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 5 th 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-E2

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” andlegally operate a light-sport aircraft. The petitioner believes this process is selfincriminating and therefore a violation of his 5 th 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 (Author ization) 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 Me dical 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 FAA4

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