Exemption No. 10029 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

RICHARD D. BLOSSER Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1223

 

for an exemption from § 61.303(b)(2) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated November 1, 2008, Mr. Richard D. Blosser, 3037 Lakeview Terrace, 

Fullerton, CA 92835 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption 

from § 61.303(b)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would allow him to operate a light-sport aircraft using a U.S. driver’s 

license without having been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third class airman 

medical certificate at the time of his most recent application. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.303(b)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person using a U.S. driver's 

license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must have been found eligible for 

the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her 

most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate). 

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

The petitioner requests an exemption from § 61.303(b)(2). He states the rule is selfincriminating and a violation of the 5th amendment. Mr. Blosser states that if he 

applies for a third-class airman medical certificate and fails, he would not meet the 

medical provisions of § 61.303 and therefore could not legally operate a light-sport 

aircraft. 

AFS-09-048-E 
2

Mr. Blosser further states that if he does not apply for a third-class airman medical 

certificate and meets all the other requirements of § 61.303 he can “self-certify” and 

legally operate a light-sport aircraft. The petitioner believes this process is selfincriminating and therefore a violation of his 5th amendment rights. 

The petitioner states that as a sergeant with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department 

Aero Squadron between 1990 and 2001, he flew more than 59 missions, mostly using 

his personal airplane. In addition, Mr. Blosser states as a member of the city of 

Fullerton’s Emergency Response Team between 1990 and 2002 he flew at least 57 

authorized air missions. The petitioner contends that both the county and city flights 

were at no costs to any government agency. The petitioner states that he absorbed all 

the costs of the flights when using his personal airplane and received no compensation 

when using the county’s aircraft. 

The petitioner states that a grant of exemption would allow him to again donate his 

services to both the City of Fullerton and Orange County. 

 The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s request and supporting information and 

finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not 

provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulation. 

Medical certification standards have been established by the FAA in accordance with 

its statutory mandate to prescribe regulations and minimum standards the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. Section 61.303 has been 

promulgated in accordance with this authority and does not require an individual to 

make any self-incriminating statement for the purpose of operating a light-sport 

aircraft. The regulation establishes a minimum medical certification requirement for the 

operation of a light-sport aircraft and only serves to prohibit a person from operating a 

light-sport aircraft when certain conditions exist. 

The FAA’s intent in permitting a driver’s license to be used as one form of medical 

certification was set forth in the Final Rule, “Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for 

the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft (69 FR 44772; July 27, 2004). In this Final Rule 

the FAA considered the circumstances under which a U.S. driver’s license should be 

permitted to be used in lieu of a valid airman medical certificate and revised the 

medical certification provisions originally proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making (67 FR 5368; February 2, 2002). 
3

These revisions were based on the FAA’s concern that a pilot whose airman medical 

certificate had been denied, suspended, or revoked or whose Authorization for Special 

Issuance of a Medical Certificate (Authorization) had been withdrawn, would be 

allowed to operate light-sport aircraft other than gliders and balloons under the 

proposed rule. Possession of a U.S. driver’s license alone is not enough to dispel this 

concern. For this reason, the regulations permit using a U.S. driver’s license as 

evidence of medical qualification only under certain conditions. If a person has applied 

for an airman medical certificate, that person must have been found eligible for the 

issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most 

recent application. The FAA does not consider failure to be found eligible for the 

issuance of an airman medical certificate to be self-incriminatory. Additionally, that 

person’s most recently issued airman medical certificate (if the person has held a 

medical certificate) must not have been suspended or revoked . If a person has been 

granted an Authorization for Issuance of a Medical Certificate, that Authorization must 

also not have been withdrawn 

These provisions apply only to persons who have held or applied for an airman medical 

certificate or who have been granted an Authorization. They do not require the pilot of 

a light-sport aircraft to apply for an airman medical certificate. The words “most 

recent application” refer to the latest medical application that is on file with the FAA 

and on which action was taken. In addition, the words “most recently issued airman 

medical certificate” refer to the latest airman medical certificate on file with the FAA. 

 

In addition, § 61.303(b)(4) explicitly provides that a sport pilot may not use a U.S. 

driver’s license in lieu of a valid airman medical certificate if the pilot knows or has 

reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate 

a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner. This reiterates the general requirement of 

§ 61.53, which prohibits a person from “acting as pilot in command, or in any other 

capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason 

to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate the 

aircraft in a safe manner” when conducting operations requiring a medical certificate or 

a U.S. driver’s license. Section § 61.303(b)(4) ensures that a person using a driver’s 

license to exercise sport pilot privileges realizes that he or she must meet this 

requirement. This regulation does not require a sport pilot to qualify for an airman 

medical certificate, but if an individual has any question about his or her medical 

capacity to fly, that person should consult his or her personal physician. The individual 

still has the responsibility to determine whether he or she meets the provisions of 

 § 61.53. 

The regulation states that for a sport pilot to use a driver’s license as a method of 

meeting medical requirements to operate a light-sport aircraft other than a glider or 

balloon, that person must have been found eligible for the issuance of a medical 

certificate on his or her most recent application for an airman medical certificate. It 

would be contrary to safety to waive the so-called “denied medical” clause. The FAA 
4

imposed regulatory conditions based on concern for minimal number of affected pilots 

who might otherwise exercise sport pilot privileges without first resolving known 

medical ineligibility issues. In those cases where the FAA has existing knowledge of 

medical ineligibility, the affected individual must address it and, as happens in many 

cases, have it resolved. In some denial cases, applicants simply may not have provided 

enough information to the FAA or may have not have supplied information that the 

FAA may have requested. In certain other denial cases, applicants may have not 

exercised their appeal rights which, had they been exercised, may have led to 

certification in some cases. 

The FAA’s Decision: 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Richard D. Blosser for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 61.303(b)(2) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 2010. 

/s/ 

Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon