U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

SEP 2 3 2016 

Michael Bamford 

3031 Ridge Road 

Hartwell, GA 30365 

Dear Mr. Bamford: 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

This is in response to your letter dated July 28, 2016, posted to the public docket 

(No. F AA-20 15-0 150) petitioning the Federal A vi at ion Administration (FAA) to 

withdraw or repeal part 107 ofTitle 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). You sent 

a follow-up letter dated July 29, 2016 to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx 

regarding the petition. In your petition, you request that the FAA and the Department of 

Transportation withdraw or repeal and/or stay the recently published part 107 on the 

grounds that "the Rules authorize and allow drones to fly at low-altitude through the 

Private Zone, which is by law part of the landowner's domain[;]" that " the Rules are not 

in accordance with applicable laws[;]" that "[t]he Rules are published without the 

necessary assessments and analysis and therefore are procedurally deficient[, and that] 

this failure to act results in a procedural due process violation." 

Because your petition pertains to a final rule that has already been published and is 

effective, the FAA is processing it as a petition for rulernaking to repeal a current 

regulation, pursuant to 14 CFR Part 11 . In accordance with 14 CFR § 11. 73, the FAA 

may use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend or 

repeal current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking: 

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues. 

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the 

guidelines found in§ 11.73, we determined the issues you raised do not meet the criteria 

to pursue rulemaking at this time. While we appreciate your interest in the final rule, the 

FAA is dismissing your petition based on the following reasons. 
The "Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems" final rule was 

promulgated for the safe operation of small unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS"), 

pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 (Pub. L. 112-95), section 

333, and 49 U.S.C. §§ 40103(b) and 44701(a)(5). See 81 FR 42067. We note that the 

rule has only recently become effective, on August 29, 2016. Conducting another 

rulemaking to repeal the newly-effective rule would not further the safety or security 

concerns for the operation of small UAS in the national airspace system. 

2 

In addition, the issues raised in your petition surrounding private property rights and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 el seq, were considered by 

the FAA and are addressed in the preamble to the rule. In principal part, your petition 

contends that the rule impermissibly allows small UAS to intrude upon private property 

rights. During the public comment period of the rulemaking, the FAA received several 

comments raising the same or similar issues involving privacy and property rights. For 

example, several organizations submitted comments asserting that UAS operations 

should not be permitted over private property without advance authorization given by the 

business or property owner. See 81 FR 42192. Another commenter proposed a 1 00-foot 

limit for incidental incursions and a 300-foot limit for intentional flight across private 

property without permission. See 81 FR 42119. 

The FAA emphasizes in the preamble that its authority to undertake the rulemaking is 

focused on the safe operations of small UAS. As the FAA's authority does not extend to 

the privacy interests between third parties, any adjudication of private property rights is 

beyond the scope of the rule. Accordingly, the preamble states that it would be 

"overreaching" for the FAA to enact regulations concerning privacy rights. See 81 FR 

42192. The Agency noted, however, that State law and other legal protections may 

already provide recourse for a person whose individual privacy and private property 

rights may be impacted by a remote pilot's use of a UAS. Moreover, the FAA recognizes 

the importance of addressing privacy concerns and will lend its insight and expertise 

regarding aviation safety issues to the development of consensus best practices for civil 

use ofUAS. See id. 

With respect to NEPA, your petition asserts that the Agency failed to perform a full 

NEPA analysis and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The FAA received a number 

of comments during the rulemaking concerning NEPA and the rule's potential 

environmental impact. The FAA considered the comments and, based on available 

information, determined that the small UAS rule does not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human environment. We note that this determination 

does not mean there are no environmental impacts, only that the potential environmental 

impacts are not likely to be significant. The FAA found that the small UAS rule fell 

within the scope of a listed categorical exclusion (CA TEX) in FAA Order 1050.1 F and 

that extraordinary circumstances do not exist and therefore neither an environmental 

assessment (EA) nor an EIS is warranted. See 81 FR 42186-90. 
Because the FAA has already considered and discussed the principal issues in your 

petition, it would not be an efficient use of the Agency's limited resources to undertake a 

rulemaking, based upon your petition, for the repeal ofthe small UAS rule. 

Finally, your petition includes legal arguments concerning the preemption of property 

rights and procedural deficiencies in the issuance of the rule. Although we respectfully 

disagree with your arguments, the FAA does not believe it appropriate to examine these 

ancillary legal issues through this letter. As we noted in the preamble, preemption is 

beyond the scope of the rule. The FAA addresses preemption issues on a case-by-case 

basis. See 81 FR 42194. As mentioned in your petition, affected persons are entitled to 

seek judicial review of an agency rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U .S.C. 

§ 702 et seq. 

Your comments and arguments for the proposed rule change in your petition will be 

placed in a database, which we will examine when we consider future rulemaking. 

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find 

out and track it through one of the two following websites: 

• For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation's (DOT) website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings). 

• For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT's semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget's 

(OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair's (OIRA) Unified 

Agenda website (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

3 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73. 

Sincerely, 

Director, 

Office of Rulemaking