On December 18, 2024, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced its intent to stay the implementation of a new policy that would affect hundreds of airmen who hold valid medical certificates and are pursuing renewal, as well as airmen without valid medicals who are pursuing their certifications. On February 28, 2025, the FAA once again delayed its implementation of the “Initial Denial Policy.” [i] In a previous article[MB1] , I discussed the proposed policy, the potential consequences of that policy, and the aviation community’s discontent over the policy. In response to the feedback received during a listening session on April 23, 2025, Acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau stated the policy would not be implemented at all.[ii] This article, unfortunately, addresses the FAA’s recent about-face, wherein the Initial Denial Policy has been implemented in practice without any further notice to airmen or other stakeholders in the aviation industry.
INITIAL DENIAL POLICY
By way of recap, near the end of 2024, the FAA announced its intent to implement a new policy affecting the processing and handling of airman medical certificate applications (Initial Denial Policy or the Policy). Under the Initial Denial Policy, “incomplete” applications must be “denied” rather than “deferred.” A denial would generally, though not necessarily, be accompanied by a reconsideration letter, highlighting the documentation the airman must gather and provide for possible consideration through a future application.
For the purposes of the Initial Denial Policy, an incomplete application is an application that does not include all the evaluations, medical records, criminal records, or other documentation necessary for the FAA to determine an airman’s eligibility to hold a particular class of medical certificate. An outright denial of an incomplete application suggests that the airman is NOT aeromedically fit to fly while a deferral merely indicates that a medical certificate cannot be granted without more information. A deferral leaves several other doors open for the airman in aviation while they await a determination regarding their eligibility, while denial slams most of those doors shut, sometimes permanently, particularly with regard to employment in Parts 121 and 135 operations.
Previously, incomplete applications typically prompted a deferral and a request for further information within a specified time. Airmen then had a chance to gather the necessary information while their current medical certificate remained valid. Further, those airmen were generally granted extensions if that information could not reasonably be obtained within the allotted time (e.g. when a specific evaluation was requested and the airman could not possibly get on the schedule of a qualified evaluator in time). Now, the FAA has indicated an intent to stop granting such extensions and, instead, deny applications or revoke medical certificates, thus grounding airmen even though they may be qualified to hold an airman medical certificate.
Notably, the Policy may require airmen to re-do their physical examination with their Aviation Medical Examiner (AME), which often costs hundreds of dollars. More significantly, airmen who have their valid medical certificates revoked may lose their ability to make a living indefinitely. Additionally, a denial, suspension, or revocation places a permanent black mark on an airman’s record as they will be required to answer “Yes” to Question 13 on all future applications for medical certification. Obviously, the consequences of the Initial Denial Policy can be dire.
INITIAL DENIAL POLICY AND THE APA
The categorization of the Initial Denial Policy under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is significant in determining the FAA’s authority to implement the Policy, what procedure is required to do so, and what level of deference the Policy would receive if it ever faced judicial review. If the Initial Denial Policy amounts to a rule with legal force and effect, it must undergo the informal rulemaking process, including public notice and comment. If the Initial Denial Policy is merely a policy statement or agency procedure or practice, then the FAA may forego the informal rulemaking process. Legislative rules, which are promulgated following public notice and comment, generally receive more deference than policy statements, which are usually not subject to similar public scrutiny.
Legislative rules, which must go through the rulemaking process, are rules that implement a statute. These rules carry the force of law and are legally binding on both the agency and the public. General statements of policy merely inform the public how an agency plans to exercise its discretionary power, which is generally granted explicitly by statute. Under the Federal Aviation Regulations, specifically Part 67, the Administrator of the FAA has broad discretion when issuing, denying, revoking, or withdrawing medical certificates or Authorizations for Special Issuance (SIs). The Administrator also has the explicit authority to suspend, modify, or revoke an airman’s medical certificate or SI or deny an application when airmen “fail to provide the requested medical information or history or to authorize its release.” Because the Initial Denial Policy concerns the exercise of such statutory discretion, it would likely be identified as a plan to exercise the Administrator’s discretionary authority. Further complicating the analysis regarding the Policy’s status under the APA is the lack of a formal statement from the FAA Administrator regarding the purpose, intent, or implementation of the Policy. Ultimately, the Initial Denial Policy is likely a policy statement and may be implemented without going through the rulemaking process, but the Policy may therefore be subject to a lower standard of discretion when facing judicial review.
While the lack of involvement from the public and aviation stakeholders in the implementation of the Policy is concerning, those same facts provide an avenue for recourse. The Initial Denial Policy was not subject to public notice and comment, and therefore the guidance is not legally binding on the FAA. As such, the Administration may reverse course swiftly whenever it sees fit, for example, if the public and aviation stakeholders clearly voice disagreement with the Policy. As we saw earlier in the year, public opinion can drastically sway an agency’s plan to exercise its discretion.
PREPARING FOR YOUR NEXT AME EXAM
In light of the FAA’s de facto implementation of the Initial Denial Policy, airmen should take extra care to ensure their applications are complete BEFORE completing a MedXPress application and seeing their AME for a physical exam. If an airman believes they have a condition that may affect their ability to hold a medical certificate or any other concerns about their application for medical certification, they should seek counsel to ensure that their application is complete before submitting anything to the FAA. While an airman’s AME is a good resource, having an advocate in an airman’s corner can make a significant difference in streamlining the FAA’s complex medical certification procedures to reduce or eliminate any period of potential grounding due to the Initial Denial Policy.
REFERENCES
[i] https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/march/06/faa-postpones-medical-certification-changes
[ii] https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2025-04-24-faa-withdraws-medical-denial-policy
[MB1]Link to February article: https://aerocrewnews.com/2025/02/01/strength-in-numbers/
