
    David Gary GLADDEN, Petitioner, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; et al., Respondents.
    No. 13-74171.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    David Gary Gladden, Dillingham, AK, pro se.
    Paul Maitland Geier, Assistant General Counsel, United States Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, Marc L. Warren, Amanda Kate Bruchs, Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Gary Gladden petitions pro se for review of an order of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) withdrawing his Authorization for Special Issuance of a second-class airman medical certificate. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) to review a petition of a FAA order filed no later than 60 days after issuance of the order. We dismiss Gladden’s petition as untimely. Gladden filed this petition for review on December 2, 2013, more than 60 days after issuance of the FAA’s March 13, 2013 order. Although the court may allow a late petition if there are reasonable grounds for not filing within 60 days, see 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a), Gladden has not presented any reasonable explanation for his untimely petition, see Americopters, LLC v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 441 F.3d 726, 734 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining circumstances that do not constitute reasonable grounds, including “when the petitioner’s procedural missteps were based on a misapprehension of the law” (internal citations omitted)); Sierra Club v. Skinner, 885 F.2d 591, 593 (9th Cir.1989) (concluding that there were no reasonable grounds even when “the FAA ha[d] created a confusing situation” leading the petitioner to file an untimely petition).

To the extent Gladden seeks review of other FAA decisions, including the FAA’s denial of an unrestricted medical certificate, we lack jurisdiction to review those issues because Gladden has not exhausted his administrative remedies. See 49 U.S.C. § 44703(d)(1) (2012) (“An individual whose application for the issuance or renewal of an airman certificate has been denied may appeal the denial to the National Transportation Safety Board.”).

Respondents’ unopposed motion for judicial notice, filed on March 28, 2014, is granted.

Gladden’s petition is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     