## Facts

- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted the “Age Sixty Rule,” which bars Part 121 air carriers from using, and individuals from serving as, an airline pilot upon reaching age 60.
- Federal aviation statutes charge the FAA with prescribing minimum safety standards for pilot qualifications, including maximum periods of service, to reduce the risk of accidents.
- The FAA has statutory authority to grant exemptions from its regulations but had never granted an exemption from the Age Sixty Rule.
- In 1995, the FAA announced it would not grant exemptions from the Age Sixty Rule absent a new method to assess a pilot’s risk of sudden incapacitation.
- Bert M. Yetman and 68 other pilots nearing or over age 60 petitioned for individualized exemptions, proposing a medical and neuropsychological testing protocol centered on CogScreen-AE, a cognitive screening instrument used in aeromedical contexts.
- The FAA denied the consolidated exemption petitions, finding insufficient empirical support that CogScreen-AE reliably measured safety-relevant cognitive functions in older pilots and noting the absence of validated cutoff scores to determine disqualifying performance.
- The pilots petitioned for judicial review of the FAA’s order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or abused its discretion in denying exemptions from the Age Sixty Rule despite petitioners’ proposed CogScreen-AE-based testing protocol.
2. Whether the FAA could lawfully maintain a categorical policy of granting no exemptions until satisfied that medical standards and testing tools support reliable individualized risk determinations for over-60 pilots.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review and affirmed the FAA’s order.
- The court held the FAA had discretion to maintain a rigid policy of granting no exemptions until medical standards could demonstrate an absence of risk factors in an individual sufficient to justify a more liberal exemption policy.
- The court concluded the FAA rationally explained why petitioners’ evidence did not yet justify individualized exemptions, given concerns about validation and operational cutoff criteria.
- The court determined the FAA’s safety judgments and predictive risk assessments were entitled to substantial deference under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

## Legal Principles

- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, a court upholds an agency decision when the agency provides a rational connection between facts found and the choice made within its statutory mandate.
- A safety regulator with exemption authority may adopt a categorical no-exemptions policy when it reasonably concludes that available scientific methods are not sufficiently validated to support reliable individualized risk determinations.
- In technical, safety-critical domains, an agency may require strong empirical validation and workable decision thresholds before relaxing categorical safety rules.
- Prior judicial cautions against treating a rule as immutable do not compel exemptions where the agency has considered the proffered evidence and reasonably explained why it remains insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the FAA’s denial of over-60 pilots’ exemption requests, concluding that the FAA reasonably determined the proposed CogScreen-AE-centered protocol lacked adequate validation and cutoff criteria and that the agency could, consistent with its safety mandate, maintain a categorical no-exemptions policy until reliable individualized risk assessment methods were established.


Yetman v. Garvey, 261 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2001)