Michael Solondz v. Federal Aviation Administration

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued February 4, 2025 Decided June 27, 2025
No. 24-1105
M ICHAEL S OLONDZ,
P ETITIONER
v.
F EDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ,
R ESPONDENT
Consolidated with 24-1284
On Petitions for Review of a Final Order
of the Federal Aviation Administration
Brandon R. Nagy argued the cause for petitioner. With
him on the briefs was Zane A. Gilmer. Michael E. Tucci
entered an appearance.
Raymond Carver, Attorney, Federal Aviation
Administration, argued the cause and filed the brief for
respondent. Brett D. Weingold, Attorney, entered an
appearance.

-- 1 of 18 --

2
Before: P ILLARD and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and
R OGERS , Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge P ILLARD.
P ILLARD, Circuit Judge: Many Americans cope with
anxiety—airline pilots included. The Federal Aviation
Administration has strict guidelines as to which antidepressant
medications pilots can take and the procedures they must
follow to establish their medical clearance to fly. When
Michael Solondz, an experienced commercial airline pilot, was
diagnosed with anxiety, he chose to take medical leave and
receive professional treatment. Various prescription
antidepressant medications are effective to treat anxiety. After
Solondz experienced unwanted side effects on escitalopram
(Lexapro), his healthcare provider prescribed mirtazapine,
which worked much better, and Solondz sought medical
clearance to resume flying. The difficulty is that, whereas the
Federal Aviation Administration conditionally approved
Lexapro, it has categorically disallowed pilots to fly while
treated with mirtazapine. The Administration makes case-by-
case medical decisions regarding the fitness to fly of anyone
taking a conditionally approved medication, but it will not
consider whether Solondz or any other individual pilot taking
mirtazapine is free of side effects and can fly safely. Solondz
appeals the agency’s denial of his request for medical
clearance.
Determinations regarding which medications categorically
pose unacceptable risks and which pilots are medically fit to
fly lie squarely within the sound discretion of the Federal
Aviation Administration. But the agency must reasonably
explain its actions. It has not done so here. The agency has
failed to explain why it categorically disallows medical
certification to all pilots who take the medication that Solondz

-- 2 of 18 --

3
was prescribed and finds beneficial, rather than permitting
conditional approvals if merited under the agency’s robust
medical clearance process. We accordingly remand to the
Federal Aviation Administration to explain its decision.
I.
A.
Congress has called on the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to “promote safe flight of civil aircraft”
by promulgating regulations “necessary for safety in air
commerce.” 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(5). To that end, the FAA
requires a pilot to hold both an airman certificate (also known
as a pilot certificate) and a medical certificate. 14 C.F.R.
§§ 61.3(a), (c), 61.23(a). The FAA Administrator is authorized
to issue medical certificates, 49 U.S.C. § 44703, an authority
which has been delegated to the Federal Air Surgeon. 14
C.F.R. § 67.407. There are three classes of medical
certificate—first, second, and third. 14 C.F.R. Pt. 67. Because
he wishes to return to work as pilot-in-command on
commercial flights, Solondz seeks a first-class certificate.
Across the three classes of medical certificate, there are
two categories: unrestricted certificates and Special Issuance
certificates. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 67.3, 67.401. The Code of
Federal Regulations lists all the requirements for an
unrestricted first-class medical certificate, see id. §§ 67.101-
67.115, including that a pilot is not taking any medication or
undergoing any other treatment “that the Federal Air Surgeon,
based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical
judgment relating to the medication or other treatment
involved, finds makes the person unable to safely perform the

-- 3 of 18 --

4
duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate
applied for or held.” Id. § 67.113(c)(1).
A pilot who is taking medication or undergoing treatment
inconsistent with an unrestricted certificate may, at the
discretion of the Federal Air Surgeon, obtain (or regain) a
Special Issuance certificate. Id. § 67.401. Eligibility turns on
whether “the person shows to the satisfaction of the Federal Air
Surgeon that the duties authorized by the class of medical
certificate applied for can be performed without endangering
public safety during the period in which the Authorization
would be in force.” Id. § 67.401(a). A pilot approved for a
Special Issuance certificate can operate aircraft to the same
extent as a pilot holding an unrestricted medical certificate of
the same class. See id. The Special Issuance is granted for a
limited time; after it expires, the pilot “must again show to the
satisfaction of the Federal Air Surgeon” that he or she is
equipped to fly without endangering public safety during the
period in which the Special Issuance would be active. Id.
According to FAA protocol, no pilot who takes
antidepressant medication qualifies for an unrestricted medical
certificate; each must seek to qualify for a Special Issuance.
See Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners–Version
06/26/2024 (Joint Appendix (J.A.) 631). Historically, the FAA
did not permit pilots taking antidepressants to qualify for any
medical certificate, but in 2010 the agency announced a policy
allowing pilots under treatment with a specified group of
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to seek a
Special Issuance. See Special Issuance of Airman Medical
Certificates to Applicants Being Treated with Certain
Antidepressant Medications, 75 Fed. Reg. 17047 (April 5,
2010) (codified at 14 C.F.R. pt. 67). The agency has since
amended that policy via revisions to the Guide for Aviation
Medical Examiners, including by listing additional

-- 4 of 18 --

5
antidepressants as conditionally approved, subject to Special
Issuance. See, e.g., Protocol for Antidepressants:
Antidepressant Protocol Expansion – Effective April 24, 2024,
https://perma.cc/HAD3-ZMFA (last updated Apr. 24, 2024).
FAA policy regarding pilots under treatment with
antidepressant medication has not been subject to notice and
comment rulemaking, but has so far only been published as a
Policy Statement and fine-tuned in the Medical Examiners’
guide.
FAA policy requires any airman taking a conditionally
approved antidepressant medication to undergo a six-month
waiting period to enable medical observation and certification
that the airman “has been clinically stable as well as on a stable
dose of medication without any aeromedically significant side
effects and/or an increase in symptoms.” Guide for Aviation
Medical Examiners (Use of Antidepressant Medications) (J.A.
632). After the six-month waiting period, the pilot must
provide a statement, evaluation reports, tests, and letters in
support of his Special Issuance application. Id. (FAA SSRI
Decision Path II) (J.A. 635). An agency evaluator then reviews
that material, conducts a “detailed evaluation,” and makes a
recommendation as to whether the pilot qualifies for the
Special Issuance. Id.
At the time Solondz applied for Special Issuance, the
conditionally approved medications were fluoxetine (Prozac),
escitalopram (Lexapro), sertraline (Zoloft), citalopram
(Celexa), and buproplon (Wellbutrin). Id. (FAA SSRI
Decision Path I) (J.A. 634). The FAA has since conditionally
approved four more antidepressant medications, including
three serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)
and one dopamine/norepinephrine-reuptake inhibitor (NDRI).
See Antidepressant Medications, https://perma.cc/BC7N-
FUPW (last updated Apr. 24, 2024). The agency has released

-- 5 of 18 --

6
no information describing its criteria or process for
conditionally approving antidepressant medications.
B.
Michael Solondz worked as a commercial airline pilot and
held an unrestricted first-class medical certificate for nearly
two decades. In 2018, Solondz “went through the illness and
death of his father, and then the death of his father-in-law in
2019” and “the stressors of that period led him to a psychiatric
consultation.” 2021 Aeromedical Neuropsychological
Evaluation (J.A. 157). He was diagnosed with anxiety and
prescribed antidepressant medication to treat it. Id. In
accordance with FAA regulations, he took an extended period
of medical leave from his job. See 14 C.F.R. § 61.53(a)
(prohibiting airmen from flying if they know they have a
medical condition that would make them “unable to meet the
requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot
operation”). Solondz’s medical provider first prescribed
Lexapro, one of the antidepressants the FAA had conditionally
approved, to manage Solondz’s anxiety.
When Solondz experienced unwanted side effects from
Lexapro, including dizziness and lightheadedness, his provider
instead prescribed Remeron (known generically as
mirtazapine), which he took regularly from August 2020.
Remeron is a tetracyclic antidepressant, as opposed to the
SSRI, SNRI, and NDRI medications that the FAA has
conditionally approved. Solondz found Remeron effective in
controlling his anxiety and associated insomnia without
negative side effects. By taking the medication at night, on
medical advice, Solondz avoided experiencing the daytime
sedation or lingering fatigue that can be side effects of
Remeron.

-- 6 of 18 --

7
By August 2021, Solondz felt ready to return to work as a
pilot. He notified the FAA that he was taking Remeron and
requested Special Issuance of a first-class medical certificate.
In September 2021, the agency denied that request, stating that
Solondz’s history of anxiety and sleep disturbance, as treated
with Remeron, disqualified him from medical certification.
Solondz submitted two more requests for Special Issuance, one
in January 2022 and another, accompanied by new medical
reports, in February 2023. By letters dated July 2022 and April
2023, respectively, the FAA denied each of those follow-up
requests.
Like the FAA’s September 2021 denial, the July 2022
Denial Letter cited Solondz’s record of anxiety, insomnia, and
ongoing treatment with Remeron. It stated that the agency
would reconsider Solondz’s request for Special Issuance if he
discontinued Remeron. The agency added in its July 2022
letter that if Solondz did discontinue Remeron he would need
to submit information about other conditions referenced in his
medical record, including obstructive sleep apnea treated with
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), potential
malignant melanoma, and optic neuritis (an inflammation of
the optic nerve). The April 2023 Denial Letter cited as
justifications a slightly different list of medical concerns in
addition to his treatment with Remeron. It noted sleep apnea,
omitted any reference to optic neuritis or a malignant
melanoma, and for the first time cited an incident of atrial
fibrillation Solondz had experienced in 2001.
Solondz submitted a request for reconsideration in May
2023, which the agency denied via two communications. First,
the Aerospace Medical Certification Division issued a letter
dated April 2024 notifying Solondz that his request was denied.
The grounds it listed were Remeron use, anxiety disorder, sleep
apnea treated with CPAP, and atrial fibrillation.

-- 7 of 18 --

8
Solondz promptly petitioned this court for review. Petition
for Review, Solondz v. FAA, No. 24-1105 (D.C. Cir. May 2,
2024). The FAA, however, contends that its April 2024 letter
did not constitute final agency action and is not subject to our
review. The Federal Air Surgeon issued an additional letter in
July 2024 denying the request for reconsideration (the Final
Denial Letter). That letter reiterated Remeron and sleep apnea
treated with CPAP as reasons for denial, but reintroduced optic
neuritis and malignant melanoma to the mix. Solondz timely
filed a new petition for review of that denial. Petition for
Review, Solondz v. FAA, No. 24-1284 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 26,
2024).
The two petitions are now consolidated before us. The
April denial letter from the Aerospace Medical Certification
Division and the July Final Denial Letter from the Federal Air
Surgeon both purported to act on the same motion Solondz
filed seeking reconsideration. Solondz described the July Final
Denial Letter that led to his petition in No. 24-1284 as also “the
final agency action under review” in No. 24-1105. See
Underlying Decision from Which the Petition Arises, Solondz
v. FAA, No. 24-1105 (D.C. Cir. July 23, 2024). The parties
filed a single set of briefs in the consolidated cases and neither
party asserts that any differences in the letters affect the merits
or the relief. Accordingly, and because we agree with the
parties that the Final Denial Letter constitutes final agency
action, we dismiss the petition in No. 24-1105 as moot and
proceed to the merits in No. 24-1284.
C.
The Federal Air Surgeon’s Final Denial Letter concludes
that Solondz did not qualify for a Special Issuance for three
reasons. First, she found that Solondz’s use of Remeron could
endanger aviation safety because the medication “is known to

-- 8 of 18 --

9
have a significant side-effect of sedation or somnolence.” J.A.
12. She cited the Food and Drug Administration’s prescribing
information for mirtazapine, which warns that “somnolence is
reported to be a side effect in over half of those treated for
depression with mirtazapine for 6 weeks.” J.A. 12.
Acknowledging a study cited by Solondz “that sedating effects
may be less when mirtazapine is used in higher therapeutic
dosages,” she responded that “[t]his paper does not refute the
possibility of mirtazapine still causing sedating effects.” J.A.
12. She then cited a 1998 study finding that, after sixteen days
of treatment, the medication was associated with impaired
driving performance. J.A. 12-13. She stated that she was
“unable to conclude that the likelihood of sedation that is
known to occur with mirtazapine is sufficiently low to assure
safety while operating an aircraft in the national airspace.” J.A.
13. She then noted the FAA’s April 2024 conditional approval
of additional medications that may be used to treat anxiety,
stating that “[t]hese medications are reported to have a much
lower risk of somnolence or sedation than does Remeron
(mirtazapine), and after detailed review by the FAA it is
determined that Special Issuance may be considered on a case
by case basis for individuals being treated with these
medications”—but not individuals treated with Remeron J.A.
13.
In his petition for review, Solondz asserts that he
submitted evidence to the FAA demonstrating that Remeron
has not caused him any significant side effects. For example,
he cites a 2021 neuropsychological evaluation from an aviation
psychologist that reported no “aeromedically significant”
findings regarding Solondz’s neurocognitive functioning and
found his performance in cognitive testing “quite strong.”
2021 Aeromedical Neuropsychological Evaluation (J.A. 162).
Solondz notes that a 2023 follow-up evaluation by the same
aviation psychologist reported that his neurocognitive

-- 9 of 18 --

10
performance was “wholly within normal limits” and without
“aeromedically significant” findings. J.A. 204.
The Air Surgeon’s second stated ground for denying the
Special Issuance was that Solondz suffered from optic neuritis,
which she concluded posed a danger to aviation safety because
there is a “25-50% risk of individuals with optic neuritis
developing multiple sclerosis within 15 years.” J.A. 13.
Solondz acknowledges that he was diagnosed with optic
neuritis but pointed out that it had been resolved before July
2022—as reflected in medical records he had submitted to the
FAA long before it acted on the application at issue here.
Solondz also notes that the FAA had never previously
identified optic neuritis in support of its letters disqualifying
him. The agency had only once even mentioned that condition:
In 2022, the agency sought additional information regarding a
medical record diagnosing optic neuritis, to which Solondz
responded with documentation showing the condition had been
resolved. See July 2022 Denial Letter (J.A. 379) (requesting
further information regarding optic neuritis diagnosis); April
2023 Denial Letter (J.A. 68) (making no mention of optic
neuritis).
The Air Surgeon’s third stated rationale for the Final
Denial Letter was that Solondz’s medical record contained a
diagnosis of malignant melanoma. She had made no mention
of melanoma in the underlying denial letter as to which
Solondz unsuccessfully sought the reconsideration at issue
here. And the Air Surgeon’s Final Denial Letter itself
acknowledged that the cited clinical note from Solondz’s
dermatologist described a diagnosis of “melanoma in situ,” not
malignant melanoma. J.A. 13. Yet the Final Denial Letter
noted that malignant melanoma, where present, “carries a high
risk of spread or metastasis, including high risk of spreading to
the brain where it may cause cognitive problems or seizures.”

-- 10 of 18 --

11
J.A. 13. Solondz contends that he has never been diagnosed
with malignant melanoma, has undergone skin checks every
six months for more than a decade, and that a recent medical
evaluation stated that his melanoma “prognosis is excellent
without expected progression to invasive or metastatic
disease.” Solondz Br. 47-48 (quoting J.A. 196).
As an additional basis for denial, the Air Surgeon asserted
that Solondz had failed to disclose the optic neuritis or the
melanoma in his application for Special Issuance. Solondz
contends that he disclosed both conditions in prior Special
Issuance applications and consistently provided the FAA with
all the relevant records. E.g., Solondz Br. 40-41, 47-48.
Finally, the Air Surgeon noted Solondz’s diagnosis of
obstructive sleep apnea and stated that, to be considered for
certification, Solondz would have to use a treatment that
complies with FAA guidelines. Solondz contends that he had
submitted medical records demonstrating that his condition
was well managed and that he intended to continue to comply
with the FAA’s requirement to use a continuous positive
airway pressure (CPAP) device during sleep. Solondz Br. 50-
51 (citing Airman Compliance with Treatment: Obstructive
Sleep Apnea (OSA) form (J.A. 199)).
II.
We have jurisdiction to review the Final Denial Letter as a
final order of the FAA. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). The decision
whether to grant a Special Issuance medical certificate lies
within the sound discretion of the agency, acting through the
Federal Air Surgeon. Our review is limited to whether an
application denial was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Erwin v.
Fed. Aviation Admin., 23 F.4th 999, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
(quoting Boca Airport, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 389 F.3d

-- 11 of 18 --

12
185, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). We may not “substitute our
judgment for that of the agency,” nor may we “supply a
reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has
not given.” Id. (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc.
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983))
(formatting altered). An agency’s action is “arbitrary and
capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress
has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its
decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or
is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in
view or the product of agency expertise.” State Farm, 463 U.S.
at 43. If we determine that it was arbitrary and capricious, we
may “amend, modify, or set aside any part” of the FAA’s final
order and may direct the agency to conduct further
proceedings. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(c). Finally, the FAA’s factual
determinations are conclusive only if supported by substantial
evidence. Id.
While the Final Denial Letter lists several reasons for the
Air Surgeon’s decision, Solondz contends that his use of
Remeron is the operative justification for the denial.
Accordingly, our analysis begins there. We conclude that the
Final Denial Letter was arbitrary and capricious because the
FAA has not adequately articulated a rationale for its policy
categorically barring pilots under treatment with mirtazapine
(Remeron) from Special Issuance medical certification.
The FAA offers one overriding justification for denying
Solondz’s Special Issuance application: It asserts that FDA
prescribing information and available medical studies establish
a high incidence of somnolence among people who take
mirtazapine. But the agency has failed to articulate a clear
connection between the evidence in the record—that treatment
with mirtazapine generally poses a risk of excessive

-- 12 of 18 --

13
drowsiness—and the rule it has applied here, refusing to
consider whether, contrary to the evidence of drowsiness in the
general run of cases, an individual pilot’s mirtazapine
treatment causes him no unusual drowsiness. The structure of
the FAA’s Antidepressant Protocol underscores the disconnect
between the cited evidence and the rule. An airman must take
an approved antidepressant for six months in advance of
medical assessment for a Special Issuance. That treatment
period allows the pilot and medical professionals to discern
whether medication as prescribed is causing any significant
side effects to the applicant. An Aviation Medical Examiner
then conducts an individualized medical assessment, which
includes a detailed, face-to-face, in-office evaluation as well as
review of records from the applicant’s treating physician,
psychiatrist, and neuropsychologist, among other
documentation. See 14 C.F.R. § 183.21(c); HIMS AME
Checklist—SSRI Initial Certification/Clearance (J.A. 638).
The Final Denial Letter, the administrative record, the
FAA’s brief on appeal, and FAA counsel’s responses to
questioning during oral argument do not offer a reasoned
explanation why the Administration categorically disqualifies
pilots taking mirtazapine from obtaining conditional medical
certification through the Special Issuance process. The six-
month waiting period and individualized medical assessment
are apparently designed to keep the skies safe by identifying
pilots experiencing side effects of prescribed medications that
could interfere with pilot performance. And there are, no
doubt, medical treatments that the FAA may categorically
conclude are inconsistent with safely piloting commercial
aircraft. But the agency has yet to explain why a pilot taking
mirtazapine at night at a dosage that apparently does not
produce in him the drowsiness clinically observed in other
patients is barred from using the demanding Special Issuance
process to seek to establish to the Federal Air Surgeon’s

-- 13 of 18 --

14
satisfaction that he suffers no aeromedically significant side
effects.
In the Final Denial Letter, the FAA noted that it recently
granted conditional approval for four antidepressants, in
addition to the initial five SSRIs, that are “reported to have a
much lower risk of somnolence or sedation that does Remeron
(mirtazapine).” J.A. 13. The agency had concluded, “after
detailed review,” that airmen treated with those medications
could be considered for Special Issuance on a case-by-case
basis. J.A. 13. The FAA has not made public the key findings
or reasoning of that review. While “[t]he agency is not required
to author an essay for the disposition of each application,” the
court must be able to “discern the why and wherefore” of the
agency’s decision-making process. Friedman v. Fed. Aviation
Admin., 890 F.3d 1092, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (quoting
BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 162 F.3d 1215, 1224 (D.C. Cir.
1999)). The key missing piece of information here is how the
agency determined that those other medications, which
apparently also carry some risk of drowsiness in some people,
need not bar the pilots taking them from consideration for
Special Issuance whereas mirtazapine does impose a
categorical bar.
It is also unclear how the FAA resolved apparent
contradictions between the medical studies on which it relied
and its conclusion that mirtazapine is categorically
disqualifying. In the Final Denial Letter, the agency cited a
1998 study to support its conclusion that, after sixteen days of
treatment with mirtazapine, subjects showed impaired driving
performance. J.A. 12-13 (citing J.G. Ramaekers, et al., Effects
of Nocturnal Doses of Mirtazapine and Mianserin on Sleep and
on Daytime Psychomotor and Driving Performance in Young,
Healthy Volunteers, Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical
and Experimental 13, S87-S97 (1998) (J.A. 662-672)). The

-- 14 of 18 --

15
same study noted that “[a]pparently, [mirtazapine’s] sedating
effect[] on daytime performance [is] much alleviated by
nocturnal administrating.” J.A. 671.
In its brief on appeal, the FAA highlights risks of
mirtazapine by reference to two ensuing studies. To rebut the
offsetting effect of evening dosing, it cites a 2005 study
concluding that subjects who took an evening dose of
mirtazapine had “‘significantly impaired’” driving
performance—“although the impairment decreased after
repeated dosing.” FAA Br. 30 n.9 (quoting Marleen Wingen
et al., Actual Driving Performance and Psychomotor Function
in Healthy Subjects After Acute and Subchronic Treatment with
Escitalopram, Mirtazapine, and Placebo: A Crossover Trial,
66 J. Clin. Psychiatry 436 (2005) (J.A. 675-682)). According
to that study,
[n]one of the effects were present after 1 or 2 weeks
of repeated dosing. The absence of mirtazapine
impairment after repeated dosing is probably related
to the development of tolerance . . . The implication is
that driving under the influence of a sedative
antidepressant such as mirtazapine should only be
contraindicated during the acute phase of treatment.
Wingen, supra, at 443 (J.A. 682). The agency also cited a 2024
study for its finding that mirtazapine “caused ‘significant
impairment’ in driving performance after the first
administration.” FAA Br. 30 n.9 (quoting Michele Fornaro et
al., Residual Effects of Medications for Sleep Disorders on
Driving Performance: A Systematic Review and Network
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials, 81 European
Neuropsychopharmacology 53 (2024) (J.A. 683-693)).
According to that study, effects on subjects taking mirtazapine
“paralleled placebo at the study endpoint, notwithstanding [that

-- 15 of 18 --

16
mirtazapine] caused significant impairment after the first
administration.” Fornaro et al., supra, at 60 (J.A. 690). The
FAA has not explained how it accounted for evidence of the
initial side effects’ disappearance over time.
We do not—and cannot—substitute our judgment about
the content of these studies for the FAA’s own. But it is our
duty to identify material gaps in the agency’s articulated
rationale. The mirtazapine studies suffice to support a
requirement that pilots in Solondz’s situation submit to the
controls inherent in a Special Issuance. The six-month waiting
period and case-by-case scrutiny of airmen’s
neuropsychological condition that are built into the Special
Issuance process afford the FAA the opportunity to determine
in each individual case whether, for example, nocturnally
administered mirtazapine caused sedative effects after the
acute treatment phase. But the agency’s position implies that
it believes the risk of somnolence from mirtazapine is so
severe, persistent, or unpredictable that the guardrails within
the Special Issuance process, as called for by the
Antidepressant Protocol, are insufficient to protect aviation
safety. If that is the case, the FAA must articulate and support
its reasoning. We cannot fill in the blanks by supplying a
reasoned basis for the FAA’s policy that the agency itself has
not given. Erwin, 23 F.4th at 1006 (quoting State Farm, 463
U.S. at 43)). The agency’s discretion is not unbounded. If it
fails to articulate a “rational connection between the facts
found and the choice made,” we cannot sustain its action as a
sound, non-arbitrary exercise of medical judgment. State
Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (citation omitted).
To be clear, we do not question the FAA’s authority to
categorically deny medical certification to pilots who are using
certain prescription medications. Yet, when an agency adopts
a substantive policy without rulemaking or public comment

-- 16 of 18 --

17
and applies it in a particular case, it is especially important that
it meet “its responsibility to present evidence and reasoning
supporting” that policy. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Fed.
Power Comm., 506 F.2d 33, 38-39 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The
FAA’s thin and variable explanations in the Final Denial Letter
and in its brief on appeal do not satisfy that standard. We
therefore vacate and remand the Final Denial Letter for further
explanation as to why the FAA categorically disallows Special
Issuance medical certification to all pilots who take
mirtazapine instead of proceeding case-by-case to determine
whether an individual pilot can demonstrate that he suffers
none of the risk-elevating side effects.
Because the FAA’s ability to articulate a reasoned
rationale for the categorical disqualification of airmen taking
mirtazapine is, at this juncture, dispositive, we need not address
the agency’s other rationales for denying Solondz’s Special
Issuance application. We do note, however, that the agency’s
previous denial letters displayed shifting justifications that
were, in some instances, illogical. For example, in its April
2023 denial letter, the agency cited atrial fibrillation as a reason
to deny the Special Issuance—even though the atrial
fibrillation incident occurred in 2001, was promptly reported to
the FAA, and did not prevent Solondz from obtaining an
unrestricted medical certificate from 2004 through 2020.
Tellingly, in its ensuing letters denying reconsideration, the
agency did not cite atrial fibrillation. The agency’s
reconsideration denial did, however, cite optic neuritis, despite
Solondz having submitted recent eye exams stating that the
condition is resolved. And it cited malignant melanoma and
the risk of metastasis to the brain, despite having on file a recent
medical report confirming that he never had that diagnosis. If
the FAA determines that it should give Solondz’s application
renewed consideration for Special Issuance, it must take care

-- 17 of 18 --

18
to avoid “offer[ing] an explanation for its decision that runs
counter to the evidence” before it. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.
The petition for review is therefore granted. The Final
Denial Letter is vacated and the case remanded to the FAA for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.

-- 18 of 18 --