UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

Regulatory Docket No. ________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AN AMENDMENT OF THE EXEMPTION GRANTED TO PINPOINT SERVICES, INC ON AUGUST 24, 2015 PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Submitted December 11, 2015 J. AUGUST SHOEMAKER, ESQ. 100 N. 12th St. #605 Lincoln, NE 68508 Tel: (402) 304-4356 Email: shoemaker.j.a@gmail.com Attorney for PetitionerTABLE OF CONTENTS Page GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................3 SUMMARY......................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF PETITIONER ...........................4 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................5 BASIS FOR PETITION .................................................................................6 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER

................................................... 7 THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF ITS CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION WHICH PINPOINT SERVICES, INC. SEEKS TO BE AMENDED......................................................................................................7 AMENDMENTS REQUESTED.........................................................



### ... .........9 FURTHER OPERATIONAL DETAILS........



### ... .................... 

### . ................ 

### . ......10 SAFETY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.....



### .... . 

### ..... ... 

### ....... .. 

### ......... 

### .. ... .......13 CONCLUSION.............................................



### ...... .. 

### ... .....................................16

ATTACHMENTS CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION EXEMPTION NO 12564GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AFD Airport/Facility Directory AGL Above Ground Level ARP Airport Reference Point ATC Air Traffic Control ATO Air Traffic Organization C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations COA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCC Federal Communication Commission FRMA FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 FSDO Flight Standards District Office GPS Global Positioning System NAS National Airspace System NOTAM Notice to Airmen PIC Pilot In Command Pinpoint Services Pinpoint Services, Inc. Section 333 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Section 333 UA Unmanned Aircraft UAS Unmanned Aircraft System VFR Visual Flight Rules VO Visual ObserverSUMMARY On August 24, 2015, the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Pinpoint Services, Inc., hereinafter Petitioner, a regulatory exemption (Exemption No. 12564) pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) allowing it the use of its Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for commercial purposes. The exemption requires a valid Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) to be available whenever UAS operations are performed. As the length of the COA application process precludes Petitioner from utilizing its UAS on a great number of its projects, Petitioner seeks an amendment of its exemption to enhance the safety of its operations and advance the public interest. INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER Pinpoint Services is engaged in the service and repair of cellular towers across the country in both rural and metropolitan areas. It performs these services both on towers that it owns and on towers owned by its business customers. Petitioner seeks to utilize its UAS in diagnosing problems before manned crews complete any needed repairs. As these manned repairs are inherently dangerous and as the use of UAS reduces this risk, Petitioner seeks an amendment of its current exemption to enable it to apply its UAS in all of its operations.BACKGROUND On August 24, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Petitioner Pinpoint Services Exemption No. 12564 pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95), generally allowing the use of its UAS for commercial purposes with an appropriate Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. The FAA concurrently issued Petitioner a blanket Certificate of Waiver or Authorization providing certain operational restrictions including an altitude ceiling of 200 feet above ground level (AGL) and requirements to remain beyond proscribed distances from airport reference points (ARP). See Standard Provisions, Section C of Petitioner’s attached Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. In addition to routine tower maintenance, Petitioner regularly engages in time-sensitive projects to restore cellular service where it has been interrupted or where immediate repairs are otherwise needed. These projects often need to be completed as soon as possible and within a few days from disruption. The online application form for new Certificates states “ The FAA will endeavor to process civil COA applications within sixty (60) business days (excludes federal holidays and weekends).” Federal Aviation Administration, UAS eFiling , https://oeaaa.faa.gov/ oeaaa/external/uas/portal.jsp (visited October 29, 2015). Conversations with FAA officials have indicated that applications with requests to be expedited could still takes several weeks or months. Given the time to process new applications and that the cellular towers’ height and location regularly exceed the requirements setin its current blanket COA, Petitioner is virtually prohibited from using its UAS on any one of these time-sensitive projects. Petitioner has attempted, through months of discussions with both FAA officials and industry professionals, to set in place a mechanism by which it could use its UAS in these operations. With no mechanism available, some in these conversations have advocated that Petitioner apply for an amendment to its current Exemption. Petitioner asserts that the use of its UAS enhances the overall safety of its work and the interests of the general public. The use of manned crews to inspect towers is dangerous and the use of UAS to inspect and identify problems can drastically reduce the time needed for these crews to complete repairs. The close proximity to towers needed in these operations further ensures the continued safety of traditional aircraft within the National Airspace System (NAS) and, as the vast majority of these cellular towers are marked on VFR charts, the danger posed by any interference from Petitioner’s UAS pales in comparison to the danger posed by the towers themselves. BASIS FOR PETITION Petitioner, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. § 11.61) and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems , hereby petitions to amend its granted Exemption No. 12564 to allow it to use its UAS without the requirement to obtain new Certificates of Waiver or Authorization for each of its maintenance and repair operations.A. Name and Address of the Petitioner. The name and address of the Petitioner is: Pinpoint Services, Inc. 613 Patterson St. PO Box 490 Cambridge, Nebraska 69022 The point of contact for this Petition and specific contact information is as follows: J. August Shoemaker 100 N. 12th St. Suite 605 Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Tel: (402) 304-4356 Email: shoemaker.j.a@gmail.com B. The Specific Sections of its Exemption which Petitioner Seeks to be Amended. 1) Conditions and Limitations, Paragraph 16 stating, “The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Aitport/Facility Directory (AFD) 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 of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.”2) Conditions and Limitations, Paragraph 21 stating, “Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operatios that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA.” AMENDMENTS REQUESTED Petitioner requests that the FAA amend the section of its exemption entitled ‘Conditions and Limitations’ to enable it to enhance the safety of its repair operations. A. Paragraph 16 Paragraph 16 provides that flights operate beyond minimum distances of nearby ARP. As many of Petitioner’s projects lie within these proscribed distances, Petitioner requests that the subsection be amended to state that letters of agreements with local airports be obtained whenever an operation will be performed within these distances in non-rural areas. B. Paragraph 21 Section 333(b)(2) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 provides that the FAA may determine if Certificates of Waiver or Authorization are required for UAS under Part 49, Section 44704 of the United States Code. Paragraph 21 of Petitioner’s exemption provides that all operations be conducted in accordance withan ATO-issued COA. As the COA application process precludes Petitioner from using its UAS on a wide array of time-sensitive projects, Petitioner requests that this requirement be stricken from its exemption. C. Lincoln Flight Standards District Office Petitioner has worked with Marlyn Beisner of the Lincoln Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for the past several months to develop solutions to its operational hurdles. If a more efficient process would be possible in coordination with the local FSDO, Petitioner is open to continuing the relationship with Mr. Beisner or any other official that the Administration would suggest. D. Other Amendments Petitioner fully understands and supports the need to maintain safe and open airspace within the NAS. To guarantee the continued safety of any operation performed, Petitioner is open and amenable to any other reasonable restrictions the Administration might suggest or require that would allow the timely use of its UAS in a safe and effective manner. OPERATIONS Petitioner affirms that all of its operations will be conducted in a safe and legal manner. All operations will be performed under the following guidelines. Petitioner will use DJI Model Number PV331 and DJI Model Number DJP3P, with N-Numbers 152PP and 154PP respectively, in all of its operations. Petitioner will perform operations in the immediate vicinity of cellular towers across the United States. It will remain at or below 400 feet above ground level and alwaysoperate at or within the circumference marked out by each tower’s guide wires. Petitioner will continually ensure surrounding aircraft are aware of its operations by communicating through ATC and filing a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). While operations will be conducted in differing categories of airspace, Petitioner’s operations will consist solely of aerial inspection of cellular towers. A Visual Observer (VO) will be utilized at all times. The observer will be within the Pilot in Command’s (PIC) line of sight at all times. All operations will be conducted during the daytime and in VFR conditions. SAFETY AND PUBLIC INTEREST The amendment of Petitioner’s exemption will enhance the safety of its operations and the public interest by increasing the safety of its employees and the public at large, maintaining the safety of traditional aircraft, and increasing the efficiency of the regulatory process. A. Safety of employees Tower climbing and maintenance are inherently risky operations and the great heights which must be climbed mean that a great number of falls will be fatal. Petitioner recently suffered such a loss after one of its employees fell during one of its service operations. In response to this event, Petitioner immediately began pursuing methods to increase the safety of its operations and prevent similar events in the future. Among these methods was the use of UAS in preliminary tower inspections to decrease the amount of time manned crews must spent on these hazardous climbs. The current COA application process precludes the use of thosesystems on a wide array of Petitioner's projects, leading to an increase in the amount of active climbing time and consequently the risk presented by these operations. Petitioner respectfully submits that, given the improbability of encountering traditional aircraft near towers and the active safety measures it employs, the requirement to apply for separate COAs for each of its projects leads to a decrease in the safety of its employees in these operations. B. Safety and interests of the public Petitioner further submits that a grant of amendment would enhance both the safety and overall interests of the general public. Continued operation of the nation’s cellular systems vitally enhances the public’s ability to effectively deal with emergencies. To further this national capacity, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) requires network owners to provide these emergency services through 47 C.F.R § 20.01 et seq, detailing cellular 911 calls, and 47 C.F.R. §10.1 et seq, detailing Wireless Emergency Alert regulations.
47 C.F.R § 20.18(b) requires that cellular providers “must transmit all wireless calls without respect to their call validation process to a Public Safety Answering Point, or, where no Public Safety Answering Point has been designated, to a designated statewide default answering point or appropriate local emergency authority.” 47 C.F.R §20.18(b) (2007). Additionally, while the WEA program is not an absolute regulatory requirement, those companies that opt in to the program must follow strict guidelines to ensure that its towers enable full use of its emergency services.When towers are damaged and service is interrupted, Petitioner is presented with a stark choice. It can either act immediately to fulfill its regulatory obligations using only manned crews and expose its employees to additional danger, or wait for the COA application process to conclude and allow a further absence of emergency services. Given the critical need to maintain emergency services for the general public and its inability to quickly obtain a project-specific COA, Petitioner is unfairly forced to take on additional, unneeded risk to itself and its employees in these critical circumstances. C. Safety of traditional aircraft Petitioner submits that, given the special nature of its operations, the requested amendments would have little effect of the safety of surrounding aircraft. Petitioner's operations mandate extreme close proximity to cellular towers to accurately gather video data about potential problems and possible solutions. Except for exact location, Petitioner’s operations never deviate from the above-noted operational plan. Any danger posed to traditional aircraft by any Petitioner’s operations is greatly dwarfed by the risk of flying in such close proximity to the towers themselves. The vast majority, if not all, of these towers are marked on VFR charts and, as traditional aircraft are subject to the higher minimum altitudes required by 14 C.F.R § 91.119, the likelihood of Petitioner’s interference with these aircraft is extremely limited. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(b) and (c) (2010). Petitioner’s active safety measures, including active monitoring of ATC frequencies, PIC and VOobservation, and filing of NOTAMs, further increase the improbability of interference with aircraft operating in traditional manners. D. Enhanced regulatory efficiency Finally, in addition to the increased safety that a grant of amendment would provide, the Administration's operational interests would be served by reducing both the Administration and Petitioner’s workload. Except for the exact location, Petitioner's operations never deviate from the above-noted operational plan. The current framework requires Petitioner to file nearly identical applications for hundreds of projects as the company moves forward. The proposed amendment of Petitioner’s COA sets in place a system of parameters by which Petitioner will operate, and decreases the need for redundant COA application and review. CONCLUSION As set forth herein, Petitioner Pinpoint Services, Inc requests an amendment to Exemption No. 12564, granted to it by the Administrator on August 24, 2015. Petitioner maintains that its operations will consistently achieve levels of safety at least equal to that provided by relevant rules, regulations, and operational restrictions through strict adherence to any operational guidelines, constant monitoring of positional GPS coordinates, and continual communication through ATC channels, as well as any other appropriate means.WHEREFORE, in accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, Pinpoint Services, Inc respectfully requests that the Administrator amend its exemption and permit Pinpoint Services, Inc to enhance the safety of its operations through a more full use of its granted exemption.

Dated: December 11, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. August Shoemaker J. August Shoemaker, Esq. 100 N. 12th St. #605 Lincoln, NE 68508 Tel: (402) 304-4356 Email: shoemaker.j.a@gmail.com Attorney for petitioner