John Taylor v. Michael Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089

FAA promulgated a 2015 Registration Rule requiring registration, fee, identification display, and penalties for all small unmanned aircraft, including hobby "model aircraft."
Congress in 2012 enacted §336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which provides that the FAA "may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft," and defines "model aircraft" (hobby/recreational, VLOS).
The FAA also replaced Advisory Circular 91-57 with 91-57A in 2015, which, among other things, prohibited model aircraft operations in certain restricted areas (including the Washington, D.C. Flight Restricted Zone) without authorization.
Petitioner John Taylor, a D.C.-area model aircraft hobbyist, challenged both the Registration Rule and Advisory Circular 91-57A in this Court.
The court held that the Registration Rule, insofar as it applies to model aircraft, conflicts with §336 and is unlawful; the petition challenging Advisory Circular 91-57A was denied as untimely under the 60-day statutory filing requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a prohibited “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft” under §336	Taylor: §336 bars FAA from promulgating any rule regarding model aircraft, so the Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft	FAA: The registration obligation stems from pre-existing registration statutes; the Rule is an enforcement/administrative decision or application of existing law, not a new rule barred by §336	Held: The Registration Rule is a rule “regarding a model aircraft” and thus unlawful as applied to model aircraft; vacated to that extent
Whether Advisory Circular 91-57A is reviewable on the merits under §336	Taylor: The Circular imposes restrictions on model aircraft and thus violates §336	FAA: (implicitly) Circular is guidance affecting safety and not barred; also published and effective	Held: Court did not reach merits because Taylor’s petition was untimely under 49 U.S.C. §46110(a); petition denied
Whether Taylor had reasonable grounds for filing late against the Advisory Circular	Taylor: FAA failed to provide adequate notice and the Circular was confusing, so late filing is reasonable	FAA: Circular was published in the Federal Register; publication is sufficient notice; confusion is not enough	Held: Publication provided sufficient notice; Taylor’s ignorance/confusion did not establish reasonable grounds; late petition not allowed

Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (statutory text and structure control over policy arguments)
Avia Dynamics, Inc. v. FAA, 641 F.3d 515 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (ignorance of an FAA order not ordinarily "reasonable grounds" to excuse a late petition)