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 Petitioner
TABLE 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 12564
GLOSSARY 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 Observer 
SUMMARY

On August 24, 2015, the Federal 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 set 
in 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 with 
an 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 always 
operate 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 those 
systems 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 VO 
observation, 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