RA/LWAY 

September 2, 2014 

Mr. James Williams 

Manager, Flight Standards Service 

LaRhonda Brown-Barrett 

Senior General Attorney 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

U.S. Depattment ofTransportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

BNSF Railway Company 

P.O. Box 961039 

Fort Worth, Texas 76161-0039 

2500 Lou Menk Drive 

Fort Worth, Texas 76131-2828 

817 352-2119 tel 

817 352-2397 fax 

LaRhonda.Brown-Barrett@bnsf.com 

BNSF Railway Company submits the enclosed request for exemption fi:om multiple regulatory 

provisions ofthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow the use of small unmanned aerial 

systems on land controlled by BNSF to assist in the safe supplemental inspection of railroad 

infi·astmcture and operations. 

This version ofBNSF's request does not contain appendices B-F referenced in the request for 

exemption, which contains trade secret and commercial proprietary information that BNSF has not and 

will not share with others except under appropriate confidentiality agreements. The material contains 

operating conditions and procedures that are not available to the public and are protected fi·om release 

under the Freedom oflnformation Act. See 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. A complete copy ofBNSF's request, 

including the appendices for which BNSF is seeking confidential treatment, has been sent to Mark Bury, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation and Regulations to allow you and others 

within the agency who need to review all pottions of this exemption request complete, yet controlled, 

access to the documents. 

Your time and cooperation is much appreciated. 

c: Charles W. Shewmake, Vice President and General Counsel 
Gary Grissum 

Assistant Vice President 

Telecommunications 

BNSF Railway Company 

P.O. Box 961017 

Fort Worth, TX 76161-0017 

2400 Western Center Blvd. 

Fort Worth, Texas 76131-1322 

817 352-1919 tel 

817 352-3919 fax 

Gary.Grissum@bnsf.com 

September 2, 2014 

Mr. James Williams 

Manager, Flight Standards Service 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Request for exemption from multiple regulatory provisions to allow the use of small 

unmanned aerial systems on land controlled by BNSF Railway to assist in the safe 

evaluation of railroad infrastructure and operations 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) respectfully requests an exemption from several 

provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) to permit the use of small 

unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) to assist in the evaluation of railroad infrastructure and 

operations. This request is motivated primarily by the desire to maximize safety in railroad 

operations. While an exemption would not eliminate the current need for in-person visual track 

inspection required by the Federal Railroad Administration, it would allow BNSF to broadly 

evaluate assets and operations with sUAS, resulting in a safer and more efficient railroad 

network. Accordingly, the grant of an exemption is consistent with Congress’ intent, reflected in 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Modernization Act),1

 that safe 

systems be permitted in the national airspace prior to the issuance of final regulations governing 

general use of these systems.2

 A summary of this request suitable for publication in the Federal 

Register is provided as Appendix A. 

1 P.L. 112-95, 126 Stat 11, February 14, 2012. 

2 Section 333(b) (2) specifically contemplates that the FAA may issue a certificate of waiver upon a finding that a type 

of UAS, as a result of its size, weight, speed, operational capacity, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operations

within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security.
Mr. James Williams 

Page 2 

Background Information 

BNSF is a Class I freight railroad, as defined by the Surface Transportation Board. See 

49 C.F.R. Part 1201. The current BNSF rail system is the product of almost 400 different 

railroads, which were merged or acquired over nearly 160 years, culminating in the 1995 merger 

of the Burlington Northern Inc. and the Santa Fe Pacific Corporation to form the Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe Corporation. Today, BNSF operates more than 1600 trains a day over 32,500 

miles of track in 28 states. The BNSF rail network includes 13,000 bridges, 89 tunnels, and 

more than 26,000 grade crossings. BNSF either owns, or possesses exclusive easements for, the 

land over which it operates, and has sole possessory rights to this land.3 

Thousands of shippers use the BNSF system every day. The railroad moves millions of 

car loads every year, including agricultural products, consumer products (intermodal containers), 

industrial products (such as crude oil, stone, and chemicals) and coal. BNSF also moves food, 

mail, military equipment, automotive parts, and dozens of other categories of freight that are 

vital to communities across the United States. Given the volume and diversity of freight moved 

on the BNSF network, any disruptions or delays – due to mudslides, derailments, floods, or the 

like – can have serious consequences for shippers and the general public. For example, the coal 

hauled by BNSF powers more than one out of every ten homes in the nation. Accordingly, 

BNSF invests enormous resources to ensure the safety and viability of its rail system. In 2014 

alone, BNSF’s capital investment in its core network will be more than $2.3 billion. 

Indeed, nothing is more important to BNSF than safety. The railroad has 43,000 

employees. In 2013, the injury rate per 200,000 employee hours was less than 1.1, substantially 

less than the injury rate in the mining, truck transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, or 

aviation industries. Likewise, BNSF has worked hard and invested substantial resources to 

reduce the risk of grade-crossing incidents, which have fallen by about 68 percent since 1995. 

And BNSF is also focused on further reducing the risk of train accidents and derailments, the 

rate of which has also fallen sharply in the last 20 years. The investments that BNSF has made 

in safety in recent years include positive train control technology, mobile laser-based measuring 

devices, trackside detectors, and the like. BNSF is constantly exploring additional ways in 

which it can improve safety for its employees, its customers, and the public. 

Regulatory Basis for Exemption Request 

In addition to the waiver authority provided in §333 of the Modernization Act, the FAA 

may grant an exemption under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f) if it has determined that such an exemption 

is in the public interest. The FAA has imposed a separate requirement in its procedural 

regulations, providing that the petitioner shall explain why granting the exemption would not 

adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide at least an equivalent level of safety 

as compliance with the underlying regulation.4

 In this case, approval of this exemption would 

3

 BNSF has sole possessory interest of all land between 50 and 100 feet on either side of the centerline of 

the track. Thus, the total area of control is between 100 and 200 feet. This land remains subject to BNSF’s control. 

4

 14 C.F.R. §11.81(e). 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 3 

advance the public interest by significantly enhancing the safety and efficiency of rail operations 

and by providing the FAA with valuable user experience on sUAS in a context with appreciable 

economic and societal benefits. As described more fully below, the requested exemption would 

permit the operation of sUAS under tightly controlled conditions, thus ensuring that operations 

will not have an adverse impact on safety. To the contrary, as explained below, BNSF 

anticipates that use of sUAS will enhance safety in railroad operations. 

Granting an Exemption is in the Public Interest 

The safety and efficiency of railroad operations is heavily dependent upon constant 

analysis of trains, right-of-way, rail track and other assets/facilities. There are a wide variety of 

factors that can affect track conditions and cause problems for trains. Even relatively small 

objects on the rails or minor track failures can lead to derailments or other incidents. Extreme 

weather events can lead to track flooding or overheating (track can buckle or distort in high 

heat). Earthquakes, landslides, and abandoned vehicles at grade crossings can block track. The 

potential for sabotage and terrorism – or even just trespassing – are also among the many risks 

that modern railroads face. Vigilance is always the best defense against these hazards. 

As a result, pursuant to FRA regulations and company policy, BNSF track and bridge 

maintenance employees routinely inspect the tracks and the underlying infrastructure, such as 

bridges, tunnels, support structures, and signals. At present, this work is done primarily by 

company personnel in motor vehicles, on foot, in specialized rail equipment, or in rail-mounted 

hi-rail vehicles. This is often a labor-intensive and sometimes arduous job. While the railroad 

does all it can to make these inspections as safe as possible, there is an irreducible element of 

risk involved whenever employees are required to go out on track and rail structures. Employees 

may need to climb over or onto track structures, which can be slippery, rough, and/or exposed to 

the elements. Some structures, such as bridges, are high above the ground. Trains moving 

through inspection zones can increase risk as well, especially in high-traffic areas. While the use 

of sUAS for supplemental track, infrastructure and general asset evaluation would not eliminate 

these risks entirely (as it is an additive safety measure), it would reduce the risks to railroad 

employees by allowing for remote aerial review. 

Additionally, the sheer amount of BNSF assets and the widely dispersed locations – in 

many instances far from sizeable population centers – means that visual inspection in all 

instances by company personnel can be inefficient. For example, BNSF track crosses through 

extremely remote areas in Montana, Idaho, and the Pacific Northwest. Aerial analysis by 

traditional fixed wing aircraft is impractical because the required altitudes for safe flight reduce 

track visibility below meaningful levels – it is simply not possible to see all asset anomalies from 

such heights. By using sUAS for supplemental asset evaluation, BNSF will be able to 

substantially upgrade its capacity to detect and address issues with the right-of-way and other 

assets before they become a problem for train operations. Thus, the use of sUAS has the 

potential to improve efficiency, resulting in faster and safer delivery of goods vital to the U.S. 

economy. 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 4 

Granting an Exemption will not Adversely Affect Safety 

BNSF notes that there is no applicable standard for an equivalency determination. Some 

have argued that the appropriate standard is that for model aircraft, noting that their operations, if 

conducted for recreational purposes, would fall completely within the allowable operations for 

model aircraft. We believe it is difficult to argue that there is sufficient correlation between 

model operations controlled by the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the ones contemplated 

by BNSF. At the same time, it is clear that equivalency cannot be established for traditional, 

manned civil aircraft because the design and use profiles between traditional aircraft and sUAS 

are simply too different. As such, we believe it makes more sense to focus on why the 

contemplated operations would not adversely affect safety, which is all that §11.81(e) requires. 

Granting an exemption will not adversely affect safety. BNSF contemplates conducting 

sUAS operations over BNSF owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours, at altitudes 

well below that which would pose a risk to other aircraft. In general, sUAS operations are 

intended to be conducted in areas distant from both congested areas and airports. Moreover, 

because of the inherent risks presented by standard train operations, BNSF has already taken 

steps to secure its property against unauthorized public access. For example, substantial 

stretches of BNSF’s track are fenced, elevated, or otherwise secured to prevent access. Other 

long stretches of track are, as noted above, in very remote wilderness areas. The nature of 

operations anticipated by BNSF requires that the sUAS be flown at relatively low altitudes and 

relatively low speeds. BNSF expects that in most instances, the sUAS will be flown less than 75 

feet from the highest structure along the path of the sUAS. Accordingly, the risk of interference 

with another aircraft is minimal. BNSF also plans to conduct sUAS operations at least three 

miles from any public airports (including heliports). In the event an operation needs to be 

conducted closer to an airport, BNSF will inform the airport operator and airport air traffic 

control tower of the contemplated operation and will comply with any directions issued by air 

traffic control at that airport. Appendix B contains examples of the types of areas where BNSF 

initially intends to use the sUAS. 

BNSF initially intends to use a dedicated staff for sUAS operations. All operations will 

be within visual line-of-sight (i.e., no more than approximately 0.5 miles from the manipulator of 

the controls, or pilot in command (PIC)). The PIC will have a private pilot’s license and a valid 

third-class medical certificate.5

 Each PIC will conduct at least three take-offs and landings with 

the sUAS on which he or she is trained every 90 days. Depending on the type of operation, 

additional ground-based visual observers may be employed as well. These observers will be 

within constant visual line of sight and in constant contact with the PIC. The visual observers 

will assist the PIC in avoiding objects near the sUAS. 

5

 Once we have determined that the operations may be safely and reliably conducted for a sufficient variety 

of operations, BNSF may choose to expand the pool of operators beyond the initial cadre to include exempt and/or 

craft (union) employees.. We anticipate that it would be economically impractical to require each inspector to 

possess and maintain a valid private pilot’s license. At that time, BNSF may seek an amendment of any exemption, 

requesting the PIC only be required to have successfully completed FAA private ground instruction and passed a 

written pilot examination. 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 5 

BNSF intends to use the AirRobot AR180 and AR200 (a description of which is attached 

as Appendix C) and the 3DRobotics Spektre Industrial Multi-Rotor Aerial vehicle (a description 

of which is attached as Appendix D) in its sUAS operations. 

Support for Petition for Exemption 

In accordance with the procedural requirements of 14 C.F.R. §11.81, BNSF provides the 

following information: 

Contact Information 

Gary Grissum, Assistant Vice President 

Technology Services – Telecom 

BNSF Railway Company, 

2650 Lou Menk Drive. TOB 

Fort Worth, Texas 76131 

(817) 352 -1919 

Gary.Grissum@bnsf.com 

Regulatory Provisions from which BNSF seeks an Exemption 

BNSF believes it may need an exemption from the following provisions to conduct the 

contemplated operations. In some instances, relief is needed because relief from another 

provision renders compliance with the regulation at hand infeasible. 

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) 

14 C.F.R. §91.7(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.9(b)(2) 

14 C.F.R. §91.109(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.119 

14 C.F.R. §91.151 

14 C.F.R. §91.203(a) and (b) 

14 C.F.R. §91.405(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.407(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.409(a) 

BNSF believes an exemption is only needed from the above-listed regulatory provisions. 

To the extent that the FAA believes that additional relief is required for BNSF to conduct the 

operations described here, we request an exemption from any such regulatory provisions as 

well.6

 

6

 For example, 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a) imposes certain maintenance record keeping requirements “as 

applicable”. Since none of the underlying requirements (e.g., inspection intervals) can be met and will require an 

exemption, BNSF believes a separate exemption should not be required for §91.417(a). If the FAA prefers an 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 6 

The Extent of Requested Relief and the Reasons Relief is Needed 

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) 

§61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(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. 

***** 

BNSF anticipates initially using a cadre of specially trained staff to conduct the sUAS 

operations. While these individuals will have private pilot licenses, they will not hold 

commercial pilot licenses. The sUAS will not carry property for compensation or hire since they 

will be used solely to assist in evaluation of the railway, trains, right-of-way, assets, bridges, 

tunnels and out-buildings in furtherance of BNSF’s primary business, the successful operation of 

a railroad; however, the employees’ operation of the sUAS will not be incidental to their 

employment with BNSF, and they will be compensated for such work. Without an exemption, 

the pilot would be required to hold a commercial pilot certificate under §61.133. However, the 

risk associated with the contemplated operations is less than the risk posed by a traditional 

aircraft. The sUAS will fly at altitudes well below the permissible limits for other civil aircraft, 

eliminating the risk to other aircraft, and within a geographical envelope under the sole control of 

BNSF. Accordingly, the risk would be limited to BNSF personnel, who will be appropriately 

outfitted in safety gear, and BNSF property on the ground. Requiring a commercial pilot 

certificate would provide no appreciable safety benefit and would needlessly impose additional 

cost on BNSF. Because the contemplated operations would not comply with §61.113(b)(1) and 

none of the other exceptions to paragraph (a) apply, relief is needed from both paragraphs (a) and 

(b). 

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) 

§91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

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

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining 

whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall 

exemption for all provisions that reference an exempted provision, even when there is language that indicates some 

flexibility in interpretation, BNSF has no objection to the grant of the additional exemptions. 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 7 

discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural 

conditions occur. 

There is no clear definition of “airworthy,” and the term has been defined in various ways 

depending on the circumstances.7

 In all instances, it appears that the concept includes a 

requirement that the airplane 1) conforms to the aircraft’s type design or its type certificate, as 

modified by supplemental type certificates and airworthiness directives, and 2) be in condition 

for safe operations. The sUAS will not have a type design or type certificate, as the FAA has not 

developed standards applicable to sUAS. As discussed later in this document, the types of 

operations contemplated by BNSF will not qualify the sUAS for an experimental airworthiness 

certificate. Accordingly, relief from §91.7(a) is required. Should the FAA include airworthiness 

requirements as a condition of exercising the exemption, BNSF will assure the continued 

airworthiness of the sUAS. Regardless, BNSF believes that it can meet the requirements of 

§91.7(b) and is not requesting an exemption from that provision.

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2) 

§91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

*** 

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft -- 

*** 

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by §21.5 

of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved manual 

material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. 

***** 

The sUAS comes with access to online manuals that provide instructions for the safe 

operation and maintenance of the aircraft. Compliance with this regulatory provision is not 

possible because this information has not been, and cannot be, approved by the FAA since there 

are no applicable standards established by the FAA against which to evaluate it. Additionally, 

the sUAS is too small to carry a printed manual. Since, by definition, there will never be a 

person aboard the sUAS, BNSF submits that there is no need to require the manual to be placed 

on the sUAS and an exemption is appropriate. Safety will be maintained by keeping the flight 

manual at the ground control point where the PIC will have immediate access to it. Since the 

sUAS cannot be operated without the control box containing the manuals, there is minimal risk 

that the manuals will become separated from the sUAS, and BNSF will be able to immediately 

locate the manuals to effectuate any needed repairs on the sUAS detailed in the flight manual. 

14 C.F.R. 91.109 

§91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight

tests. 

7

 A good discussion of the various definitions of airworthy adopted by Congress, the FAA and the NTSB 

may be found in the Letter of Legal Interpretation from Rebecca MacPherson to Christopher Witkowski (March 26, 

2008). 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 8 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is 

being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual 

controls.... 

Small UASs, by their design, do not have fully functional dual controls. Flight control is 

accomplished through the use of a control box that communicates with the aircraft via radio 

communications. Aircraft being considered for use by BNSF allow the UAS Instructor to place 

the aircraft into ‘loiter’ mode (fixed altitude stationary hold). In the event of the student losing 

control, the UAS Instructor can quickly and via alternate equipment (equipment not in the hands 

of the student) place the aircraft into a mode that then allows the instructor to bring the aircraft 

back into control and back to the pre-determined and/or safe landing location. 

14 C.F.R. 91.119 

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft 

below the following altitudes: 

*** 

(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. 

***** 

BNSF submits that the only relief it requires from §91.119 is from the minimum altitudes 

listed in paragraph (c). Relief is required from paragraph (c) for fixed wing operations because 

asset evaluation conducted at 500 feet or higher is insufficiently distinct to be meaningful. Since 

operations at this altitude also pose a heightened risk of collision with another aircraft, safety can 

only be assured through the grant of an exemption. The anticipated rotorcraft operations should 

be adequately addressed by paragraph (d) (1). Additionally, relief should not be needed from 

paragraph (a) because an emergency landing of the aircraft due to a power failure will not create 

an undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. As noted in the explanation of why an 

exemption will not adversely affect safety, BNSF has exclusive use of the land over which the 

sUAS will be operated, and public access is restricted. It also has exclusive use of significant 

portions of land adjacent to the track, trains and structures that will be the objects of evaluation 

and analysis. We tightly control access to our land and have the ability to assure that no 

individuals unassociated with the planned operations are on the affected land. BNSF personnel 

are already required to wear mandatory safety equipment, including hard hats, safety glasses and 

steel-toe boots whenever dispatched to a work site. As such, the risk of injury is minimal. 

BNSF does not contemplate conducting operations over congested areas, so relief is not 

requested from paragraph (b). 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 9 

14 C.F.R. 91.151 

§91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(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. 

(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.

Operating the sUAS in a pre-defined area with less than 30 minutes of reserve fuel does 

not raise the type of risk contemplated by §91.151, i.e., that an aircraft could run out of fuel in 

the event it has to be flown to an alternate airport or circle the planned airport in the event of 

unanticipated conditions. BNSF does not intend to use the sUAS for point-to-point flights and 

will not operate the sUAS beyond visual line of sight. Nor will the sUAS require an airport in 

order to land. Rather, BNSF will operate the sUAS using pre-planned flight paths (taking into 

account weather conditions) designed to allow the sUAS to fly to the point of intended landing. 

As such, there is no need for a time-based excess fuel requirement. Rather it should be sufficient 

to require only as much additional excess flight capacity as necessary to safely land the sUAS. 

We believe that a 20% fuel reserve is more than sufficient to meet this objective. 

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b) 

§ 91.203 Civil Aircraft: Certifications required.

(a) Except as provided in §91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it 

has within it the following: 

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. *** 

(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for 

operations within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft 

Registration Application as provided for in §47.31(c), or a registration 

certification issued under the laws of a foreign country. 

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate 

required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued 

under §91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to 

passengers or crew. 

***** 

The sUAS that BNSF intends to operate will not qualify for an airworthiness certificate 

unless the FAA chooses to issue them a restricted category certificate. This is because the sUAS 

do not meet the current conditions for either a standard airworthiness certificate or an 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 10 

experimental airworthiness certificate. Notably, under 14 C.F.R. §21.191,8 experimental 

airworthiness certificates are only available for research and development, showing compliance 

with regulations, crew training, exhibitions, air racing, market surveys, operating amateur-built 

aircraft, operating primary kit-built aircraft and operating light-sport aircraft. Until such time as 

the FAA develops airworthiness standards applicable to sUAS for non-recreational and nonexperimental use, BNSF submits that the FAA should consider exemptions to the requirements 

of §91.203(a). The absence of such exemptions hinders the development of sUAS and 

applicable uniform standards since it is only through the development of the aircraft that the 

FAA can reliably evaluate them and determine appropriate design standards. 

Section 333 of the Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to exempt aircraft from the 

requirement for an airworthiness certificate based on a consideration of the size, weight, speed, 

operational capability of the particular UAS, as well as its proximity to airports and populated 

areas. An analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the sUAS operated without an 

airworthiness certificate in the areas and under the conditions contemplated by BNSF will be at 

least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an 

airworthiness certificate without the conditions proposed in this request. The sUAS is less than 

55 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, and operates exclusively within a 

secured area as set out in the BNSF UAS Operating Manual (a copy of which is attached as 

Appendix E). Unlike other civil aircraft, operations under this exemption will be tightly 

controlled and monitored by the operator and observer. Operations will be conducted in 

compliance with the FAA and with local public safety requirements to provide security for the 

area of operation as is now done with conventional train, track, bridge and out building 

evaluation. These safety enhancements provide an expanded degree of safety to the railway 

inspectors over conventional operations. Lastly, application of these same criteria demonstrates 

that there is no credible threat to national security posed by the sUAS, due to its size, speed of 

operation, location of operation, lack of explosive materials and inability to carry a substantial 

external load. 

If the FAA waives the requirements of paragraph (a) (1), then it is technically impossible 

to comply with paragraph (b), so an exemption is merited there as well. 

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a), 91.407(a) (1) and 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a) 

§91.405 Maintenance required.

Each owner or operator of an aircraft – 

(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; 

***** 

8

 BNSF is not seeking an exemption from 14 C.F.R. part 21, subpart H (including §21.191) because those 

regulatory provisions merely provide the conditions under which an experimental airworthiness certificate is 

appropriate and procedures for obtaining a certificate if those conditions are met. The actual obligation to fly only 

aircraft with a valid airworthiness certificate, and therefore the need for regulatory relief, is found in part 91. 
Mr. James Williams 

Page 11 

 

§91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration. 

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

rebuilding, or alteration unless – 

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

§43.7 of this chapter; 

***** 

§91.409 Inspections. 

(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. 

***** 

 BNSF believes that an exemption from these three maintenance requirements is 

appropriate because the FAA has not developed maintenance standards that would allow an 

operator to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. In particular, there are no individuals 

authorized by the FAA to approve a sUAS for return to service under §91.407(a) or to conduct 

the initial airworthiness and annual return to service inspections required by §91.409(a). BNSF 

will maintain the aircraft as instructed in the owner’s manual and ASTM F2909, where 

applicable, and will not operate the aircraft until it has reasonably determined that any needed 

repairs have been made. However, because of the technical impossibility of meeting the 

requirements of §§91.405(a), 407(a) and 409(a), we believe an exemption from these provisions 

is appropriate. 

 Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e-mail address 

provided above should you have any questions or concerns. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 Gary Grissum 

 BNSF Railway Company 

cc: Jo-Ann Olsovsky 

Charles W. Shewmake 

Encl. 
Appendix A 

Summary for Federal Register Publication 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal 

Register should the FAA determine that publication is needed. 

Petitioner: BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) 

Sections of 14 C.F.R. Affected: 

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) 

14 C.F.R. §91.7(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.9(b) (2) 

14 C.F.R. §91.109(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.119 

14 C.F.R. §91.151 

14 C.F.R. §91.203(a) and (b) 

14 C.F.R. §91.405(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.407(a) 

14 C.F.R. §91.409(a) 

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§45.29, 

61.113(a)&(b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.119, 91.121(a), 91.151, 91.203(a) &(b), 91.405(a), 

91.407(a) and 91.409(a) to conduct sUAS operations over BNSF owned or controlled land, 

solely during daylight hours, to assist in the safe evaluation and analysis of railroad infrastructure 

and operations. In general, sUAS operations are intended to be conducted in areas remote from 

both congested areas and airports. The nature of operations anticipated by BNSF requires that 

the sUAS be flown at relatively low altitudes. BNSF expects that in most instances, the sUAS 

will be flown less than 75 feet from the highest structure along the path of the sUAS and in no 

instances will be flown higher than 400 feet above the ground. Accordingly, the risk of 

interference with other aircraft is minimal.