TF Drones Lawsuit

7/24/2019 TF Drones Lawsuit

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tf-drones-lawsuit 1/5

L

TI E

U

NIT

ED

S

T T

ES

OU

RT

OF

P

P

LS’

L R

K

FO

R T

DI

STR

I T

OF

COL

UM

BIM

tIRC

ILT

1

t

:

L9

T

Y

TECHFREEDOM

Peti

tion

er

v

.

Cas

e No.

6

6

2

F

EDE

RA

L

AVI

ATI

ON

A

DMI

NIS

TRA

TIO

N

Respondent.

P

ETIT

ION

FO

R R

EVI

EW

P

ursu

ant

to

49

U

.S.C

.

461

10, 5

U.S

.C.

706

,

a

nd

Ru

le 15

a of

t

he

Fed

eral Rule

s

of App

ellat

e

Pro

cedu

re

T

echF

reed

om

resp

ectf

ully

p

etiti

ons

this Co

urt

for

re

view

o

f an

in

terim

fina

l ru

le

of

t

he Fede

ral

Av

iatio

n

A

dmi

nistr

ation

“

FAA

” se

tting

for

th

regis

trati

on

and m

ark

ing

req

uirem

ent

s

for

sm

all u

nman

ned

airc

raft

80

F

ed. R

eg. 7859

3 D

ec.

1

6,

2

015

. A co

py

o

f

the

in

terim fi

nal

ru

le

is a

ttach

ed

as

Ex

hibi

t

the “I

FR”

Th

is Petit

ion

is b

eing

tim

ely

f

iled w

ith

the C

our

t w

ithin

sixty

days

o

f the issu

ance

of

the

I

FR p

ursu

ant

to

49

U.S.

C.

46

110

a

an

d

cal

cula

ted

in

ac

cord

ance

with

Fe

dera

l

R

ule of

App

ella

te P

roce

dur

e

26 a

1

.

Venue

is

proper

in

this

Court

pursuant

to

49

U.S.C.

46110 a .

USCA Case #16-1062 Document #1599144 Filed: 02/17/2016 of 5



F

ound

ed in

20

10,

Tec

hFre

edo

m

is a

non

pro

fit

non

par

tisan

5

01 c

) 3

t

ax e

xem

pt think

tan

k

dedi

cated

to

edu

catin

g

p

olicy

mak

ers

th

e

m

edi

a a

nd t

he

p

ubli

c

abo

ut

Inte

rnet po

licy. W

e

de

fend th

e f

reed

om t

o

tin

ker

an

d inno

vate

as

w

ell

as

th

e fre

edo

m of ex

pres

sion u

sing

ne

w

tec

hno

logie

s

s

uch

as

“

dron

es,” i.e

.,

sma

ll u

nma

nned a

ircra

ft

syste

ms.

Tec

hFre

edo

m has

pur

chas

ed a d

rone t

ha t

it w

ish

es

to ope

rate in

the

national

airspace system.

However

because

this

drone weighs more

than

2

50

g

rams

Tec

hFre

edom

is p

roh

ibite

d fr

om ope

ratin

g

this

dron

e

u

nles

s

it abid

es

by

the

IFR

’s

regi

strat

ion

requ

irem

ent

an

d

pay

s

a

5.0

0 fe

e. See

80

Fed

.

Reg

.

785

93, 78

645

—64

8 to

be

cod

ifie

d a

t

1

4

C

.F.R

.

48 .

1—

.205

.

The IFR

is

contrary

to

law,

as Section

336 of the

FAA

Modernization

and

R

efor

m

A

ct of 20

12 p

rohi

bits

the

age

ncy

from “p

rom

ulga

t[ing

j any

rule

or reg

ulat

ion rega

rdin

g

a m

odel

aircr

aft

n

otw

ithst

andi

ng any

o

ther prov

isio

n

o

f

law r

elati

ng

to the

inco

rpor

ation of

unm

anne

d

aircr

aft

sys

tem

s

into

Federal

Aviation

Administration

plans and policies.”

Pub.

L. No. 11

2-95

,

336

c , 126

S

tat.

11.

M

oreo

ver

e

ven i

f C

ong

ress

h

ad not en

acte

d

t

his

prov

isio

n the IFR

ex

ceed

s

the FA

A’s

a

utho

rity

to req

uire

the r

egist

ratio

n

of

a

ircra

ft

und

er

4

9

U.S

.C.

44

101

—10

6, a

s

it

purp

orts

t

o requ

ire

the r

egis

tratio

n

o

f

2




per

sons

wh

o o

wn

mo

del airc

raft—

no

t

of the

airc

raft

the

msel

ves.

See

80

Fe

d.

Reg

.

78

593

, 786

47 to

be c

odif

ied

t

14

C.

F.R.

48

.115

.

F

inal

ly

t

he

age

ncy

pr

omu

lgate

d

the

IFR

w

ithou

t

ob

serv

ance

o

f

pr

oced

ure

requ

ired

b

y

law

, a

s

t

he

FA

A

fa

iled

to sho

w go

od

c

ause

for

disp

ensin

g wit

h

the

Adm

inist

rativ

e

Pro

cedu

re

Act’

s no

tice

and

com

men

t

ru

lem

akin

g

pro

cess

. S

ee

5 U.

S.C.

553

b 3

B .

Thus

the

F

AA

’s

ac

tion

s

are

unlawful as

they

were

“arbitrary

capricious

an

abuse

of

dis

creti

on

[

and

d

oneJ wi

thou

t o

bser

vanc

e

o

f

proc

edur

e

req

uired

b

y

law

[.]”

5

U.

S.C.

7

06 .

Acc

ord

ingly

Te

chF

reedo

m

re

spec

tful

ly

r

eque

sts t

h

t

this

o

ur

t h

old

unlawful

vacate enjoin

and set

aside

the

IFR

and

th t

it

provide such

add

ition

al re

lief

as

m

ay

be

app

ropr

iate.

Da

ted:

Fe

brua

ry 16

2

016

Res

pect

fully

sub

mitte

d

R

aym

ond

B.

Spe

rry

M

ary

land

Av

e.,

NE

S

uite

409

W

ashin

gton

DC 2

0002

8

14 7

24 5

659

b

sper

ry@

techf

reed

om.o

rg

C

oun

sel

fo

r

Peti

tione

r

3




COR

POR

AT

E

DI

SCL

OSU

RE

S

TAT

EM

ENT

ur

su

n

t

to F

eder

al

Rule

of

App

ellat

e

P

roce

dure

2

6 1 a

nd

D C

Ci

rcuit

Rule

26

1 T

ech

Free

dom

has

no

p

aren

t c

orpo

ratio

n

and

no

pub

licly

hel

d cor

pora

tion

own

s 10

per

cent

o

r m

ore

of its st

ock

Date

d:

F

ebru

ary 16

2

016

R

esp

ectfu

lly

s

ubm

itted

Ray

mon

d

B

Sper

ry

11

0

Mar

ylan

d

Ave

N

E

Su

ite

4

09

Was

hing

ton

DC

20

002

8

14 7

24 5

659

bspe

rry@

tec

hfree

dom

.org

Co

unse

l fo

r

Petit

ione

r




CER

TIF

ICAT

E

O

F SER

VIC

E

I h

ereb

y

c

erti

fy

that

on

F

ebru

ary 16

201

6

I

caus

ed

on

e

cop

y of th

e

fo

rego

ing

P

etiti

on

for R

evie

w

to b

e

se

rved o

n

the fo

llow

ing

b

y U S

m

ail

M

ich

ael P

Hue

rta

Ad

min

istra

tor

F

eder

al

A

via

tion

Adm

inis

tratio

n

800 Inde

pen

denc

e

A

venu

e S

W

W

ashi

ngto

n DC

20

591

Res

pond

ent

Ray

mon

d

B

S

perr

y

C

ouns

el for Pe

titio

ner


TF Drones Lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of TF Drones Lawsuit