"Taylor I" Case Status Updates (only) - RC Groups
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by JohnATaylor, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
May 29, 2017, 11:42 AM
Registered User
Announce

"Taylor I" Case Status Updates (only)


This thread will be used for case status updates only.

Discussion, which is certainly welcome, should take place in other threads. Thanks.

Below are links to the significant documents from the “Taylor I” case. That case challenged recreational model aircraft registration requirements and the imposition of the DC- SFRA 30-mile “no fly” zone around Washington, D.C.

The Regulation:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2015-31750.pdf

The Advisory Circular (AC91-57A):
http://bit.ly/2r4rVn5

Taylor Brief:
http://bit.ly/28ADz7H

FAA Brief:
http://bit.ly/2aDPjgT

Taylor Reply Brief:
http://bit.ly/2bme0ys

Oral Argument:
http://bit.ly/2n7eFNo

Court Order:
http://bit.ly/2qz1p5h

Court Opinion:
http://bit.ly/2q0tiAB

Stay Order:
http://bit.ly/2rxvxjc

The opinion, which struck down the new Part 48 online registration process, focused exclusively upon the regulatory prohibitions contained in Sec. 336(a) of the Modernization and Reform Act (http://bit.ly/2rxpQ4v).

The Brief, however, raised additional issues that the court did not address – such as whether model aircraft are properly “aircraft” under our statutory and regulatory scheme, and whether the FAA has legislative authority to regulate low-altitude activities that don’t directly affect the traditional navigable airspace. Those issues were raised, in part, to ensure that the FAA does not attempt to force model aircraft to be registered under Part 47 (used for full-sized aircraft). The Brief also challenged whether the FAA properly followed the Notice and Comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and whether the registry was truly a registry of aircraft, rather than of people.

The Brief also challenged the application, to model aircraft, of the 30-mile “no fly” zone around DC – which was first embodied in AC91-57A. This challenge was based on many of the same grounds as the registration challenge. It also challenged the FAA’s ability to prohibit behavior through an advisory circular. The FAA did not publicly announce that D.C. was “a no drone zone” until several months after issuing the advisory circular. The court ruled that the challenge was raised too late.

The ruling was issued on May 19, 2017, but does not become effective until the clerk issues a “mandate.” The court ordered that the mandate be held until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. The FAA has 45 days to file such a motion. By my calculation, the mandate could issue July 5, 2017, or upon disposition of any motion by the FAA, whichever occurs later.

It may be telling that the FAA has announced that they only, “encourage registration for all drone operators,” while they consider their options.

Use your own judgment. None of this is intended as legal advice.

In any event, the court’s ruling is limited to the online registration process for recreational hobbyists. It does not affect any other requirements.

The Taylor II case, addressed in a separate thread, addresses the FAA’s authority to create 14 C.F.R. 101.41, and the inclusion of all non-336 conforming activities into Part 107. It raises many of the same issues as the first case regarding whether model aircraft are properly “aircraft” under our statutory and regulatory scheme, and whether the FAA has legislative authority to regulate low-altitude activities that don’t directly affect the traditional navigable airspace.

Again, please do not post comments, etc. in this thread, but feel free to post them elsewhere.

Thanks.
Last edited by JohnATaylor; May 29, 2017 at 11:50 AM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jul 03, 2017, 12:50 PM
Registered User
Not legal advice:

The Court issued its mandate today, making official the ruling and the vacating of the registration regulation as it applies to model aircraft.

Here is the order:
http://bit.ly/2tENaxN

Early media quotes from the FAA said only that they were considering their options. Now that the registry regulation is officially vacated, the FAA will have to answer to people who want the data deleted and the millions of dollars returned. Both were unlawfully obtained.
Jul 03, 2017, 01:41 PM
Registered User
The FAA website explains the process for those who registered to get their information deleted and receive a refund of any registration fee paid:
http://bit.ly/2uDoQcM
Last edited by JohnATaylor; Jul 03, 2017 at 02:07 PM.


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Taylor v. FAA Update JohnATaylor Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 1399 May 29, 2017 11:54 AM
Question Status light fails to turn on when plugged in sanders15 Multirotor Drone Talk 0 Sep 13, 2016 07:31 PM
Question Status light not on sanders15 Beginner Multirotor Drones 7 Aug 03, 2016 01:06 PM