Comment from Timothy Ritze

Public Comment on Federal Jurisdiction Limits and the Definition of Navigable Airspace for Intrastate Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Operations Docket ID: FAA-2015-0150 I am writing to submit formal comment regarding the geographic and jurisdictional scope of 14 CFR Part 107. Specifically, I urge the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to clarify and limit its assertion of exclusive "navigable airspace" jurisdiction when applied to low-altitude (0–200 feet Above Ground Level) commercial sUAS operations conducted purely within intrastate commerce over private residential real estate.I request that the FAA consider the following legal and operational distinctions:1. Re-Evaluating the Definition of "Navigable Airspace" Under United States v. CausbyThe FAA’s historical position that its jurisdiction extends "from the ground up" conflicts with the foundational principles established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). The Court explicitly rejected the ancient doctrine that property ownership extends infinitely to the heavens, but simultaneously affirmed that a landowner owns "at least as much of the space above the ground as he can use or occupy in connection with the land."In non-airport, low-altitude residential environments (specifically 0–200 feet AGL), sUAS operations occur within the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere that homeowners occupy and utilize. This airspace is not inherently a "highway" for manned, public air traffic. Treating the immediate, low-altitude envelope above a private home as part of the National Airspace System (NAS) overextends the statutory definition of "navigable airspace" and infringes upon traditional state and local property rights. 2. Intrastate Commerce and Limits of the Commerce ClauseThe broad enforcement of Part 107 licensing requirements on local business transactions represents an overreach of federal power under the Commerce Clause. When a local operator uses a drone to capture photographs of a residential property for a local client, and the entire commercial transaction begins, executes, and concludes within a single state, the activity constitutes purely intrastate commerce. Unlike manned commercial aircraft designed for interstate transit, the vast majority of small, commercial quadcopters lack the range, capability, or operational intent to cross state lines or intersect interstate commerce channels. Because these localized operations do not substantially affect interstate commerce, asserting exclusive federal regulatory jurisdiction over them lacks solid constitutional grounding. 3. Proposed Solution: A Shared Jurisdictional Framework To avoid a regulatory "patchwork quilt" while respecting constitutional bounds, the FAA should establish a clear, bright-line minimum threshold for exclusive federal aviation safety authority. I propose that localized, commercial sUAS flights operating entirely within visual line of sight, under 200 feet AGL in non-congested residential environments, and outside of airport lateral boundaries or active controlled airspace, be exempt from Part 107 federal licensing requirements. Responsibility for these localized, low-altitude residential operations should be deferred to state-level commercial laws and local trespass/privacy statutes. This exemption would preserve the FAA's necessary 400-foot authority over higher-risk commercial infrastructure and dense transit corridors while correcting a jurisdictional overreach over private homes. Thank you for your time and your consideration of these comments.