown by pilots with no manned airc raft experience." 3 In addition, foreign government airspace regulators that have examined the issue have consistently recognized that the skills required to fly a manned aircraft are irrelevant to operating a UA. For that reason, they have concluded that sUAS operators do not need to have a private or commercial pilot’s license. Canada, for example, does not require a pilot’s license to operate a UA. Transport Canada requires training of sUAS operators, but that training is limited to pilot

2 Michael J. Barnes, Beverly G . Knapp, Barry W

. Tillman, Brett A. W

alters & Darlene V

eliki, Cr ew systems analysis of unmanned aerial vehicle (UA V) futur e job and tasking envir

onments , Technical Report ARL

-TR

-2081, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory , page 12 (2000), available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a374230.pdf

. 3 Kevin W

. Williams, Unmanned Air craft Pilot Medical Certification Requir ements, Report DOT/F

AA/AM

-07/3, FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, page 2, (2007), available at http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/ua

-pilot.pdf . While the authors speculated that sUAS use in populated areas may change this assessment, indicating further research was needed to address this concern, this concern is inapplicable as T ourFactory’ s flights will not be in congested areas. See also Jason S. McCarley & Christopher D. Wickens, Human Factors Implications of UA Vs in the National Airspace , Institute of Aviation, Aviation Human Factors Division, University of Illinois at Urbana

-Champaign, (2004), available at http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants/pdf/2004/04

-G

-032.pdf

.ground school and flight operation training on sUAS, not manned aircraft. 4

Moreover, Canada allows this training to be “provided by other pilots, manufacturers, [UA] flight training organizations or . . . self taught.” 5 Petitioner has a number of potential PICs who ha ve completed Transport Canada’s requirements for commercial sUAS operation yet have no manned aircraft certification. These individuals

– qualified to operate commercial sUAS in Canada

– should also be allowed to operate commercial sUAS in the United State s. Please refer to Exhibit 7 for the training syllabus for the ground school course these individuals took to qualify them to operate commercial sUAS in Canada. Similarly, the United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) recognized that determining “ Remote Pilot qualification requirements on the same basis as manned aircraft may yield requirements that are too inflexible, too onerous and inappropriate for sUAS operations.” 6 As a result, the CAA only requires sUAS operators to demonstrate sUAS operator competence. 7 While there are a variety of ways to demonstrate competence, the most common is to complete a course that will lead to a ground exam and flight test Australia, too, requires only passage of a UA

- specific ground school program in lieu of a manned airman certificate. 8 Finally, more than a dozen countries, including Germany, Italy, France, Spain and the Netherlands, have adopted the National sUAS Certificate for Small Unmanned Aircraft (BNUC

- S) Standard for sUAS pilot certification. 9 This standar d results in a type

specific sUAS certificate and does not require the operator to have a pilot’s license. The process involves taking a short ground school course, passing a ground
4 See Civil Aviation, Standards, Transport Canada, Advisory Circular: Guidance Material for Operating Unmanned Air V ehicle Systems under an Exemption at 14 and 18

-22, (Nov. 27, 2014) available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca

-opssvs/ac

- 600

-004.pdf

. 5 Id. at 14. 6 Civil Aviation Authority , Safety Regulation Group, Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace

– Guidance, Section 2, Chapter 5, Page 2 (Aug. 10, 2012), available at https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf

. 7 Civil Aviation Authority, Unmanned Aircraft and Aircraft Systems, available at http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90

. 8 Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority , available at http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:ST ANDARD::pc=PC_100374. 9 See EuroUSC International, “Pilot Qualification,” available at http://eurousc.com/services/pilot

-qualifications/.school test and then passing a practical test on commercial operation of t he

specific sUAS per the sUAS manufacturer’s operations manual. All of this experience and evidence indicates that the proposed exemption will provide a greater level of safety than operations under 14 C.F.R. §61.113. In this instance, the PICs will have gone through training as described above in Section III B. This training and education is focused on sUAS generally, and in particular on the aircraft to be operated, rather than taking additional time and risk to train on a manned aircraft, weighing seve ral thousand pounds and carrying highly flammable fuel. The FAA has concluded in the NPRM that such UA

- specific training is more than sufficient to provide an equivalent level of safety for sUAS operations. Sometime in the next 18

- 24 months, that positio n will be enshrined in a valid regulation. However, in the meantime, the FAA claims it lacks the authority to relax the requirement to possess a pilot certificate. As we show in the next section, that position is both incorrect and contradicted by the FAA’ s recent decisions.

**2. The F AA**  **does have, and has alr eady**  **, exer cised the authority to exempt petitioners fr** **om the**  **airman certificate requir ement.**  The FAA claims that it lacks authority to exempt sUAS operators from the requirement of 49 U.S. §44711 to hold an airman certificate authorizing the airman “to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued.” See, e.g., Exemption No. 11110 at 14. This claim is inconsistent with both (i) the statutory language of that section and Section 333, and (i i) numerous recent FAA decisions. The operative part of 49 USC §44711 provides that a “person may not . . . (A) without an airman certificate authorizing the airman to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued . . . “ If the FAA’s interpr etation were correct, this language would require that any person wishing to operate a sUAS for commercial operations have an airman certificate authorizing the person to serve as an airman in commercialoperations.

However, in all of its recent grants of Section 333 petitions, the FAA has

– without explicitly acknowledging the fact

- exempted commercial sUAS operators from the §44711(A) requirement that they hold an airman certificate authorizing them “to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued.” It has done so by allowing them to operate sUAS so long as they hold a private pilot’s or sport pilot’s authorization, even though such a certificate does not permit commercial operations. Exemption No. 11062 at 15

- 18; Exemption No. 11110 at 1 4

- 16; Exemption No. 11191 at 3

- 5; and Exemption No. 11229 at 3 and 8. The FAA argues that it cannot exempt petitioners from the requirements of §44711 because, while the specific language of Section 333 grants it limited statutory flexibility relative to 49 U.S.C. §44704 for the purposes of airworthiness certification, Section 333 does not provide flexibility relative to §44711 and other sections of Title 49. Exemption No. 11110 at 14. This argument ignores the plain language of Section 333. The relevant language of Section 333 is: (a) IN GENERAL.

—

Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act. (b) ASSESSMENT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.

— In making the determinatio n under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum

— (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within vi sual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; and(2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness certification under section 447 04 of title 49, United States Code, is required for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1). (c) REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE OPERATION.

— If the Secretary determines under this section that certain unmanned aircraft systems may opera te safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.
The language of Section 333(b) is permissive: it requires that the Secretary “determine , at a minimum . . . whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness serve in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft, . . . used, or intended for use, in air commerce certification under section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, is required for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1).” Nothing in (b) precludes the Secretary from determining whether or not a pilot’s license is required for operation of a sUAS identifie d under paragraph (b)(1). Indeed, the FAA has implicitly conceded the point by granting exemptions from the requirement that commercial sUAS operators hold a commercial pilot certificate. From an analytical standpoint, there is no difference between gran ting an exemption from the commercial pilot’s license requirement and granting an exemption from the private or sport pilot’s license requirement. Both are clearly exemptions from a specific statutory requirement in 49 U.S.C. §44711. If the FAA has the sta tutory authority under Section 333(b) to do the former, it has the same authority to do the latter. 10

10 The FAA has not specifically identified the statutory provision that underpins its authority to grant the exemptions from the commercial pilot’s license requirement. Whether the st atutory basis is Section 333 or some other provision makes no difference. If there is a basis for a partial exemption from in 49 U.S.C. § 44711, that basis also justifies an exemption from the entire provision.