HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD,

Petitioner.

Docket No. FAA-2014-_____

PETITION OF UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

E. Tazewell Ellett

Patrick R. Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-637-8644/-5659

Fax: 202-637-5910

tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

COUNSEL TO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

DATE: December 23, 2014
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER ................................................ - 1 -

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST............................. - 1 -

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ......................................................... - 2 -

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS .......................... - 2 -

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations ...... - 4 -

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the PIC and other

crewmembers – qualifications and training................................................. - 10 -

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding UP manuals related to UAS

operations........................................................................................................ - 12 -

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA ..................... - 14 -

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 CFR § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION

FOR EXEMPTION......................................................................................................... - 15 -

5.1 Contact information:....................................................................................... - 15 -

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which exemption

is sought: ......................................................................................................... - 16 -

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:...................... - 17 -

5.4 Reason why granting the request would be in the public interest: .......... - 32 -

5.5 Reason why granting the exemption would not adversely affect

safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at

least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is

sought: ............................................................................................................. - 34 -

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the

rule from which exemption is sought, a brief description of the

nature of the exemption sought:................................................................... - 35 -

5.7 Additional information that supports request:............................................ - 35 -

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the

U.S.: .................................................................................................................. - 35 -

5.9 Attachments:................................................................................. - 35 -

6. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... - 36 -
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

Union Pacific Railroad (“UP”) is the principal operating company of Union Pacific

Corporation, which is one of the United States’ leading transportation companies. UP is North

America’s premier railroad franchise, with operations covering 23 states across the western twothirds of the United States.

On occasion, UP railroad operations are involved in unplanned incidents that require

assessment and the creation of a response plan by UP to ensure the safety of the public, first

responders, and our employees. For the purpose of this Petition, an incident is an occurrence

associated with the operation of a railroad that affects, or could affect, the safety of operations, or

results in, or could result in, death, serious bodily injury or significant property damage. Such

incidents may include actual or suspected derailments, hazardous materials (“hazmat”) releases or

other circumstances that might pose a threat to the safety, security, or well-being of the public, first

responders, UP employees, private or public property, or the environment. When such an incident

occurs, a quick and accurate assessment of the nature and scope of hazards can be a matter of life

and death. An exemption allowing UP to utilize a UAS for such assessments could save lives.

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14

C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, UP requests that the FAA grant to UP an

exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below) to permit UP to operate one or more

small UAS (up to two simultaneously, but with separate flight crews) for the purpose of conducting

assessments when UP railroad engines, cars, tracks or other property are, or may be, involved in an

incident (“Incident Assessment”, and the corresponding UAS flight, “Incident Assessment Flight”), as

well as for training, proficiency, and experience-building flights to ensure that the UAS crew is

qualified and current for the Incident Assessment Flights (“Training Flights”). Incident Assessments
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

would involve generating still or video photography of the incident site, air samples, and similar data

in order to identify and evaluate suspected and actual conditions, threats, the status of incident sites,

and response options. UP plans to conduct these Incident Assessment Flights for assessing actual

or suspected derailments, hazmat releases or other circumstances that might pose a threat to the

public, first responders, UP employees, private or public property, or the environment. The purpose

of such Incident Assessment Flights will be to determine how best to respond to each incident in the

safest and most effective manner. For instance, the data gathered in connection with Incident

Assessment Flights could help UP and local authorities identify areas that need to be evacuated in

light of a hazmat release, or prevent first responders from entering a hazardous area without proper

equipment. As explained below, UP’s proposed small UAS operations, as conditioned and limited

herein, will not adversely affect safety, but rather will provide a level of safety equal to or greater

than that provided by the current rules and large manned aircraft operations. See FAR § 11.81.

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions

and limitations. Each of these conditions and limitations is consistent with previously granted small

UAS Section 333 exemptions and FAA guidance. See, e.g., Exemption No. 11110 (December 10,

2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”); Exemption No. 11109 (December 10, 2014;

Docket FAA-2014-0507) (“Clayco Exemption”); Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014; Docket

FAA-2014-0352) (“Astraeus Exemption”).

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS

UP intends to operate the AirCover QR-425s UAS (“the AirCover UAS”) under the

exemption. The AirCover UAS is a battery-powered, quad-rotor system, which uses 10-inch fixedpitch or 12-inch polymer propellers. The developmental and operational history of the AirCover UAS
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

extends to 2008 with unit one, first generation. That UAS is currently operational and has over 9,000

cycles without an incident. The QR-425 registered with AirCover has been flown without incident

exceeding 980 hours and 115 cycles. No customer-registered QR-425s flown under COAs have reported

any incidents. The QR-425 has been reviewed under DHS / RAPS Certification with FAA representatives

in Oklahoma City for certification in February 2014. The QR-425 has been flying for over four years

without any reported incidents. The FAA has on file a QR-425 Experimental Airworthiness Certification

(pending) with an incident-free range in Northern California since 2012. Each AirCover UAS used in

operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the AirCover UAS.

The free flying unmanned aircraft portion of the UAS (“the UA”) will

have a gross weight of not more than 7 pounds, including energy

sources and equipment. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 1]

3.1.2 The UA has maximum dimensions of approximately 28 inches x 28

inches x 11 inches.

3.1.3 The UA will have a maximum cruise speed of 28 knots and will not be

flown at an indicated airspeed in excess of 28 knots. [Trimble

Exemption Limitation No. 2]

3.1.4 The UA will have a maximum operating time of 30 minutes.

3.1.5 The UA will be identified by serial number, and registered with the

FAA in accordance with FAR Part 47. [Trimble Exemption Limitation

No. 21]

3.1.6 The UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part

45, with the markings being as large as practicable. [Trimble

Exemption Limitation No. 21]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations

All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization

(“ATO”)-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”), and the

COA will require that UP request a Notice to Airman (“NOTAM”)

before each UAS operation. UP will request a NOTAM not more than

72 hours in advance of, but not less than 48 hours prior to, each

Training Flight. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 20] UP will

request a NOTAM as far in advance as reasonably practical, but not

more than 72 hours, prior to each Incident Assessment Flight.

3.2.2 The UA will not operate in Class B, C or D airspace without written

approval from the FAA [Astraeus Exemption Limitation No. 34] and a

Mode C transponder with VHF radio communications. The UA will

operate only in Class G airspace. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No.

27]

3.2.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic

center of a non-towered airport as denoted on a current FAApublished aeronautical chart unless a letter agreement with the

airport’s management is obtained, and, if time reasonably permits, a

corresponding NOTAM is issued. UP will make this letter agreement

available to the FAA upon request. [Astraeus Exemption Limitation

No. 34]

3.2.4 Prior to UAS operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for

operation and control of the UA (900 MHz and 2.4 GHz) will comply
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other

appropriate government oversight agency requirements. [Trimble

Exemption Limitation No. 22]

3.2.5 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer (“VO”). The PIC will be

designated before the flight and cannot transfer his/her designation

for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can

perform the functions prescribed for the VO in the Manuals (defined

in Section 3.4 below). [Trimble Exemption Limitations Nos. 4 and 5]

3.2.6 Each UAS operation under the exemption will be planned to operate

for a period no longer than 10 minutes less than the maximum flight

time of the UAS under the conditions (speed, altitude, etc.) of the

planned UAS operations. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a

UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions)

there is enough power to fly to the first point of intended landing and,

assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10

minutes. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 19]

3.2.7 Each UA will remain at least 3 nautical miles from any public towered

airport to the extent possible.

3.2.8 Prior to each UAS operation in which the UA will operate within 3

nautical miles of a public towered airport, the PIC will ensure that the

FAA Air Traffic Control officials with responsibility for that airport are

notified in advance of the UAS operation.

3.2.9 Prior to each Incident Assessment Flight, UP will orally notify the local

Flight Standards District Office (“FSDO”) with jurisdiction over the
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

proposed UA flight about the flight and, to the extent reasonably

possible, will request urgent issuance of a NOTAM about such

operation. Prior to each Training Flight, UP will notify the local FSDO

with jurisdiction over the proposed UA flight about the flight and will

request timely issuance of a NOTAM about such operation.

3.2.10 Prior to each UAS operation, each member of the crew who will be

conducting that UAS operation will participate in a safety briefing

about the UAS operation.

3.2.11 Prior to each UAS operation, the PIC will inspect the UAS (including

the Ground Control Station) to ensure it is in a condition for safe

flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe

operation of the UAS, the UAS is prohibited from operating until the

necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to

be in a condition for safe flight. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 7]

3.2.12 Prior to each UAS operation, the PIC will review the weather, the

UAS battery requirements, the UA takeoff and landing distances, and

the UAS performance, and will account for all relevant site-specific

conditions.

3.2.13 All maintenance and alterations will be properly documented in the

UAS records. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 7] UP’s AirCover

UAS maintenance personnel will make a record entry in the UAS

logbook or equivalent document of the corrective action taken against

discrepancies discovered between inspections. [Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 14]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

3.2.14 Prior to each takeoff of the UA, the altitude reading of the altimeter

will be zeroed, such that the altitude of the UA at the point of takeoff

will be set to zero as a basis for that UAS operation, and the PIC will

confirm the accuracy of the altitude reading. [Astraeus Exemption, at

21]

3.2.15 The UA will be operated within visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the PIC

at all times. The VLOS will be unaided, except for corrective lenses

as set forth on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate. The

VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC

always maintains VLOS capability. [Trimble Exemption Limitations

Nos. 4 and 5]

3.2.16 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet

above ground level (“AGL”). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 3]

3.2.17 To the extent reasonably practical, each UP Incident Assessment

Flight will be conducted over UP property or over private or controlled

access property with permission or an easement from the land

owner/controller or authorized representative. Each Training Flight

will be conducted over UP property or over private or controlled

access property with permission or an easement from the land

owner/controller or authorized representative. [Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 34]

3.2.18 When the circumstances make it reasonably impractical for a UP

Incident Assessment Flight to remain over UP property or over

private or controlled access property for which UP has obtained

permission or an easement to conduct its small UAS operations, UP
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

will use reasonable efforts in advance of the Incident Assessment

Flight to obtain permission from other property owners to operate the

AirCover UAS over their property. These circumstances may include,

but are not limited to, derailments and hazmat releases that have not

been contained within UP property.

3.2.19 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO will be able to

communicate verbally with each other at all times. [Trimble

Exemption Limitation No. 5]

3.2.20 During each UAS operation, the PIC will not operate the UA directly

over the location of any person known by the PIC to be present, at an

altitude that would be hazardous to the person on the ground in the

event of a UAS failure or emergency.

3.2.21 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological

conditions (VMC) only. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 28]

3.2.22 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS

operations will not be conducted during night, as defined in FAR §

1.1. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 26]

3.2.23 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and

yield right-of-way to, all manned aerial operations and activities

(including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicle, parachute, parasailing,

and hang glider activities). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 24]

3.2.24 Each UAS operation will maintain a safe distance from any structure

or facility that has a national security implication that is known to UP.

3.2.25 During each UAS operation, the UA will be operated not less than

500 feet below, and not less than 2,000 feet horizontally, from a cloud
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. [Trimble

Exemption Limitation No. 28]

3.2.26 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from a moving device or

vehicle. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 25]

3.2.27 The PIC will begin terminating each UAS operation when no less than

25% of the battery power remains.

3.2.28 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect

the UAS operation or flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a

flight critical component) must undergo a functional test flight in

accordance with the Manuals. The PIC who conducts the functional

test flight will make an entry about the flight in the UAS records.

[Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 8]

3.2.29 For each UAS operation, the UAS will be programmed so that if the

UAS loses its communications or GPS signal, the UA will return to a

pre-determined location within the UP, private or controlled access

property, and land or be recovered in accordance with the Manuals.

[Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 17]

3.2.30 During UP Training Flights, the UA will operate at least 500 feet from

all non-participating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, and

will not be operated over congested or densely populated areas.

[Trimble Exemption Limitations Nos. 31 and 30]

3.2.31 The PIC will abort the UAS operation and UA flight in accordance

with the Manuals if unpredicted obstacles or emergencies arise

[Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 18] or the continued UAS
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

operations pose a threat to other operations in the National Airspace

System or persons on the ground.

3.2.32 The documents required by FAR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 will be available

to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS at any time the

UA is operating, and will be made available to the FAA or any law

enforcement official upon request. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No.

23]

3.2.33 Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral

or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the

applicable COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office

(AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents will be reported to the National

Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on

the NTSB website. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 35]

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the PIC and other crewmembers -

qualifications and training

The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operation under the exemption will be

subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC will possess at least an FAA private pilot certificate and a

third-class airman medical certificate, and will satisfy the flight review

requirements of FAR § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated

on his/her private pilot certificate.1[Trimble Exemption Limitation No.

15]

1 UP respectfully submits that it is unnecessary for safe small UAS operations to require the PIC to have a private

pilot certificate, particularly given the other conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition (e.g., operate over UP,

private or controlled access property; operations no higher than 400 feet AGL; VLOS between PIC and AirCover UAS

to be maintained at all times; operate in Class G airspace, etc.). Completion of UP’s and AirCover’s training should
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

3.3.2 Prior to participating in an Incident Assessment Flight as PIC, the PIC

will have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with FAR §

61.51(b), a minimum of 20 flight cycles and 16 hours of total time as a

UAS pilot.

3.3.3 Prior to participating in an Incident Assessment Flight as PIC, the PIC

will have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with FAR §

61.51(b), a minimum of 5 flight cycles as a UAS pilot, and 5 takeoffs

and 5 landings within the preceding 90 days operating the make and

model of UAS to be used for operations under the exemption.

3.3.4 Training Flights may be operated under the exemption to accomplish

the required flight cycles, flight time, and takeoffs and landings

required to act as PIC of a UAS during an Incident Assessment

Flight. During these Training Flights, all persons not essential for

flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC will

operate the UA at an appropriate distance from non-participants as

required by FAR § 91.119. [Astraeus Exemption Limitations Nos. 11

and 12]

3.3.5 The PIC and VO will have completed a qualification process

established by the UP QR-425 Standard Operating Procedures and

the manufacturer’s recommendation. [Astraeus Exemption Limitation

No. 13]

be more than sufficient for the safe operation of the AirCover UAS on Initial Assessment Flights. Recognizing that

the FAA rejected a request to permit UAS operations without an FAA private pilot certificate in the Trimble Exemption,

at 14-15, 23, UP will accept a private pilot certificate requirement for the PIC. However, to the extent the FAA has

any flexibility on this point, UP alternatively requests relief from that requirement such that UP’s PICs must only

complete UP’s and AirCover’s training as proposed under this exemption (and not have a private pilot certificate).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 12 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

3.3.6 Before operating any UAS, UP will create a record of the completion

of the qualification process by the PIC and VO. This record will be

maintained for at least one year after the individual is no longer

performing duties associated with UP’s UAS operations, and will be

made available to the FAA upon request. [Astraeus Exemption

Limitation No. 13]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding UP manuals related to UAS operations

UP will follow the following documents containing company procedures for the AirCover UAS

operations for all UAS operations under the exemption: the AirCover Maintenance Manual

(“Maintenance Manual”), the UAS Operations Manuals (“Operations Manual”), and the Standard

Operating Procedures (collectively, these three documents are “the Manuals”). The Maintenance

Manual and the Operations Manual have been approved by the FAA in the context of public COA

operations using the AirCover UAS. A confidential copy of the Manuals will be submitted to the FAA

Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations as supporting documents

for this Petition. The Manuals contain information that is highly proprietary to UP and/or AirCover,

and UP therefore requests that the FAA treat the Manuals as confidential and not disclose them to

the public. The Manuals will be subject to the following limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Manuals and the exemption must be maintained and made

available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the

conditions and limitations in the exemption and the procedures outlined

in the Manuals, the conditions and limitations in the exemption take

precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, UP must follow the

procedures as outlined in the Manuals. [Trimble Exemption Limitation

No. 6]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

3.4.2 UP may update or revise its Manuals, and it is UP’s responsibility to

track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the

FAA upon request. UP must also present updated and revised

documents if it petitions for an extension or amendment of the

exemption. If UP determines that any update or revision would affect

the basis upon which the FAA granted the requested exemption, then

UP must petition for an amendment to the exemption. UP will contact

the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) if questions arise regarding

updates or revisions to the Manuals. [Trimble Exemption Limitation

No. 6]

3.4.3 The Manuals contain information about the AirCover UAS’s

performance, limitations, and loading information.

3.4.4 The Manuals contain the procedures for UAS operations, including

preflight inspections, which will account for all discrepancies, i.e.,

inoperable components, items or equipment. [Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 9]

3.4.5 The Manuals contain the requirements and procedures for a functional

test flight of the UAS and aircraft record entry. [Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 8]

3.4.6 UP must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping in

accordance with the Manuals. Maintenance, inspection, and alterations

must be noted in the aircraft logbook, including total flight hours, a

description of the work accomplished, and the signature of the

authorized AirCover UAS technician returning the AirCover UAS to

service. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 11]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 14 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

3.4.7 The AirCover UAS technicians maintaining and servicing UP’s UAS

must receive, and document, the training called for in the Manuals.

[Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 12]

3.4.8 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all

manufacturer System and Safety Bulletins, and that requirement is set

forth in the Manuals. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 13]

3.4.9 UP will follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component,

maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit

requirements. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 10]

3.4.10 The Manuals contain procedures for performing and documenting

maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, status of

replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total time in service of

the UAS (and for maintaining the corresponding records).

3.4.11 The requirements in the Manuals will comply with the manufacturer’s

UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement,

inspection, and life limits, and will at all times conform to the

manufacturer’s requirements in these areas.

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

In accordance with FMRA Sec. 333, UP requests that the Secretary of Transportation

determine that UP’s proposed small UAS operations (i) do not create a hazard to users of the

National Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat to national security.

UP further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine – as it

did in the Astraeus Exemption and Clayco Exemption – that relief from FAR Part 21, and any
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

associated noise certification and testing requirements of FAR Part 36, is not necessary for UP’s

UAS operations as proposed in this Petition.2

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 CFR § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, UP provides the following information in support of this Petition:

5.1 Contact information:

Name: Union Pacific Railroad submits this Petition for Exemption, through counsel:

E. Tazewell Ellett

Patrick R. Rizzi

Mailing address:

E. Tazewell Ellett

Patrick R. Rizzi

Counsel to Union Pacific Railroad

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone number:

202-637-8644 (Ellett)

202-637-5659 (Rizzi)

Facsimile number: 202-637-5910

E-mail addresses:

tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

2

Astraeus Exemption, at 14, 22; Clayco Exemption, at 10, 16. If the FAA concludes that the UAS operations

proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Part 21 and/or 36, then UP requests that the FAA include

that in the exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 16 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR3from which exemption is sought:

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

FAR § 91.119(b) and (c) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance,

rebuilding, and inspections.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

3

This Petition does not seek exemption from:

-- FAR Part 21 or 36, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and Clayco Exemption, at 10.

-- FAR § 91.7(b), based on the reasoning in the Trimble Exemption, at 17.

-- FAR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum titled

“Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station”

(“FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum”), the Astraeus Exemption, at 19-20, 22, and the Trimble Exemption, at 17, 20.

-- FAR §§ 45.23(b) and 91.9(c), based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and the Trimble

Exemption, at 14, related to FAR § 45.23(b), and assuming that the markings on the UA used to comply with FAR

Part 45, Subpart C requirements are as large as practicable.

-- FAR §§ 47.3(b)(2) and 47.31(c), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum, and

assuming that all UA are registered in accordance with FAR Part 47.

-- FAR § 91.103(b)(2), based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and the Clayco Exemption, at 14,

which concluded that an exemption from the preflight action requirements is not necessary where the grant of an

exemption for UAS operations includes conditions that satisfy preflight action requirements. UP proposes such

conditions in this Petition.

-- FAR § 91.109, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and the Clayco Exemption, at 14, which

concluded that an exemption from the requirement for dual flight controls for flight or simulator training or for flight

testing is not necessary when there is no indication that dual flight controls will be used during any flight or simulator

training or flight testing.

If the FAA concludes that the UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from one or more of

these requirements, then UP requests that the FAA include that in the exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 17 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:

When the need to conduct an Incident Assessment arises, UP proposes to conduct Incident

Assessment Flights using small AirCover UAS, as described above, as a means of gathering the

information necessary to determine the most effective and safe means of preventing or responding

to the incident and ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of the public, first responders, UP

employees, private or public property, or the environment. In addition, UP also seeks the requested

relief in order to conduct Training Flights using the small AirCover UAS.

To conduct these Incident Assessment Flights and Training Flights with the small AirCover

UAS, UP petitions the FAA, pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption

from the following FAR for the reasons noted:

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this

section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may

act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying

passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may

that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command

of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in

command of an aircraft in connection with any business or

employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or

employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for

compensation or hire.

(c) ****.

UP requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit UP to

conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold FAA private pilot certificates. While UP understands

that the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is

compensation either to the pilot or for the operation, UP requests that the FAA exempt UP and its
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

PICs from this requirement, since the use of a private pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations under

this exemption will be more safe than the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft operations.

Unlike conventional aircraft, the AirCover UAS is remotely controlled, with no crew or passengers,

and battery-powered. The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a private pilot to become

qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations

are involved.

With respect to aeronautical knowledge requirements, the differences between the

requirements for private pilots and for commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of

manned aircraft. A pilot who wishes to operate flights that involve the carriage of persons or

property for compensation or hire is typically expected to improve his or her aeronautical knowledge

with respect to the operation of those larger manned aircraft. For instance, the prospective

commercial pilot is expected to be able to operate more complex aircraft and to operate those

aircraft in conditions other than VMC. Pilots seeking to become commercial pilots for manned

aircraft must acquire additional aeronautical knowledge about the use of performance charts and

aeronautical charts, beyond that which a private pilot must obtain regarding navigation under VFR,

night operations, and the use of air navigation aids/facilities.4 However, no aspect of this

incremental additional knowledge is significant for the daytime, VMC small UAS operations proposed

in this Petition.

With respect to the aeronautical experience requirements, the differences between the

requirements for private pilots and for commercial pilots are also significant. However, the additional

experience required for a commercial pilot certificate is required to a great extent to allow the

upgrading pilot to acquire experience of a type that a commercial PIC of a manned aircraft must

obtain in order to safely conduct commercial operations in a larger manned aircraft. For instance,

4

FAR § 61.125, Aeronautical knowledge for commercial pilots, paras. (b)(7) (the use of performance charts), (b)(9)

(use of aeronautical charts beyond that necessary for flight under VFR), (b)(10) (use of air navigation aids), and

(b)(14) (night and high-altitude operations).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

the applicant for a commercial certificate with a single-engine land rating must obtain 50 hours of

cross-country flight, 10 hours of instrument training, 10 hours of time in a complex aircraft, 10 hours

of solo time, and 5 hours in night VFR conditions.5In addition, a great deal of time is required for a

pilot of a larger manned aircraft seeking to become a commercial pilot to ensure that the pilot’s

takeoffs and landings can be conducted safely enough so as not to imperil the passengers and

property aboard the manned aircraft. In this regard, there is a fundamental difference between the

type of experience that the PIC of a manned aircraft should have, versus the type of experience that

the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. In UP’s

case, all property carried aboard the UA will be UP property. While the pilot will be compensated, all

risk of damage to the property (in fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by UP. There is no expectation

or need for the PIC of the UA to have the type of experience that a commercial pilot for a manned

aircraft would have. In short, virtually none of the aeronautical experience requirements, beyond

those necessary for private pilots, is relevant to the PIC who will operate the small UAS as proposed

in this Petition. Accordingly, there is no reason for a requirement that the PIC of UP’s UAS have

more experience than that required for the private pilot certificate.

With respect to flight proficiency requirements for private pilots and commercial pilots, while

there are differences, those differences involve areas such as “[h]igh-altitude operation,” areas that

have no bearing on the small UAS operations at issue in this Petition.6To the extent that differences

exist between the standards of performance for flight proficiency as demonstrated by prospective

private versus prospective commercial pilots, those standards are not significant here where the

operations will be conducted strictly during daylight VMC conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no

higher than 400 feet AGL.

Given that UP plans to operate its AirCover UAS in Class G airspace (or, with written FAA

approval, in Class, B, C or D airspace) over UP, private or controlled access property at altitudes of

5

See FAR § 61.129.

6 Compare FAR § 61.127, flight proficiency for commercial pilots (in particular § 61.127(b)(1)(x) and (b)(2)(x)), with

FAR § 61.107, flight proficiency for private pilots.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 20 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

400 feet AGL or less, the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to

those of commercial pilot requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary to operate the

AirCover UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the UAS operations proposed here that

would result from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exemption should only be required

to hold a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical certificate. Such a condition would

be consistent with the certificate requirements imposed on the UAS PIC in the Astraeus Exemption,

Trimble Exemption, and Clayco Exemption.

For these reasons, UP requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit UP to use as PIC

of the proposed UAS operations pilots who hold a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman

medical certificate, so long as they satisfy the limits and conditions proposed in this Petition,

including the PIC qualification and training requirements.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

The regulation states in relevant part:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy

condition. . . .

UP requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary.7The AirCover UAS

will not have an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus relief is requested

from this regulation. See Trimble Exemption, at 16. An exemption is warranted because UP

understands that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its

“compliance with [UP’s] Manuals to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and

that UP must still determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance with

such Manuals. See Trimble Exemption, at 16.

7 UP requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble Exemption, at 16, 21.

However, UP notes that the FAA determined that no such exemption was needed in the Astraeus Exemption, at 19,

22.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

FAR § 91.119(b) and (c) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

The regulation states:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may

operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an

emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or

property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city,

town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of

persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle

within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet

above the surface, except over open water or sparsely

populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be

operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,

or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control

aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to

persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided

each person operating the helicopter complies with any

routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by

the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may

be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in

paragraph (c) of this section.

UP requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit UP to

conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since such

altitudes are one of the key benefits of using small UAS for the Incident Assessments. Even at

these low altitudes, the UAS Incident Assessment Flights will be conducted at a level of safety at

least equal to that which would be achieved if larger manned aircraft were to be used at the altitudes

required by FAR § 91.119.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

With respect to paragraph (a), UP intends to comply with this requirement to the same extent

as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA must operate at an altitude such that the loss of a

single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an emergency landing

“without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” UP agrees with the FAA’s reasoning

on this issue in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and therefore does not believe that relief is required

from paragraph (a).

With respect to paragraph (c), UP requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down to

the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. UP’s Incident

Assessment Flights require lower-level flying to properly assess the incident. Relief from the 500

foot altitude threshold in this paragraph would be consistent with that granted in the Trimble

Exemption, at 18, and the condition that no UA be operated at an altitude higher than 400 feet AGL.

UP further requests an exemption from the requirement in paragraph (c) to stay 500 feet

away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure during all Incident Assessment Flights. An

exemption from the 500 feet standoff requirement is essential to allowing UP to conduct Incident

Assessment Flights close enough to the situation being assessed to permit UP to acquire the

information necessary to determine the best response to the incident. For instance, requiring the UA

to stay 500 feet away from all persons would make it virtually impossible to access the scene of a

derailment or hazmat release, which will almost always involve people still at the scene of the

incident (e.g., UP personnel, first responders, other persons). For many of the UAS operations UP

is proposing, any potentially adverse safety implications raised by the operation of the small

AirCover UAS near people, vessels, vehicles or structures pale in comparison to the potential

danger to which those people, vessels, vehicles or structures might be exposed if the incident is

allowed to escalate or an effective response to the incident is prevented or delayed.8

8

For all UP Training Flights under the exemption, the UA would be required to stay at least 500 feet away from all

non-participants (all persons who are not part of the crew or participating in the training exercise), as required by FAR

§ 91.119(c). See also Proposed Condition 3.2.30 above.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations

by manned aircraft that comply with this 500 feet standoff requirement. Flying a manned aircraft,

given its weight, size, speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk if undertaken within the

confusing operational environment surrounding an incident. Compared with that scenario, the use of

a small UAS, with a smaller size and weight, operating at much lower speeds, with batteries rather

than a significant fuel load, and at all times within VLOS of one or more crewmembers on the ground

who have a wide view, would result in a far higher level of safety. Accordingly, as the FAA

determined in the Trimble Exemption, at 17-18, relief is warranted here provided that UP adheres to

its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlined above and in the exemption. For

these reasons, UP requests relief from the entirety of paragraph (c).

With respect to paragraph (b), UP has no control over where an incident will occur. Some

railroad incidents occur in areas defined by the FAA as congested areas. Even when operating over

congested areas, the proposed UAS operations will be far safer than operations by manned aircraft

operating in compliance with the minimum altitude requirements (1,000 feet altitude). The operation

of a faster, larger manned aircraft, at 1,000 feet over a congested area, with a load of combustible

fuel and crew, loitering over the scene of a railroad incident, would not be as safe as such operations

conducted by a very small, very light weight, battery-operated UAS that, at all times from takeoff to

landing, can be safely operated well below the altitudes used by manned aircraft, and continuously

within VLOS of one or more persons on the ground. For these reasons, UP requests relief from the

entirety of paragraph (b).

UP does not request relief from paragraph (d), which applies only to helicopters, and which

would permit operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed helicopter route. Relief from this

requirement will not be necessary if the FAA grants relief from paragraphs (b) and (c) as noted

above.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

The regulation states:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising

altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by

reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating—

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the

route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported

altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the

elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter

setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b) * * * *.

UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary to permit UP to

conduct the UAS operations described in this Petition. It is not clear to UP that an exemption from

this section is required. Although the regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a

“cruising altitude” and dictates the altimeter setting that must be used while at that cruising altitude,

cruising altitudes for VFR flight do not begin – according to FAR § 91.159 – until “more than 3,000

feet above the surface.”9 See Astraeus Exemption, at 21-22 (granting relief from this section with

conditions and limitations).

Nevertheless, UP recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by

UP maintain altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA may rely on UP’s

UAS to be operating as proposed. The AirCover UAS does not use a barometric altimeter. Instead,

it determines altitude based on a GPS signal. To ensure the accuracy of the GPS signal, the PIC

will check the UA altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will effectively zero the UA’s altitude

9

FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3-1-1, para. 3-1-2. (Jul. 24, 2014).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

reading of the altimeter at the point of takeoff, to ensure that measurements of the UA’s altitude are

as accurate as possible relative to the local elevation. To the extent that this methodology does not

satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, UP requests an exemption to permit UAS operations

using this methodology.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions

unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there

is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and,

assuming normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions

unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there

is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and,

assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20

minutes.

UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit UP to plan its UAS operations such

that only 10 minutes of further operating time is available at the end of the planned UAS operation.

The UAS operations proposed by UP in this Petition will involve operations in which one or more

UAS is transported by means other than its own power to the site of an incident. The Incident

Assessment Flights will begin and end at the site of the incident, with the takeoff, entire flight, and

landing all taking place within the immediate proximity of the incident, and remaining at all times

within VLOS of the PIC. In essence, each UA will virtually never leave its “first point of intended

landing.”

The goal of FAR § 91.151 is to ensure that pilots plan for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of fuel at

their first intended point of landing. This accounts for unexpected possible delays en route (such as

adverse winds) and at the first planned destination (such as a fouled runway or conflicting traffic).

Many of these delays that plague manned aircraft are not an issue with these UAS operations, since
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

there is virtually no “en route” portion of the flight, and any problems at the point of landing are

extremely unlikely to cause delays, since a UA can always land just a few feet away if the intended

point of landing becomes unusable.

Given the AirCover UAS’ relatively short operating time (30 minutes), requiring a full 30

minutes of reserve fuel would basically take up all of the available time for UAS operations. UP

believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning purposes will be at least as safe as

using the reserves required by FAR § 91.151 for manned aircraft. Using a 10-minute reserve for a

daylight UA flight, for instance, will be adequate where the UA is essentially at its first point of

landing from the moment it takes off (since there is no en route phase of flight) and the risks for

delay at the intended landing area are not as great as for manned aircraft landings. As a further

measure of safety, UP also will require the PIC to begin terminating operations when no less than

25% of battery life remains. Although FAR § 91.151 is a flight planning requirement, rather than an

operational requirement, UP believes that having a requirement to begin terminating operations no

later than at a specific “fuel” (battery power) level will further ensure that the 10-minute reserve fuel

planning requirement that UP is requesting to use under the exemption will provide an adequate

level of safety.

For these reasons, UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit UP to plan UAS

operations such that only 10 minutes of further operating time is available at the end of the planned

UAS operation. This means that, if the FAA views the AirCover UAS as a fixed wing UAS, UP

requests an exemption from paragraph (a) to permit 10 minutes instead of 30 minutes of reserve

time, and, if the FAA views the AirCover UAS as a rotorcraft UAS, UP requests an exemption from

paragraph (b) to permit 10 minutes instead of 20 minutes of reserve time.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

The regulation states:

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of

this part and shall between required inspections, except as

provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies

repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) ****.

UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit UP to conduct its small UAS

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy

repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the

FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and

that the achievement of an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations, some

of which were proposed by the Petitioner, and some of which were required by the FAA

(“Astraeus/Trimble Conditions and Limitations”). These included requirements to develop and

document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection requirements in the absence of

manufacturer’s requirements; procedures to document and maintain maintenance records with

regard to the petitioner’s UAS; UAS technician qualification criteria; and requirements to document

comprehensive preflight inspection procedures.

UP has proposed several conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition related to

maintenance and inspections consistent with the Astraeus/Trimble Conditions and Limitations. UP

believes that these conditions and limitations provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that

provided by FAR § 91.405(a), the Astraeus Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption. For this reason,

UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit UP to conduct UAS operations as

proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and limitations proposed above, without having to

perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a).

UP does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is

required, since UP will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in

accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative instrument or item of equipment
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 28 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph (c), and

appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative instruments or equipment in

compliance with paragraph (d).

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or

alteration.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person

authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or

§43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b)   .

(c) ** ** .

UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit UP to conduct UAS operations

as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a

person authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the

FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1),

and that achieving an adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations similar to those in

the Trimble Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption.

UP has proposed several conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition related to

maintenance and inspections consistent with the Astraeus/Trimble Conditions and Limitations. UP

believes that these conditions and limitations provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that

provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1), the Astraeus Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption. For this

reason, UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit UP to conduct UAS
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 29 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without

having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7.

UP does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is

required, since UP will require that maintenance record entries are made as required in compliance

with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried following maintenance performed on the

UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

The regulation states:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person

may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar

months, it has had—

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this

chapter and has been approved for return to service by a

person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in

accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may

be substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph

unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual

inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the

required maintenance records.

(b)  .

UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit UP to conduct UAS

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain the annual inspection and

airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). In the Astraeus

Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations

required exemption from FAR §91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety

required conditions and limitations similar to the Astraeus/Trimble Conditions and Limitations.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 30 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

UP has proposed several conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition related to

maintenance and inspections consistent with the Astraeus/Trimble Conditions and Limitations. UP

believes that these conditions and limitations provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that

provided by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), the Trimble Exemption, and the Astraeus Exemption. For

this reason, UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit UP to conduct

UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations,

without having to obtain the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2).

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

The regulation states:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and

91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the

following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of

this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and

alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive,

and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate,

for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine,

propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records

must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the

Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person

approving the aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine,

each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe,

engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 31 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on

the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a

specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including

the time since the last inspection required by the

inspection program under which the aircraft and its

appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness

directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each,

the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive

number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive

involves recurring action, the time and date when the next

action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this

chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and

currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and

appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for

the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section

shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by

other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section

shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time

the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or

operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until

the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return

to service.

(c) ** **.

UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit UP to conduct UAS

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to keep the records described in FAR §

91.417(a) and (b). In the Trimble Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that

the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR §91.417(a) and (b), and that an
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 32 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations similar to those in the Trimble Exemption

and the Astraeus Exemption.

UP has proposed several conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition related to

maintenance, inspections, and records consistent with the Astraeus/Trimble Conditions and

Limitations. UP believes that its conditions and limitations provide a level of safety at least

equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), the Trimble Exemption, and the Astraeus

Exemption. For this reason, UP requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit UP

to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and

limitations, without having to keep the records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b).

Additional FAR Provisions.

UP also requests that, to the extent that the FAA concludes that an exemption from one or

more other provisions of the FAR would be required to permit the UAS operations described in this

Petition, the FAA grant an exemption from those FAR provisions as necessary to permit the UAS

operations described in this Petition.10

5.4 Reason why granting the request would be in the public interest:

A grant of the exemption would be in the public interest because it would improve safety for

the general public, first responders, and UP employees.

The ability to use a UAS to conduct Incident Assessment Flights, subject to the conditions

and limitations proposed in this Petition, will enable UP to have access to more complete data about

incidents. This is because the scene of an incident often contains unknown or difficult-to-access

terrain or structures, or unsafe structures, such as bridges, that may have been degraded by the

incident. The ability to use UAS to develop data about the scene of an incident will ensure that UP

10 If requested, UP will provide follow-on documentation providing the rationale underlying any such additional

exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 33 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

can gather the best possible information, which will enable UP to develop a safe and effective

response plan that minimizes the risk of harm to the general public and first responders.

In addition, the use of the small, lightweight, battery-powered AirCover UAS for these

Incident Assessment Flights is far less risky than undertaking those operations with a much heavier,

much faster, much larger, manned helicopter or other aircraft loaded with fuel. As the FAA

acknowledged in the Trimble Exemption, at 13:

“The [UP] pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight and

construction with impact absorbent materials significantly reduces the potential harm to

persons or damage to property in the event of an incident or accident. The risk to an

onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is eliminated with the use of a UAS for

the . . . operation.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident.

[The AirCover UAS] carries no fuel [it is battery-powered] and therefore the risk of fire

following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.”

These distinctions, coupled with the safety-related features of the AirCover UAS such as loss-link

procedures, demonstrate that the AirCover UAS operations by UP proposed in this Petition are far

less risky than if operated by larger and heavier manned aircraft.

Further, the ability to use a UAS to conduct Incident Assessments will decrease the risk to

UP employees who would otherwise be tasked with obtaining information about the incident scene.

Incident Assessments by their very nature involve danger, whether it be from being too close to the

release of hazmat into the environment or exposure to fire or some other hazard associated with a

derailment. In all of these incidents, UP must quickly obtain accurate information to determine how

to respond to the incident, and then develop and implement a response plan. The use of a UAS to

conduct the Incident Assessment would protect UP employees, while at the same time improving the

quality of information obtained from the assessment.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 34 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

5.5 Reason why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how

the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by

the rule from which exemption is sought:

Throughout this Petition, UP has noted reasons why the grant of an exemption from each

section of the FAR from which relief is sought would result in small UAS operations that provide a

level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.

In general, the risks of any proposed UAS operation interfering with a manned aircraft are

minimized by the low altitude at which the UAS will operate. This, combined with the conditions and

limitations proposed in the Petition, provides further protection against interference with manned

aircraft operations or with the safety of persons or property on the ground. The UAS will operate in a

limited area in the immediate vicinity of the railroad incident and, to the extent reasonably practical,

over UP property or other private or controlled access property with permission or an easement from

the land owner/controller or authorized representative. The UAS has robust safety procedures in

case of unpredicted obstacles, unforeseen emergencies, and loss of communications or GPS signal.

And, as detailed in Section 3.1, the QR-425 has a substantial and incident-free developmental and

operational history. In addition, under the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, UP will

coordinate with the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all UAS

operations under the exemption are at least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations used for

similar purposes.

For these reasons, granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is

sought would not adversely affect safety, and would provide a level of safety at least equal to, or

greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 35 -

\\DC - 700093/000300 - 6198441 v7

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from

which exemption is sought, a brief description of the nature of the exemption

sought:

UP proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2014-______

Petitioner: Union Pacific Railroad

Sections of 14 CFR: 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(b) and (c), 91.121, 91.151,

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to conduct small UAS

operations in its railroad business as a means of assessing circumstances following

an incident that involves Union Pacific property and/or personnel and for training

flights.

5.7 Additional information that supports request:

UP is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find helpful, or to answer

questions in response to any FAA requests. A confidential copy of the Manuals will be submitted to

the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations as supporting

documentation for this Petition. The Manuals contain information that is highly proprietary to UP

and/or AirCover, and UP requests that the FAA treat the Manuals as confidential and not disclose

them to the public.

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.:

UP does not request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the United States.

5.9 Attachments:

In support of this Petition, UP will provide copies of the Manuals to the FAA Assistant Chief

Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations. As noted above, UP requests

confidential treatment by the FAA of the Manuals. These documents contain non-public, confidential

information that is highly proprietary to UP and/or AirCover. These confidential documents are also