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 ation Admin istration (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 ofTransportation 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 publ ished 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 ofthe landowner' s domain[;]" that " the Rules are not in accordance with applicable laws[; ] " that "[t ]h

e Rules are published wit hout 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 alr eady been published and is effective, the FAA is processing it as a petition for rulernaking to repeal a curr ent 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 ofthe 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 i ssues 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 of20 12 (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 on ly recently become effective, on August 29 , 2016. Conducting another rulemaking to repeal the newly-effective rule wou ld not further the safety or security concerns for the operation of sma ll 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 ofthe rulemaki ng , the FAA received several comments rais ing the same or s imilar issues involving privacy and property rights. For example, several organizations submitted comments asserting that UAS operations shou ld 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 adjud ication ofprivate property rights is beyond the scope of the rule. Accordingly , the preamble s tate s 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 address ing privacy concerns and will lend its insight a nd 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 fu ll NEPA analysis and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). T he FAA received a number of comments during the rulemaking concerni ng 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 s ignificant 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 extraor dinar y circumstances do not exist and therefore neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an EIS is warranted. See 8 1 FR 42186-90.Because the FAA has already considered and discussed the principal issues 

### in your petition, it would not be an efficient use ofthe 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 seekjudicial 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. Ifthe 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/regu lations/r e port-ons ignificant-rulemaking s).

• 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/pub lic/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